201 replies to this topic

[VonBruinwald]

Prototelis, on 08 March 2020 - 04:36 PM, said:

You still don't understand why that cannot be a "tactical victory."

You don't set the objective in the game mode; the objective is winning by killing the enemy mech.

A tie is the same thing as losing, in fact it is treated as both players losing.

You're still don't understand why it is a tactical victory. I'll give you a clue, wargames¹⁹⁸³

Prototelis, on 08 March 2020 - 04:36 PM, said:

I assume you were bad at it in addition to losing in the mech lab.

Assuming you're right, that actually makes it a greater tactical victory than it was.

Prototelis, on 08 March 2020 - 04:36 PM, said:

You do realize this isn't a false equivalence?

It is, you just wish it wasn't.
(You're also emphasising wrong, it makes it really weird to read unless you're trying for a Shakespearian vibe)

[Prototelis]

^ Good example of health pooling.

Altho, not super effective harassment.

If you like playing at that range in a light I'd suggest a 3ERLL panther/wlfhound, or a 2erppc Panther (infinite kiteyman) or a 2-3erppc Blackjack (some of the best quirks in the game)

[Prototelis]

VonBruinwald, on 08 March 2020 - 04:56 PM, said:

You're still don't understand why it is a tactical victory. I'll give you a clue, wargames¹⁹⁸³

You don't understand why that isn't a tactical victory.

There is only one objective in Solaris, kill the other person.

Tying results in a loss for both sides.

Quote

Assuming you're right, that actually makes it a greater tactical victory than it was.

Tying is not a victory, so you are in fact still wrong.

Quote

(You're also emphasising wrong, it makes it really weird to read unless you're trying for a Shakespearian vibe)

I am mimicking your sentence structure and emphasizing where you use contractions incorrectly.

[OmniFail]

Prototelis, on 08 March 2020 - 04:00 PM, said:

Your argument is piss poor; there is no damage when there is no health.

There is no damage when there is no health.
The "Destroy Enemy Mech" win condition can only be triggered by damage and cannot be triggered by health.

It is just like you said.

Prototelis, on 06 March 2020 - 11:33 AM, said:

Mechs stripped of weapons cannot contribute fire power, they are essentially dead.

This is because while the mech that still has armor, but has no weapons, it can still share armor; but cannot trigger the "Destroy Enemy Mech" win condition because they can do no damage.

Edited by OmniFail, 08 March 2020 - 05:39 PM.

[YueFei]

Eh, there's ways to expose to shoot without being a total idiot and exposing to the entire enemy team. It's called "slicing the pie", or "key-holing".

Still, if you have Team A versus Team B, and Team A has only 6 players trading, while Team B has all 12 players actively trading, even if each trade is a 1-to-1 trade (so no focus-fire happening), eventually those 6 players on Team A are gonna get crippled/killed first.

After that, Team B has twice the firepower Team A does, and unless Team B's entire roster suddenly becomes timid (unlikely, given that they were all actively engaging earlier), Team B ain't just gonna trickle in to get killed piecemeal to let Team A have that come-from-behind win.

[Prototelis]

OmniFail, on 08 March 2020 - 05:38 PM, said:

The "Destroy Enemy Mech" win condition can only be triggered by damage and cannot be triggered by health.

The "Destroy Enemy Mech" win condition cannot be triggered with no mechs left to shoot, and becomes more and more difficult as attrition sets in.

But hey, thanks for quoting and agreeing that a dead or stripped mech cannot shoot, thus highlighting the importance of health pooling. lol.

Edited by Prototelis, 08 March 2020 - 06:12 PM.

[OmniFail]

Prototelis, on 08 March 2020 - 06:07 PM, said:

The "Destroy Enemy Mech" win condition cannot be triggered with no mechs left to shoot

Technically it would have been triggered twelve times at that point. The causation would be firepower diminishing armor and not armor diminishing firepower.

Mind you we did just agree that a mech has armor but no weapons are essentially dead because they can do no damage.

Edited by OmniFail, 08 March 2020 - 06:37 PM.

[Prototelis]

OmniFail, on 08 March 2020 - 06:13 PM, said:

Mind you we did just agree that a mech has armor but no weapons are essentially dead because they can do no damage.

Thank you for finally understanding the importance of Health pooling in relation to attrition.

GG

[Horseman]

OmniFail, on 08 March 2020 - 08:33 PM, said:

The games mechanics calculates destroyed Mechs and not health remaining in the determination of the " Destroy Enemy Mechs" win condition.
It is a hard coded fact.

Including destroyed mechs on your side. Armor sharing lets your team maintain maximum firepower output for longer .

VonBruinwald, on 08 March 2020 - 04:25 PM, said:

You're still not comprehending that tactical victory.

There's none, you're just trying to rationalize throwing a match and attempting to come up with some way to be proud of it.

OmniFail, on 08 March 2020 - 03:55 PM, said:

I see no mention of armor sharing, pooling, or spreading your statement. With words like "overwatch," "harass," and "firepower" your statement actually seems to support my damage centric argument.
But, I am sure your gonna try to explain how it's really the armor and not the guns of the mech sniping in BFE that really makes all the difference.
Maybe your like clickers could help redefine some words to help your faction pivot more away from from your poorly defined ideology.

What you don't get: As a sniper mech, your job is to keep the enemy from being able to concentrate firepower on your teammates and to reduce their fighting effectiveness . Snipers who only spread damage over half a dozen enemy mechs without reducing enemy firepower or causing a distraction are not doing their job properly.

VonBruinwald, on 08 March 2020 - 03:33 PM, said:

You clearly don't understand how a tactical victory works.

Sounds like you don't understand how a victory works, m' man.

Quote

If you're going to wait with your back to a wall you deserve that draw.

1. Assumption from your end.
2. https://mwomercs.com/conduct - see "Running out the clock, or needlessly extending the duration of the match, in cases where doing so will not assist you towards victory". A tie is not a victory, gg.

Edited by Horseman, 08 March 2020 - 10:35 PM.

[FRAGTAST1C]

Horseman, on 08 March 2020 - 10:33 PM, said:

1. Assumption from your end.
2. https://mwomercs.com/conduct - see "Running out the clock, or needlessly extending the duration of the match, in cases where doing so will not assist you towards victory". A tie is not a victory, gg.

I wouldn't mind a draw but the cameos from the Stealth Thanatos, ECM Shadow Cats, etc., only prolong the inevitable. There isn't that specific condition for reporting, unfortunately.

[K O Z A K]

I'm curious, in the solaris scenario where the assault is hugging the wall and refusing to leave it's safety, and the light is refusing to eat s**t on approach without the chance to get the assaults back, who is running out the clock? Seems both parties are scared of each other and just refusing to get into a disadvantageous situation

[Brauer]

Hazeclaw, on 09 March 2020 - 08:02 AM, said:

I'm curious, in the solaris scenario where the assault is hugging the wall and refusing to leave it's safety, and the light is refusing to eat s**t on approach without the chance to get the assaults back, who is running out the clock? Seems both parties are scared of each other and just refusing to get into a disadvantageous situation

I'd say it's a mutual thing. Both could be described as optimal strategies, but one would think that by the final three minutes or so both should be coming out to seek the win.

It'd be great if there was a mechanic to prevent this in Solaris, this kind of thing is why comp uses conquest or domination, not skirmish.

[VonBruinwald]

Hazeclaw, on 09 March 2020 - 08:02 AM, said:

I'm curious, in the solaris scenario where the assault is hugging the wall and refusing to leave it's safety, and the light is refusing to eat s**t on approach without the chance to get the assaults back, who is running out the clock? Seems both parties are scared of each other and just refusing to get into a disadvantageous situation

Sun Tzu said:

He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.

It is foolhardy to engage from a disadvantageous position. The correct decision is to fight the enemy when they are at the disadvantage. If neither enemy will yield a superior position the only winning move is to not play (Wargames¹⁹⁸³).

Brauer, on 09 March 2020 - 08:47 AM, said:

I'd say it's a mutual thing. Both could be described as optimal strategies, but one would think that by the final three minutes or so both should be coming out to seek the win.

Sun Tzu said:

To win 100 battles is not the height of skill, to subdue the enemy without fighting is.

Edited by VonBruinwald, 09 March 2020 - 11:23 AM.

[VonBruinwald]

snip.

Edited by VonBruinwald, 09 March 2020 - 03:05 PM.

[thievingmagpi]

VonBruinwald, on 09 March 2020 - 03:03 PM, said:

Wait, you're not Proto. Fighting his battles for him now? Where'd that coward go.?

I'll give you it could be considered a violation. Still, it's far more clean than sync dropping which gives you an unfair advantage and imposes your scrub tactics on multiple players who didn't elect into it.

hiding and not engaging in a fight is better than randomly dropping with a random assortment of people. ok. big brain thoughts there.

[VonBruinwald]

thievingmagpi, on 09 March 2020 - 03:05 PM, said:

hiding and not engaging in a fight is better than randomly dropping with a random assortment of people. ok. big brain thoughts there.

I thought you'd posted, swore I was going crazy for a second. Why'd you delete it?

Sync-dropping is only random as far as your chances to stack. But sure, claim you and your buddies syncing to pad stats is more fair on the pugs whose game you team crashed. Me and fattie were mutual, I never went in, he never came out.

[K O Z A K]

so both players are violating the tos, and the only ones affected by it are the 2 players? as in nobody who's not violating tos is in any way negatively impacted by what's happening? lol

[VonBruinwald]

Hazeclaw, on 09 March 2020 - 03:12 PM, said:

so both players are violating the tos, and the only ones affected by it are the 2 players? as in nobody who's not violating tos is in any way negatively impacted by what's happening? lol

And we were both negatively impacted by the result. Solaris counts a draw as a loss for the purposes of rankings.

[thievingmagpi]

VonBruinwald, on 09 March 2020 - 03:11 PM, said:

I thought you'd posted, swore I was going crazy for a second. Why'd you delete it?

Sync-dropping is only random as far as your chances to stack.

You were saying?

VonBruinwald, on 09 March 2020 - 03:11 PM, said:

But sure, claim you and your buddies syncing to pad stats is more fair on the pugs whose game you team crashed. Me and fattie were mutual, I never went in, he never came out.

oh that's right, you continue to demonstrate your cluelessness.

[VonBruinwald]

thievingmagpi, on 09 March 2020 - 03:45 PM, said:

You were saying?

oh that's right, you continue to demonstrate your cluelessness.

Do we really need to explain why sync-dropping confers an unfair advantage, again. You've got this fantasy that sync-dropping is no way exploitable even though it has been proven otherwise.

Then again, you do sync-drop. So of course you'll be in denial.