448 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

Kroete, on 15 August 2019 - 01:44 PM, said:

Wellcome in the age of the orange clown, where facts dont matter anymore.


Still dont understand if noone is able to do this simple math, it would proof all the claims,
but i only see excuses why the mathematical proof is not needed ...

Except you're the one with the burden of proof. As stated prior, the stats reflected in the Jarls List and every single leaderboard both in MWO and in all the league play as well as the recorded, observable behavior of both teams and players who have the best history of winning.

I get why you're trying to get simple math examples, because you want to try and pick apart examples while avoiding the real issue which is, again,

you are the one with the burden of proof here as you (and the one or two people agreeing with you) are attempting to state that both all the extant leaderboard data and the top performing players don't understand what wins and why as well as you do. You're the one disputing the observable data, burden of proof is yours.

Super simple math for you though, just so you have something to try and pick at instead of trying to handle your due burden -

Both sides have 1200 pts of armor divided among 12 mechs. Side A rotates their mechs through expertly and evenly, so their damage is spread among all 12 evenly.

Side B does not - they have 11 people who do, and one guy hiding in the back with LRMs. So the threshold at which damage becomes critical and reduces performance impacts Side B first, resulting in a roll and resulting in side B losing more than side A.

However! That 1 guy in 12 on Side B who hides in the back has an inflated damage and possibly KDR relative to his reduced W/L, because by using his team as meat shields he insures his average time shooting is longer, at the expense of his teams probability of winning. As stated this isn't hard math nor complex. Focus fire is just as viable for both teams and increases the value of armor sharing, not reduces it as it skews advantage even more toward who avoid critical performance reduction the longest (i.e. lost side torsos and such).

So it's not surprising that people who play like that one guy want to pretend that their style of play and behavior isn't absolutely torpedoing their teams odds of winning relative to the damage they do, but it does.

So, why

[Shanrak]

OmniFail, on 15 August 2019 - 01:35 PM, said:

It is like stopping a tsunami with a butterfly net and I will no longer participate.

Great analogy, you are using the wrong tool that's full of holes to try to stop something inevitable

[Hauptmann Keg Steiner]

OmniFail, on 15 August 2019 - 01:35 PM, said:

I abandoned the argument because the concept of “armor sharing” does not share a common definition shared by all of it proponents.

Well at least you admit you started an argument in bad faith to begin with. Or is "establishing what the argument is all about" no longer the duty of the person who opens it?

[Bombast]

OmniFail, on 15 August 2019 - 01:35 PM, said:

I did not run with my tail between my legs.

]

OmniFail, on 15 August 2019 - 01:35 PM, said:

Go ahead. Worship cabbages for all I care.

No wonder I never cracked into the MWO Pro leagues, I've been wasting all my prayers on the Gods of the Matchmaker. I should have been pledging myself to leafy vegetables this entire time.

[Kroete]

MischiefSC, on 15 August 2019 - 02:09 PM, said:

you are the one with the burden of proof here as you (and the one or two people agreeing with you) are attempting to state that both all the extant leaderboard data and the top performing players don't understand what wins and why as well as you do. You're the one disputing the observable data, burden of proof is yours.

This screaming looks a little like the behavior of a well known orange clown,
the insinuations too ...

I never said that armor sharing does not helps in wins,
never stated that anyone dont understand what wins, contrary to you.

I just ask if it allway helps like focus fire and where the treshold comes for retreating mechs and against heavy focus fire. You and lots of other claimed that armor sharing helps in wins allways, first claim, first proof.

Its wasting time to try to talk to people that read things that never were wroten and scream and shout and dont even know what facts and proof mean.

Edited by Kroete, 15 August 2019 - 03:00 PM.

[Bombast]

Kroete, on 15 August 2019 - 02:56 PM, said:

I just ask if it allway helps like focus fire and where the treshold comes for retreating mechs and against heavy focus fire. You and lots of other claimed that armor sharing helps in wins allways, first claim, first proof.

It always helps when it comes to firing lines and pushing. It obviously doesn't help when no one should be presenting.

Pretty much everyone here has said this. You should share armor when you have to present to fire and the enemy is facing in your direction (Or may be facing in your direction, in the case of fog of war). No one here has said you should always present your armor all the time. You're making up claims so you can present yourself as standing at the reasonable position.

EDIT: Also, "First Claim, First Proof" is garbage. Deviation from baseline requires proof. Pro-tip, if your reasoning aligns with the Flat Earth movement, re-evaluate.

Edited by Bombast, 15 August 2019 - 03:34 PM.

[Mystere]

Wil McCullough, on 14 August 2019 - 07:34 PM, said:

I don't get it.

Obviously.

Wil McCullough, on 14 August 2019 - 07:34 PM, said:

You wandered into a debate between the op (who declared that armor sharing doesn't drive wins) and the people tellling him it obviously does, and proceeded to disagree with the latter.

Now you're saying that you've been misunderstood and that you're talking about something completely off tangent (focus fire)?

It's pretty obvious that running into enemy fire for the sake of it isn't going to win games. That's not armor sharing and not what people here understand as armor sharing. I don't believe anyone here discussing armor sharing is dumb enough to think that suiciding into the enemy constitutes the same thing.

And here you go again. Where did I say anything about running or suiciding into the enemy?

Wil McCullough, on 14 August 2019 - 07:34 PM, said:

You seem to have tried really hard to manufacture something to disagree with.

You have a personal grudge towards some of the people you're disagreeing with or something? Cos you come across as simply trying to take a contrary position for the sake of it.

Grudge? You're imagining things.

Edited by Mystere, 15 August 2019 - 03:41 PM.

[Armored Yokai]

Well, AS is great when you are doing a push and other types of aggressive play, but there are times when AS isn't exactly the best choice to drive a win. Sometimes it's best to let the snipers and other ranged mechs to sit back and take pot shots at the enemy mechs. If a sniper was forced into close range combat and sharing armor then there's a chance they would not be as effective when they are sitting in the back.

Scenario 1
You are brawling 2 linebackers sporting srms and you have a friendly Warhawk sitting in the back just lobbing PPCs at them.
You die from that encounter but manage to either damage them a lot or you take one of them with you. The 1-2 linebackers then try to go for the Warhawk that is 900m away only to get smacked into the ground by the barrage of PPCs coming their way.
Now if that Warhawk was up close helping you at around 300m then the LBKs would easily just jump and target the 85tonner's legs and it wouldn't have enough time to cool down from the tremendous heat and they just then move towards you after demolishing that poor bird. It will be almost the same as before but you wouldn't be able to kill the 2 linebackers.

Scenario 2
LRM boat in the back using the other 3 mechs as a stepping stone to victory. If the LRMboat was close then it would not survive the encounter.

[Y E O N N E]

Sharing armor doesn't have any implied range bracket. Your snipers will eventually get weakened to the point where alternatives need to rotate in. Ever watch one of those JGx CSJx ERLL snipe-fest comp matches?They have to keep rotating who's doing the shooting both to split enemy attention and to make sure one guy doesn't get overly focused. The damage eventually stacks up, and now a team is down a shooter because the next poke will be his last unless something draws aggro (which is also a form of armor sharing).

Kroete, on 15 August 2019 - 02:56 PM, said:

This screaming looks a little like the behavior of a well known orange clown,
the insinuations too ...

TBQH, with your talk you sound like somebody who voted for him to begin with.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Problem in MWO with Snipers, you can not onehit a target like Battlefield or other games ,and so the Sniper is only a Soldier in the Second Line. A Jet thats not fly in the Squadron and fight with his , its not a Sniper.

[Y E O N N E]

A sniper's job is to keep the enemy pinned through precision shots from unpredictable positions. Added effect for demoralizing the enemy by killing his friends one at a time while being extremely hard to retaliate against. A sniper also takes shots on critical targets that cripple or destroy it.

You can do those things just fine in MWO.

Edited by Y E O N N E, 15 August 2019 - 06:37 PM.

[Wil McCullough]

Mystere, on 15 August 2019 - 03:40 PM, said:

Obviously.




And here you go again. Where did I say anything about running or suiciding into the enemy?




Grudge? You're imagining things.

so what are you saying?

i'm trying to figure out what your point is, which is why i brought up suiciding into the enemy. it seemed like something you'll take the conversation towards. it was a shot in the dark because so far you seem to just be circling around some point you don't wanna verbalize for whatever reason.

i mean, you jumped into the discussion with some silly challenge about asking for statistical proof, then continued by posting some waffle about "concentration of fire" and real life combat doctrine. you're all over the place here.

just skip the foreplay and say what you want to say. that way, we can have a conversation about it instead of having to do the silly "show me where i said that" dance.

[Bombast]

Y E O N N E, on 15 August 2019 - 06:37 PM, said:

A sniper's job is to keep the enemy pinned through precision shots from unpredictable positions.

I think this is the important bit so many people forget. A sniper is doing it's best work firing from odd positions, often away from the main body of the team. Too many people think sniping is just being part of second firing line 300m back from the main one.

[MischiefSC]

Kroete, on 15 August 2019 - 02:56 PM, said:

This screaming looks a little like the behavior of a well known orange clown,
the insinuations too ...

I never said that armor sharing does not helps in wins,
never stated that anyone dont understand what wins, contrary to you.

I just ask if it allway helps like focus fire and where the treshold comes for retreating mechs and against heavy focus fire. You and lots of other claimed that armor sharing helps in wins allways, first claim, first proof.

Its wasting time to try to talk to people that read things that never were wroten and scream and shout and dont even know what facts and proof mean.

As stated prior, you're the one making claims unsupported by leaderboard or performance data. Burden of poof is yours.

I also noticed that since you don't really have anything to fall back on you're trying implied personal insults.

You're in this thread functionally arguing in support of the OP, while trying to disingenuously avoid stating tha lt fact so you can then try to move the goal posts when called out.

So, to clarify, are you saying that the OP is absolutely categorically wrong and that armor sharing absolutely does contribute to winning matches as stated and shown by top performing players and teams and reflected in the leaderboards?

Because that's the topic. Your posts thus far haven't said that and have instead both disputed my assertion that it's so. And tried to assert that focused fire eliminates the value of armor sharing - which, again, is unsupported both in observed recorded league and twitch play and leaderboards and years of assertion by top performing players and teams.

Challenging extant, confirmed and leaderboard supported claims with no offered proof and then making baseless aspersions about everyone who's pointing out you're wrong doesn't change the reality that burden of proof is yours.

[Void Angel]

Statistical arguments via leaderboards and the anecdotal experience of expert players aren't without merit; but I'm a great proponent of the idea that an expert should be able to tell you why his view is correct, as well. And that's been done too, but nobody has marshaled a cogent response in disagreement. People just skim the post, pick something they fondly believe to be a logical contradiction, and then try to rebut that on the premise that one logical error in an example invalidates the entire thought. They then prove unresponsive to correction or rebuttal because after all, the other side is Clearly Wrong, and that makes them right! Heck, I tore apart the OP's argument on its own merits, but he's playing with tools he's seen other people use - and doesn't himself understand. He "abandoned the argument" because people kept on correcting his attempts to shift the debate by misconstruing rebuttals; he then claims that other people were moving the goalposts on him.

You'll find that people who engage in bad thought will often accuse you of what they're doing themselves, or at least the general type of things. With things that they know are wrong, they'll do it because they delude themselves that everyone is that way deep down; but with intellectual errors, there's something about bad logic that ends up seeing its own flaws in the objections those flaws raise. It's really quite fascinating to watch.

Edited by Void Angel, 15 August 2019 - 09:27 PM.

[YueFei]

Kroete, on 15 August 2019 - 12:09 AM, said:

FocusFire and calling targets is about concentrating damage on one mech,
if the caller says shoot a, the team shoots a, doenst matter if there are is a b, c , d or xyz.
Showing more mechs works if the enemy spreads damage over more then one mech but if the team uses a caller and focus fire, it doesnt matter less. The higher mental load is for the caller who has to choose the focus target, but not for the shooters they just follow the call.

The caller makes a mech a "dingus geting zapped by 12 enemys". to use your wording.

Dude, no one has reflexes that fast, not even the top players. Against targets using cover, by the time the caller has yelled out the target to hit, that target is already sliding back into cover and/or shielding, rendering shots against it highly inefficient.

This is the difference between purely theorycrafting and actual performance and behavior.

I mean, on paper, Napolean's tactics are totally stupid and shouldn't really work. But once you understand how human psychology works within the fog of battle, it's incredible genius. In infantry combat (distinct from vehicular combat), shock is what breaks enemies and routs them. It's why two units can go to ground and take potshots for an hour and suffer 50+% casualties and yet still be willing to continue fighting, but an infantry unit that carries its momentum through and blasts 5% of the enemy in a single volley will shatter that enemy unit.

Soldiers aren't robots, and how they think and feel must be taken into account when devising tactics that work.

MWO ain't war, but these mechs are being driven by human players, not Bots with instant reflexes and instant communications.

[Kroete]

Void Angel, on 15 August 2019 - 09:22 PM, said:

Statistical arguments via leaderboards and the anecdotal experience of expert players aren't without merit; but I'm a great proponent of the idea that an expert should be able to tell you why his view is correct, as well. And that's been done too, but nobody has marshaled a cogent response in disagreement.

A statistical argument would be 99% of the upper 95% uses armorsharing.
Statistical arguments are numbers extrapolated from at database, i didnt saw any statistical data in this topic until now.

But i also know that facts have different meanings in different parts of the world ...

[General Solo]

Focus fire > armour sharing > Dieing

If a team mate gets narced on Polar, can you share armor?

Maybe focus fire the narcer is better?

YueFei, on 15 August 2019 - 11:52 PM, said:

Dude, no one has reflexes that fast, not even the top players. Against targets using cover, by the time the caller has yelled out the target to hit, that target is already sliding back into cover and/or shielding, rendering shots against it highly inefficient.

This is the difference between purely theorycrafting and actual performance and behavior.

I mean, on paper, Napolean's tactics are totally stupid and shouldn't really work. But once you understand how human psychology works within the fog of battle, it's incredible genius. In infantry combat (distinct from vehicular combat), shock is what breaks enemies and routs them. It's why two units can go to ground and take potshots for an hour and suffer 50+% casualties and yet still be willing to continue fighting, but an infantry unit that carries its momentum through and blasts 5% of the enemy in a single volley will shatter that enemy unit.

Soldiers aren't robots, and how they think and feel must be taken into account when devising tactics that work.

MWO ain't war, but these mechs are being driven by human players, not Bots with instant reflexes and instant communications.

You can focus fire without calls as well
Shoot what your team mate shot

Edit: OmniFail Thank you for entertaining few hours.

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 16 August 2019 - 12:53 PM.

[Mystere]

Wil McCullough, on 15 August 2019 - 06:49 PM, said:

so what are you saying?

i'm trying to figure out what your point is, which is why i brought up suiciding into the enemy. it seemed like something you'll take the conversation towards. it was a shot in the dark because so far you seem to just be circling around some point you don't wanna verbalize for whatever reason.

i mean, you jumped into the discussion with some silly challenge about asking for statistical proof, then continued by posting some waffle about "concentration of fire" and real life combat doctrine. you're all over the place here.

just skip the foreplay and say what you want to say. that way, we can have a conversation about it instead of having to do the silly "show me where i said that" dance.

Sigh! It is there in plain sight on page 1.

Clear enough?

Edited by Mystere, 16 August 2019 - 04:39 PM.

[Mystere]

MW Waldorf Statler, on 15 August 2019 - 06:14 PM, said:

Problem in MWO with Snipers, you can not onehit a target like Battlefield or other games ,and so the Sniper is only a Soldier in the Second Line. A Jet thats not fly in the Squadron and fight with his , its not a Sniper.

In the early days, the Gausspault was a feared beast. Have you forgotten?

Having said that, years of changes (i.e. knee-jerk reactions to player wailing ) have definitely killed quite a lot of the best fun that once existed.

Edited by Mystere, 16 August 2019 - 04:50 PM.