448 replies to this topic

[JediPanther]

Sharing armor is a joke. The team that focuses fire more always wins. If I want to "share" armor I'll just trade or sell it to other players. I have an impressive stockpile of is armor from striping and selling mechs at low low rates. I'd even trade it off for is lrm ammo and lrm launchers.

[OmniFail]

Bombast, on 10 August 2019 - 08:37 AM, said:

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.

Nice!. The first to challenge with reason.

I’m not sure if I am applying your analogy correctly please help me understand. Also I may later challenge on basket ball to MWO comparison. But, I don’t think I need to yet.

Heres what I can come up with.

So are you saying that I am purposing that losing armor is pointless because it doesn’t satisfy a win condition.

If so yes. Yes sir I am.

Sure your going t lose armor. But, losing armor is not going to help you win in the case of skirmish destroying mechs and most mechs destroyed on time out are what are considered by the MWO scoring system.

[The6thMessenger]

OmniFail, on 10 August 2019 - 08:29 AM, said:

See premise 8

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

So basically you could kill the enemy team without taking damage at all? That's just not realistic at all. Even comp people take damage time to time.

It's not about scoring the armor loss, it's about living long enough to complete the win-condition. Why is that hard to understand?

Bombast, on 10 August 2019 - 08:37 AM, said:

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.

Yes, thank you.

[OmniFail]

JediPanther, on 10 August 2019 - 08:50 AM, said:

Sharing armor is a joke. The team that focuses fire more always wins. If I want to "share" armor I'll just trade or sell it to other players. I have an impressive stockpile of is armor from striping and selling mechs at low low rates. I'd even trade it off for is lrm ammo and lrm launchers.

Yeah after a few drops in QP I think armor sharing is non existent. I think that focus fire is more common and the practice of teammates waiting for me to expose myself so they can be sure not to be shot at when they peek.

[PhoenixFire55]

Bombast, on 10 August 2019 - 08:37 AM, said:

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.

And yet you wouldn't believe how many NBA players think exactly that.

[Bombast]

OmniFail, on 10 August 2019 - 09:02 AM, said:

Sure your going t lose armor. But, losing armor is not going to help you win in the case of skirmish destroying mechs and most mechs destroyed on time out are what are considered by the MWO scoring system.

Destroying all enemy mechs is a win condition.

Maximizing available firepower assists in destroying all enemy mechs.

The longer a mech lives, the more firepower it can contribute over the span of a match.

A damaged mech that sustains more damage will die. When dead, it can no longer contribute damage.

An undamaged, or lightly damaged, mech can sustain damage without dying. Even if receiving damage it's firepower will still contribute damage.

So if a lightly damaged mechs takes damage instead of a heavily damaged mech, more firepower is preserved for longer, maximizing total match damage.

Thus, even if it's not ideal to lose any armor, if the only options available are to either lose one mech and keep one mech at near full armor, or to have the healthy mech get damaged and have both mechs survive, the later is more desirable and contributes to a win condition, in the absence of other outstanding factors (Such as the mech in danger of dying being an absolute potato, or having already lost most of it's firepower, etc).

[The6thMessenger]

Bombast, on 10 August 2019 - 09:18 AM, said:

Destroying all enemy mechs is a win condition.

Maximizing available firepower assists in destroying all enemy mechs.

The longer a mech lives, the more firepower it can contribute over the span of a match.

A damaged mech that sustains more damage will die. When dead, it can no longer contribute damage.

An undamaged, or lightly damaged, mech can sustain damage without dying. Even if receiving damage it's firepower will still contribute damage.

So if a lightly damaged mechs takes damage instead of a heavily damaged mech, more firepower is preserved for longer, maximizing total match damage.

Thus, even if it's not ideal to lose any armor, if the only options available are to either lose one mech and keep one mech at near full armor, or to have the healthy mech get damaged and have both mechs survive, the later is more desirable and contributes to a win condition, in the absence of other outstanding factors (Such as the mech in danger of dying being an absolute potato, or having already lost most of it's firepower, etc).

YES. THANK YOU.

OmniFail, on 10 August 2019 - 09:02 AM, said:

So are you saying that I am purposing that losing armor is pointless because it doesn’t satisfy a win condition.

If so yes. Yes sir I am.

Sure your going t lose armor. But, losing armor is not going to help you win in the case of skirmish destroying mechs and most mechs destroyed on time out are what are considered by the MWO scoring system.

He's saying that Losing Armor is an inevitable stepping stone in "getting a score", you just need to not lose so much in the process.

Just as it's an inevitable stepping stone for someone to pass the ball in basketball. It's not the basis for scoring, but you may not score at all if not employed.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 10 August 2019 - 09:38 AM.

[OmniFail]

The6thMessenger, on 10 August 2019 - 09:03 AM, said:

So basically you could kill the enemy team without taking damage at all? That's just not realistic at all. Even comp people take damage time to time.

Yes we all take damage pretty much every game. But, no matter how unlikely it is, it is possible to win without taking damage.

People in Europe used to believe there were no black swans. They used to equate it to when pigs fly. Then one day in Australia. Low and behold that there were black swans.

The6thMessenger, on 10 August 2019 - 09:03 AM, said:

It's not about scoring the armor loss, it's about living long enough to complete the win-condition. Why is that hard to understand?

It is about living long enough. I agree. By losing armor you will eventual die. Dying dose not drive wins.
D

[Bombast]

OmniFail, on 10 August 2019 - 09:36 AM, said:

Dying dose not drive wins.

Which is why sharing your armor with someone who would otherwise die, when no other options are available, helps drive wins.

Edited by Bombast, 10 August 2019 - 09:48 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

OmniFail, on 10 August 2019 - 09:36 AM, said:

Yes we all take damage pretty much every game. But, no matter how unlikely it is, it is possible to win without taking damage.

People in Europe used to believe there were no black swans. They used to equate it to when pigs fly. Then one day in Australia. Low and behold that there were black swans.

But if that's the case, armor sharing does drive wins in most cases, and it's only an unlikely (though possible) scenario that armor-sharing doesn't drive wins, because in most cases you take damage in pretty much in every game, and it's only unlikely to not take damage even it's possible. So yes, Armor Sharing drives win, most of the time.

A lot of people try their luck in Lotto to win Jackpots, or to gamble their money on roulettes. But while there are those that do win, chances are you'd financially ruin yourself. You could tell yourself and other people that it's possible that you could win the jackpot, and you'd be right -- it is possible no matter how unlikely, but it doesn't make it any less stupid that you'd bet your entire life-savings there.

OmniFail, on 10 August 2019 - 09:36 AM, said:

It is about living long enough. I agree. By losing armor you will eventual die. Dying dose not drive wins.

Which is why you share armor so your team wouldn't die before your objective is completed.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 10 August 2019 - 10:02 AM.

[S t P a u l y]

OmniFail, on 09 August 2019 - 10:40 AM, said:

...I find her book Atlas Shrugged to be a well written book with a enjoyable story..

[OmniFail]

Bombast, on 10 August 2019 - 09:18 AM, said:

Destroying all enemy mechs is a win condition.

Maximizing available firepower assists in destroying all enemy mechs.

The longer a mech lives, the more firepower it can contribute over the span of a match.

A damaged mech that sustains more damage will die. When dead, it can no longer contribute damage.

An undamaged, or lightly damaged, mech can sustain damage without dying. Even if receiving damage it's firepower will still contribute damage.

So if a lightly damaged mechs takes damage instead of a heavily damaged mech, more firepower is preserved for longer, maximizing total match damage.

Thus, even if it's not ideal to lose any armor, if the only options available are to either lose one mech and keep one mech at near full armor, or to have the healthy mech get damaged and have both mechs survive, the later is more desirable and contributes to a win condition, in the absence of other outstanding factors (Such as the mech in danger of dying being an absolute potato, or having already lost most of it's firepower, etc).

So I like your post too.

And I agree with all your premises. But there seems to be something hokey with your conclusion. I suggest you also try to falsify yourself. You may come up with something better. Also your argument dose not correlate armor sharing as a causation.

I am gonna take some time to analyze it. If you feel at anytime that you need to append your conclusion for clarity or to add a more accurate definition please leave a edit note and new copy for my consideration. I go ahead and do so and I will do the best I can to keep up over the course of the night and will try to respond tomorrow morning PST

S t P a u l y, on 10 August 2019 - 10:06 AM, said:

Iknowrite

Edited by OmniFail, 10 August 2019 - 10:14 AM.

[OmniFail]

Bombast, on 10 August 2019 - 09:48 AM, said:

Which is why sharing your armor with someone who would otherwise die, when no other options are available, helps drive wins.

You really should play quick play and think realistically what armor sharing is and if people are really using it.

[Prototelis]

[Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 12 August 2019 - 01:05 PM.
unconstructive, replies removed

[Bombast]

OmniFail, on 10 August 2019 - 10:18 AM, said:

You really should play quick play and think realistically what armor sharing is and if people are really using it.

Are we're changing the goal post from "Does armor sharing drive wins" to "Do people actually do it in QP."

Is your position that Armor Sharing doesn't work at all, or is that it works just fine, but people don't do it in QP? Those are two different positions, and the second one doesn't even have to assume that Armor Sharing works.

[OmniFail]

Bombast, on 10 August 2019 - 11:02 AM, said:

Are we're changing the goal post from "Does armor sharing drive wins" to "Do people actually do it in QP."

Is your position that Armor Sharing doesn't work at all, or is that it works just fine, but people don't do it in QP? Those are two different positions, and the second one doesn't even have to assume that Armor Sharing works.

Oh no you don't bro. We are not changing the basis of this post.

But that being said there is lots of stock being put in realism. If it were to drive wins it would have to be done after all, otherwise it would not dive wins because it is not done at all?

Still like your post. Not even mad. Still have to check conclusion.

[PurplePuke]

Obviously, armor sharing contributes to wins. It's basically mathematical.

It's analogous to spreading damage over the armor on your own mech. We twist away from incoming fire to spread damage, in an effort to not lose components and weapons. That way, we continue fighting at full strength longer.

The same is true when armor sharing is done well between teammates. For example, if 100 points of damage is incoming, and teammates can spread it between two mechs, then the likelihood of both teammates continuing to fight at full strength is greater, and you increase your chances of winning.

The other way of looking at it is that armor is one of the resources your team brings to the battlefield. If that resource is used wisely and conserved when possible, you increase the team's chances of winning. This is basic stuff.

But I think that OmniFail already senses how wrong he is, and will likely abandon this thread soon.

[OmniFail]

PurplePuke, on 10 August 2019 - 11:24 AM, said:

Obviously, armor sharing contributes to wins. It's basically mathematical.

It's analogous to spreading damage over the armor on your own mech. We twist away from incoming fire to spread damage, in an effort to not lose components and weapons. That way, we continue fighting at full strength longer.

The same is true when armor sharing is done well between teammates. For example, if 100 points of damage is incoming, and teammates can spread it between two mechs, then the likelihood of both teammates continuing to fight at full strength is greater, and you increase your chances of winning.

The other way of looking at it is that armor is one of the resources your team brings to the battlefield. If that resource is used wisely and conserved when possible, you increase the team's chances of winning. This is basic stuff.

But I think that OmniFail already senses how wrong he is, and will likely abandon this thread soon.

Hmm...

Your third paragraph. Explain it to me how you spread a hundred points of focused laser damage from multiple mechs across two mechs. Are you saying that one sucks up the damage and then the other steps in front of it? If this is true what is there next step take another round of taking turns getting shot in the face? How often does this really happen. Focused fire from multiple mechs is hard to survive and even if someone somehow takes some of it for you, it is highly unlikely you will escape. Also if one is hiding and the other is soaking then their ability to focus fire themselves is diminished substantially.

You cannot win by taking damage in skirmish matches you can only win by destroying mechs

Edited by OmniFail, 10 August 2019 - 11:40 AM.

[Feral Clown]

Omniseed, on 09 August 2019 - 02:46 PM, said:

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.

Not necessarily.

Our different experience playing the game may be why don't appreciate it as much or have been exposed to overt examples that I have.

Kcom.

Kcom in CW for the majority of the time I have been playing have been a top tier unit. I have countless games against them, and quite a few games playing with them. Their style of play is heavy brawl push. They know they are going to be shot doing this. So they know they have to spread damage and properly rotate out of the front line to achieve success with their bread and butter. ISMO also plays this way.

This is an overt example that you don't see as clearly in quick play but it's still there. Considering that there is a large portion of the community in quick play that look down on anything that isn't full steam ahead.

[Bombast]

OmniFail, on 10 August 2019 - 11:08 AM, said:

Oh no you don't bro. We are not changing the basis of this post.

But that being said there is lots of stock being put in realism. If it were to drive wins it would have to be done after all, otherwise it would not dive wins because it is not done at all?

Still like your post. Not even mad. Still have to check conclusion.

It's not me that's changing the point.

I argued that Armor Sharing works. Your counter argument is to question whether it happens in QP. Those are not related.

So I ask again. Are we arguing over whether it works, or whether people in QP actually do it? Completely different discussions.

Edited by Bombast, 10 August 2019 - 11:48 AM.