448 replies to this topic

[S t P a u l y]

OmniFail, on 09 August 2019 - 08:58 AM, said:

"..." ~Ayn Rand

[OmniFail]

S t P a u l y, on 09 August 2019 - 10:24 AM, said:

Iknowrite,

Even though I am in the socialist camp, I have a difficult time assailing Miss Rands philosophy and with a few exceptions I find her book Atlas Shrugged to be a well written book with a enjoyable story.

It challenges my mind

Edited by OmniFail, 09 August 2019 - 10:42 AM.

[Verilligo]

OmniFail, on 09 August 2019 - 09:13 AM, said:

Mech 1 FTW!!!!

...did you just decide not to address the rest of my argument or am I missing something?

[OmniFail]

Verilligo, on 09 August 2019 - 10:42 AM, said:

...did you just decide not to address the rest of my argument or am I missing something?

Mech 1‘s destruction of the last enemy mech is what triggered the winning condition. You said it yourself. Only the destruction of enemy mechs fulfills win conditions, losing armor dose not.

Yes having armor will keep you from losing games. But, it will not in itself win a game and therefore does not drive wins.

Edited by OmniFail, 09 August 2019 - 10:56 AM.

[FupDup]

OmniFail, on 09 August 2019 - 10:52 AM, said:

Mech 1‘s destruction of the last enemy mech is what triggered the winning condition. You said it yourself. Only the destruction of enemy mechs fulfills win conditions, losing armor dose not.

Yes having armor will keep you from losing games. But, it will not in itself win a game and therefore does not drive wins.

Keeping you from losing games is kinda sorta interrelated to winning games. Because in order to win, you have to like, not lose.

[OmniFail]

FupDup, on 09 August 2019 - 11:20 AM, said:

Keeping you from losing games is kinda sorta interrelated to winning games. Because in order to win, you have to like, not lose.

No... No...

The winning conditions are clearly defined. In the case of skirmish you have to kill all enemy mechs or have the most kills on time out.

In the case of skirmish:
Not losing (winning) = killing all enemy mechs
Not losing (winning) = having most kills on time out

Edited by OmniFail, 09 August 2019 - 11:29 AM.

[Verilligo]

OmniFail, on 09 August 2019 - 10:52 AM, said:

Mech 1‘s destruction of the last enemy mech is what triggered the winning condition. You said it yourself. Only the destruction of enemy mechs fulfills win conditions, losing armor dose not.

Yes having armor will keep you from losing games. But, it will not in itself win a game and therefore does not drive wins.

Mech 1 cannot accomplish this duty without Mech 2 dying. Mech 1 will ASSUREDLY die to Mech 3 unless Mech 2 takes damage. The only way for Mech 1 to kill Mech 3 is for Mech 3 to waste its opportunity on Mech 2. The only way for that to happen is for Mech 2 to expose itself to Mech 3 as the greater threat, despite being incapable of damaging Mech 3. Therefore I posit that Mech 2 losing armor is what wins the match. If Mech 2 did not commit to losing armor, then Mech 1 and Mech 2 would lose the game. That is the very definition of driving a win by taking damage. This happens occasionally in real matches as well, so it is not purely a hypothetical scenario.

[OmniFail]

Verilligo, on 09 August 2019 - 12:08 PM, said:

Mech 1 cannot accomplish this duty without Mech 2 dying. Mech 1 will ASSUREDLY die to Mech 3 unless Mech 2 takes damage. The only way for Mech 1 to kill Mech 3 is for Mech 3 to waste its opportunity on Mech 2. The only way for that to happen is for Mech 2 to expose itself to Mech 3 as the greater threat, despite being incapable of damaging Mech 3. Therefore I posit that Mech 2 losing armor is what wins the match. If Mech 2 did not commit to losing armor, then Mech 1 and Mech 2 would lose the game. That is the very definition of driving a win by taking damage. This happens occasionally in real matches as well, so it is not purely a hypothetical scenario.

Nope.

Taking damage cannot win a skirmish game, only destroying mechs can win skirmish games. Mech 2's taking of damage did not destroy Mech 3. Yes Mech 2 did take damage and yes it did prevent Mech 1 from dying, But it did not win the game Mech 1's destruction of Mech 3 won the game. Armor does not fulfill any win conditions.

Edited by OmniFail, 09 August 2019 - 12:16 PM.

[BackShot]

4 pages of that already, and people still trying....

This forum is as interesting as solo queue.

[Verilligo]

OmniFail, on 09 August 2019 - 12:15 PM, said:

Nope.

Taking damage cannot win a skirmish game, only destroying mechs can win skirmish games. Mech 2's taking of damage did not destroy Mech 3. Yes Mech 2 did take damage and yes it did prevent Mech 1 from dying, But it did not win the game Mech 1's destruction of Mech 3 won the game. Armor does not fulfill any win conditions.

Then allow me to propose another scenario. Say we have the same actors, Mechs 1 through 3. Mech 3 now knows that Mech 1 is the most damaged of the two enemies and destroys Mech 1. Rapidly, Mech 3 then moves on to try to kill Mech 2, which is now seems to be an enormous threat. In the process, Mech 3 goes slightly into overheat, loses a side torso to RNG overheat damage, and has their heat scale spiked such that they suicide. Mech 2 dealt no damage to Mech 3, it only existed and caused Mech 3 to panic. Mech 1 was already dead. Mech 2 wins the game by having existed and taking damage from Mech 3, another way in which armor loss drove the win.

Edited by Verilligo, 09 August 2019 - 01:44 PM.

[Feral Clown]

OmniFail, on 08 August 2019 - 11:20 PM, said:

I am not trying to justify or defend hiding. Go find the part of my first post that infers that I am. If by trolling you mean that I am trying to falsify that armor use drives wins, then yes sir I am.

An ape brain nor a lizard brain would tell me to sit there and take fire without doing something about it. That there is the thought of a lemming brain.

In your scenario the assaults’ teammates are focusing fire and trying to fulfill the destroy enemy mechs win condition. They are driving wins. The enemy mechs are focusing fire on the friendly assault. They are trying to fulfill the destroy enemy mech win condition. They too, are driving wins.

The assault is using his armor. He is not driving wins. He is dying, because the enemy is focusing him down. Your team has lost valuable firepower. Your team will not be as effective at destroying enemy mechs. Your teams’ chances of winning are diminished.

I am also critical of the pilot that is firing from a position that is not in the main force or with the light group. I am critical of them because I feel that their ability to focus fire with the team may be somehow diminished and because they lack supporting firepower that they could be overwhelmed by a superior force.

Trading shots, poking, peeking, and skirmishing all drive wins because they are proactively attempting to facilitate the focus of fire in an attempt to destroy enemy mechs.

This will be easy to address since you are also critical of a player not firing from a position that makes them unable to focus fire or have a target.

My example of an Atlas leading the charge into a tunnel does drive wins however because he is shooting as well and mechs such as these are a big target allowing, as I said his team to not take damage. Shielding is a well known tactic in this game.

So it seems that you are obfuscating your original points. You assert that armor sharing doesn't facilitate wins and go on to list various win conditions. What I am saying is for a team to reach those conditions, armor is in fact spent (unless going for an objective only match which is lame and not a reliable way to win). It's beyond obvious that a player mitigating damage he takes while putting out his damage is the most effective way to do this. Weaving in and out of cover via nascar or outpacing the enemy and catching the tail are examples of this. That you even say theoretically it's possible for a team to take no damage and 12-0 at team but have never seen that happen, speaks to this. I have seen close to something like this in CW with very mismatched teams, but have not heard of a 0 damage win from anyone or seen or ever heard anyone ever who has seen it. So even 48-3 which I have seen many times (and been a part of) and screenshots of 48-0 from old Evil friends, there's still damage taken by the winning team, so there is still armor being used.

Hiding and taking no damage is however no bueno. You seem to agree with this concept.

Part of this concept however is that if all of your front line mechs are lights and mediums, without the armor needed to soak up and draw fire, your team more times than not will not be successful. It's why people rage at others hiding in 100 tonners. If the other teams assaults are all up front, they will be harder to defeat if you can't match them.

So armor to achieve wins outside of pure objective games, and even a good deal of the time in those, does need spending. Taking armor away from where it is needed is not strong tactically.

Either what you are really saying armor spent effectively is what drives wins and helps to meet the various conditions, or you're wrong and not understanding the importance of armor.

Another factor we need to consider is where your opinion and view is coming from and what bias you bring with you. Self admittedly you primarily use lurms which are associated with hiding behaviour due to the number of lurmers that do this. Never seen you play comp, especially in A and B divisions. You don't show up on CW leaderboard we currently have (although was reset when quick play maps were added). So it appears that the vast majority of your understanding the game is from a solo quick play experience. You also said in another thread that you were better than 32, 000 other players but this is patently false. Percentile is based on match score which your self admitted affinity for lurms inflates. Focusing solely on the one metric without considering win loss ratio and kill death ratio is a huge error. So while your stats say that you are a fairly competent user of lurms, everything taken together doesn't really put you in the mid 90th percentile. You're not alone here either, I am also sort of in this boat with ability to get decent matchscore putting out consistent damage (mostly with med pulse lasers and cqc mechs) but don't have the magical 2+ wlr. So this is not meant as a personal attack, but my perspective comes from actually having the opportunity to play with those 99 percenters and understanding what they do and experience seeing what they do first hand as well as hearing their perspective.

[Omniseed]

'Sharing armor' is really 'sharing aggro', i.e. keeping enemies tied up with your mech instead of allowing them to shoot at your team.

Your mech can use terrain features as armor, for instance. Getting hit is not relevant to whether or not a pilot is pulling their share of enemy fire. Some pilots are better able to read the flow of battle and are more familiar with the way maps in MWO play out, and as a result are more successful at maintaining their share of outgoing fire while performing what is called an 'elastic defense', which refers to the concept of a unit, combatant, or force using terrain and firepower to control the engagement and force their opponent to advance over a greater distance than they expected before the close combat can kick off.

It's about keeping your guns running as long as possible in the face of being overrun by an oncoming enemy force. Some pilots may notice that not all of their teammates die as quickly as they do, and they might think that it is due to the teammate failing to share armor. That's not always the case and sometimes the forward elements (twelve mechs cannot fight from the same exact position and should not try) do not recognize when to start falling back. As a result, instead of shooting for eight minutes they shoot for six. It doesn't necessarily mean that their team left them out to dry.

[JC Daxion]

Short answer Yes!



Slightly longer,,, this one timn i was playing FW against a pretty good team.. It was on polar and they did a middle line push.. All assaults for the most part.. 4 mechs pushed up fired twice, then dropped back while 4 more pushed ahead.. then another 4.. all while maintaining fire from the second line and the third cooled.. Needless to say we got totally destroyed..

[Omniseed]

To be more concise, sharing armor means drawing fire, it does not actually have anything to do with the amount of armor that a pilot loses.

Which is why it so critical to give friendly mechs enough berth to do their thing. You cannot wiggle and juke shots with another mech standing on your {LT-MOB-25}, and you cannot tease your dueling opponents into taking poor shots if there is a friendly trying to spoon you.

These are enormous armored fighting vehicles, you have to play like it.

Edited by Omniseed, 09 August 2019 - 02:49 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Taking damage is kind of an inevitability in the game. It's all about which teams survives the longest to do their job, most of the time.

Consider this:

Two people with 20 HP, at a cumulative of 40 HP, and each of them deals DPS of 8, at a total of 16, so it will take about 2.5s each to kill another.

[Focused]
>>1.25>>1.25 -> 20 Damage
>>1.25 -----------> 10 Damage

[Spread]
>>2.5 ---------> 20 Damage
>>2.5 ---------> 20 Damage

Consider the scenario above. If at 2v2, the player focus-fires, the enemy team DPS is inevitably halved under 1.25s, and so the next 1.25, there's less damage output.

On the other hand, if they didn't focused fire, the enemy could put out more damage because both had enough time to deal their damage, as opposed of one being immediately killed off.

In the idea of "sharing armor drives win", this is basically just surviving long enough so your could do your job. Of course while they could still focus fire, it's just less of a 100% if there's more targets that they could shoot at.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 10 August 2019 - 07:58 AM.

[OmniFail]

Verilligo, on 09 August 2019 - 01:43 PM, said:

Then allow me to propose another scenario. Say we have the same actors, Mechs 1 through 3. Mech 3 now knows that Mech 1 is the most damaged of the two enemies and destroys Mech 1. Rapidly, Mech 3 then moves on to try to kill Mech 2, which is now seems to be an enormous threat. In the process, Mech 3 goes slightly into overheat, loses a side torso to RNG overheat damage, and has their heat scale spiked such that they suicide. Mech 2 dealt no damage to Mech 3, it only existed and caused Mech 3 to panic. Mech 1 was already dead. Mech 2 wins the game by having existed and taking damage from Mech 3, another way in which armor loss drove the win.

I like how you are thinking about the problem and probing my logic for weaknesses.

So bro, you just described the perfect ending to my dream match. I want to see Jimmy NoGuns (A.K.A Mech 2) take his victory lap stick style with no arms and only one torso. Sweet match would be sweet.

Unfortunately, I will have to direct you to premise 1 and premise 8

OmniFail, on 08 August 2019 - 11:21 AM, said:

MWO matches are won by destroying enemy mechs.
MWO matches are won by timing out with the most kills.
MWO matches are won by destroying enemy bases.
The best way to destroy mechs and bases is to focus fire.
MWO matches are won capturing enemy bases.
MWO matches are won by collecting resources.
The best way to collect resources and capture enemy bases is with speed and positioning.
No MWO matches are won by losing armor.
Therefore, MWO matches are won by focused firepower, speed, positioning, and not though the loss of armor.

When LactosDaIntolerant (A.K,A Mech 3) committed suicide by heat death trying to destroy his dirty red oppressors he triggered the destroying enemy mechs win condition. The game then added the point to Jimmy NoGuns teams point total. In this case a total of 12 vs 11.

In the case of a skirmish match the win conditions are premises 1 and 2 and 8 purposes that there are no MWO matches are won by losing armor. Just a reminder when approaching premise 8 you will have to think about how MWO scores wins. There are no match modes that calculate armor as part of the win conditions. The scoring system only calculates things that are directly described as win conditions.

But, if it’s any consolation, that’s right buddy you can drive wins for the enemy team. Hit OOO000ooo to win!!!!

[OmniFail]

The6thMessenger, on 10 August 2019 - 07:51 AM, said:

Taking damage is kind of an inevitability in the game. It's all about which teams survives the longest to do their job, most of the time.

Consider this:

Two people with 20 HP, at a cumulative of 40 HP, and each of them deals DPS of 8, at a total of 16, so it will take about 2.5s each to kill another.

[Focused]
>>1.25>>1.25 -> 20 Damage
>>1.25 -----------> 10 Damage

[Spread]
>>2.5 ---------> 20 Damage
>>2.5 ---------> 20 Damage

Consider the scenario above. If at 2v2, the player focus-fires, the enemy team DPS is inevitably halved under 1.25s, and so the next 1.25, there's less damage output.

On the other hand, if they didn't focused fire, the enemy could put out more damage because both had enough time to deal their damage, as opposed of one being immediately killed off.

In the idea of "sharing armor drives win", this is basically just surviving long enough so your could do your job. Of course while they could still focus fire, it's just less of a 100% if there's more targets that they could shoot at.

See premise 8

No game mode scores armor loss as part of its win conditions. Only completing win conditions drives wins.

Edited for Spelling also added word "loss"

Edited by OmniFail, 10 August 2019 - 08:41 AM.

[OmniFail]

I also would like everybody to take a few drops in QP and think about the armor sharing going on around you. Really think about it.

Then if still think you want to defend the armor sharing thing, try to come up with a definition that you can all agree on.

Right now it appears to me that you don't really agree on its meaning.

That way we can at least be on the same page.

Edited for Spelling

Edited by OmniFail, 10 August 2019 - 08:46 AM.

[Bombast]

If I'm catching the reasoning here, passing the ball in Basketball is pointless because it doesn't it doesn't complete a win condition. Only scoring does.

That's dumb.

[Lightfoot]

If you can draw fire without taking damage or much damage or so much that you get killed, then you are drawing fire away from your teammates and will likely get the win. Fast mediums especially with MASC are good for this. Assaults can take a lot of damage but not focus fire.

It's more about making the other team waste their shots than sharing armor.