58 replies to this topic

[TruePoindexter]

TheMagician, on 26 November 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

As for competitive play, check out these matches, and see how different it can be from general play.

Run of the mill cover based fire trying to maneuver to advantageous positions while keeping your enemy contained. Signs of solid play. Too bad good play rarely makes for good TV.

EDIT: Watching more closely though I see a lot of amateurish mistakes. Mechs crashing into each other, mechs walking into walls, slow mechs trying to pop and shoot when they are too slow to really do so, and way too many Assault/Heavies to be considered reasonably balanced. I'm not saying that the play wasn't competitive just that there are a lot of issues that I wouldn't expect.

Edited by TruePoindexter, 26 November 2012 - 01:58 PM.

[Runz]

Kaldor, on 26 November 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

The other issue is that the maps simply are not big enough to allow for true flanking and hammer/anvil tactics. When bigger maps with decent cover come into play, camping strategies will fall to the wayside as they will find themselves outflanked and being shot at from multiple angles

Absolutely and I hope to see larger maps or maps with multiple capture points such as in MWLL to help vary the play a lot more - as such they should arrive in the future eventually but atm most team scrimms involve wolf packs with focused fire.

Now back when we could do 8 man drops we have used hammer & anvil tactics and they've worked well again turtling teams but they are much less effective against very mobile teams which can move to obliterate separated lances in 8 on 4 fights.

[GizmoGecko]

Even though I love to play this game so much and have enjoyed years of playing the old games, if I need to pay a monthly subscription to play, like the majority of people I'm going to stop playing; the only people I think will be left playing is the TT fans and those with money to throw about.

[TheMagician]

TruePoindexter, on 26 November 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

Run of the mill cover based fire trying to maneuver to advantageous positions while keeping your enemy contained. Signs of solid play. Too bad good play rarely makes for good TV.

EDIT: Watching more closely though I see a lot of amateurish mistakes. Mechs crashing into each other, mechs walking into walls, slow mechs trying to pop and shoot when they are too slow to really do so, and way too many Assault/Heavies to be considered reasonably balanced. I'm not saying that the play wasn't competitive just that there are a lot of issues that I wouldn't expect.

There were some mistakes. As for popping, it works depending on the position you are in, what you are facing, where you know your opponent to be, etc. When you actually hold ground as a team, and can coordinate to control space, it works well. But its not the only tactic. As for crashing, yes that happens. Sometimes purposefully. I know in one video the atlas and the catapult were crossing in each other's way, and that definitely was not what we want to have happen. I just selected 2 matches that SJR played against that I knew we had videos of, that were against other teams we've found to be in the top tier: ELP having won the tournament, and Snow Raven an experienced team from MW4, that is very good. They both illustrate how play is different from general PuG games, and those games are even different from what we've encountered against other coordinated teams.

The number of atlases, is based on the drop dec. I think that was the drop-dec with 3 assaults.

Edited by TheMagician, 26 November 2012 - 02:08 PM.

[Az0r]

Acehilator, on 26 November 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

When you are defending crap like in that videos you should stop using the C word. "Team fight with VoiceComs" would be about 98,7% more appropriate.

Uh 2 organised teams fighting each other is pretty much the definition of competitive play. If you want to argue the quality of play, that's fine, but it's still competitive no matter how low or high the skill level.

Edited by Az0r, 26 November 2012 - 02:21 PM.

[Runz]

TruePoindexter, on 26 November 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

First off - fix your audio. Seriously a good microphone is like $50. Anyone participating in a podcast should invest in one. Audio is more important than video and crackling audio is like stabbing my ears with nails.

Yarp I know the audio was an issue; not a problem with the quality of the microphone it was actually the result of echo feeding back through my mic. Noob mistake but when we did a technical test we didn't have that problem but it seems to have now become a thing - thankfully a thing we have resolved (we do get it fixed during the podcast). Rest assured now that I have identified the problem it shouldn't happen again.

Also kinda agree that the 4X wasn't the be all and end all people thought it would be but the 1X and 2X seem to be very popular builds atm - people suggest the 2X with SRMs cos of the high damage. Personally I'm less convinced because high damage doesn't always = good mech build; the damage needs to be focused.

Again I think talk of armour values is slightly wrong (again my bad as the host should have picked up on it) but the point they were making was that the sides feel weak and this is probably due to the larger hitboxes rather than armour values. Again this is perception as some people feel the same and others don't seem to think so at all. Like I say I should have mentioned this and clarified panelists statements 'on air' rather than having to explain them in the thread afterwards.

[TruePoindexter]

TheMagician, on 26 November 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

There were some mistakes. As for popping, it works depending on the position you are in, what you are facing, where you know your opponent to be, etc. When you actually hold ground as a team, and can coordinate to control space, it works well. But its not the only tactic. As for crashing, yes that happens. Sometimes purposefully. I know in one video the atlas and the catapult were crossing in each other's way, and that definitely was not what we want to have happen. I just selected 2 matches that SJR played against that I knew we had videos of, that were against other teams we've found to be in the top tier: ELP having won the tournament, and Snow Raven an experienced team from MW4, that is very good. They both illustrate how play is different from general PuG games, and those games are even different from what we've encountered against other coordinated teams.

The number of atlases, is based on the drop dec. I think that was the drop-dec with 3 assaults.

Oh I figured it was from that tournament from awhile ago. Just still surprising to see people trying to pop snipe with an Atlas. Of course you're going to eat Gauss/Large Lasers in the face. It probably didn't help though that the perspective in both is from an Atlas.

All that said random games aren't that far off from upper tier games. Good players play the same in both with the exception of the novice who run off and die.

[TruePoindexter]

Runz, on 26 November 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

Yarp I know the audio was an issue; not a problem with the quality of the microphone it was actually the result of echo feeding back through my mic. Noob mistake but when we did a technical test we didn't have that problem but it seems to have now become a thing - thankfully a thing we have resolved (we do get it fixed during the podcast). Rest assured now that I have identified the problem it shouldn't happen again.

Sorry if I was a little harsh on it but I wear headphones at work listening to these podcasts and it hurt bad. You can actually fix some clipping issues in post using Adobe Audition or programs like it.

Runz, on 26 November 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

Also kinda agree that the 4X wasn't the be all and end all people thought it would be but the 1X and 2X seem to be very popular builds atm - people suggest the 2X with SRMs cos of the high damage. Personally I'm less convinced because high damage doesn't always = good mech build; the damage needs to be focused.

I know that the number of 4X FOTM builds have dramatically decreased since the patch. My guess is that people tried it out and then fell back to whatever they preferred.

Runz, on 26 November 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

Again I think talk of armour values is slightly wrong (again my bad as the host should have picked up on it) but the point they were making was that the sides feel weak and this is probably due to the larger hitboxes rather than armour values. Again this is perception as some people feel the same and others don't seem to think so at all. Like I say I should have mentioned this and clarified panelists statements 'on air' rather than having to explain them in the thread afterwards.

I understand the difference and it's hard to know what to say on the air as it were. It's just an important distinction. Personally I'm not sure if the larger hitboxes make the sides more vulnerable or not. I've been tracking my own Cataphract performance and only twice have I died due to side torso loss. Once was from legged and the remaining times were all CT coring. I run XL on my 1X and 3D with no issues but I think the slow speed of the 4X makes using an XL in it a dangerous proposition.

[Runz]

TruePoindexter, on 26 November 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

Sorry if I was a little harsh on it but I wear headphones at work listening to these podcasts and it hurt bad. You can actually fix some clipping issues in post using Adobe Audition or programs like it.

Nah you're fine mate ^^ it was an issue that needed to get fixed. Like I say it should be resolved now hopefully but I agree the echo at the start is irritating and makes it harder to listen to ^^

[RG Notch]

Glory, on 26 November 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

I have to admit that I find the common obsession with the "flanking maneuver" as the pinnacle of tactical warfare to be pretty ridiculous.

The truth is, when I see people talking about tactics and use terms like "flank them" I tend to tune them out...

Yes sir the ultimate in tactics is staying together in a mob and calling out the target to focus fire on. I mean PUGs will never master that in depth and complex strategy.

Edited by RG Notch, 26 November 2012 - 02:51 PM.

[Az0r]

RG Notch, on 26 November 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

Yes sir the ultimate in tactics is staying together in a mob and calling out the target to focus fire on. I mean PUGs will never master that in depth and complex strategy.

You probably should watch the videos if you intend to talk **** about them.

[Acehilator]

Az0r, on 26 November 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

Uh 2 organised teams fighting each other is pretty much the definition of competitive play. If you want to argue the quality of play, that's fine, but it's still competitive no matter how low or high the skill level.

That is strange definition of "competitive". I have seen more complex maneuvers successfully pulled off by a group of strangers joining together for the first time on the unofficial ComStar EU TS Server.

For me "competitive" in a multiplayer game means having mastered a game to 99.x%, and employing tactics which can only by used successfully by the top 1% (or even less) of all players.

[RG Notch]

Az0r, on 26 November 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

You probably should watch the videos if you intend to talk **** about them.

Az0r, on 26 November 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

You probably should watch the videos if you intend to talk **** about them.

Sorry if I gave away your teams super secret strategy to win!

[Runz]

^
Deleted post - wrong thread whoops lol

Edited by Runz, 26 November 2012 - 04:11 PM.

[Az0r]

RG Notch, on 26 November 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

Sorry if I gave away your teams super secret strategy to win!

I'm sorry, you're right, we clearly just sat as a giant ball and all shot the same target all at once.

[Wolf Ender]

Acehilator, on 26 November 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

Wow... those were horrible. Even less flanking maneuvers than on an average PUG match. Teams managing to stay together and focus fire using VoiceCom. Competitive? You've got to be kidding me.

Wow I love the monday morning quarterbacking on this guy. Are you even with any unit at all?

Got any campaign tips for Mitt Romney? I'm sure he could have used a genius like you. Too bad.

I guess, as the adage goes,"haters gonna hate"

Edited by Wolf Ender, 27 November 2012 - 04:39 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Glory, on 26 November 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

I have to admit that I find the common obsession with the "flanking maneuver" as the pinnacle of tactical warfare to be pretty ridiculous.

The truth is, when I see people talking about tactics and use terms like "flank them" I tend to tune them out...

Ah Glory what you have to remember, is that most don't realize what will give them actual victories flashy maneuvers and flanking is fun and great but it won't win you tough games.
Positioning, Efficiency, Adaptability are what alot of teams miss. The team that dictates the play will be the team that wins out, not the team that has cut themselves in half.
But alas there really is no point even trying to argue with backseat "experts", because its interesting that most pug games show better tactical ability but don't seem to be able to hold their own against premade teams, i guess flanking more will solve that problem.
/sarcasm


Flanking maneuvers are one of those things, done at the right time they work well, the problem in coordinated play is that most teams, and we saw it a few times in the stuff we did before Matchmaking was ***** is that most units out there are not that great at doing them.

They think that sending flankers out right from the game start works, and it doesn't all that happens is the 8 opfor crush your 2/3/4 man flankers before rounding on whats left.

Im amazed that nobody so far actually picked up on what SJR did in that second video, they engaged us head on with all their mechs, at some stage during the fight they then dispatch flankers around the outside to our cap zone, to turn back for the flankers now on our cap would result in us getting done from behind via the altases etc they had left behind.
It was a well timed flank done right.

From our point of view, that was probably our worst match of MWO thus far, we were far too passive and static which allowed them to do it, but that's the beauty of team play.

Edited by DV McKenna, 27 November 2012 - 05:34 AM.

[keith]

flanking is moving 50m to the left to get a better shot right?

[TruePoindexter]

keith, on 27 November 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

flanking is moving 50m to the left to get a better shot right?

In my day we call that cheatin' Real men cut off their feet and stand still - on the stumps.

Edited by TruePoindexter, 27 November 2012 - 01:10 PM.