478 replies to this topic

[Flaming oblivion]

I'll clarify since I seem to be getting such a hostile response perhaps it because of my honest opinions on pre mades that struck a nerve, but I digress.

Rule One: Follow the Fracking Atlas.
Stay together and support the heavy hitters. It doesn't have to be an Atlas - it just made a good tag line. If you're in a big 'mech, group up with other big 'mechs - you may need to resort to talking to them, or just follow along if they're not up to using their words. Remember that the rest of the team relies on you to be the linchpin of the battle. The reason we all stick together is because the effectiveness of firepower is greater when it is massed - "the more you use, the less you lose." If you split off and run into their main body, you'll do a lot less damage to them than they will to you - and you'll be crippled or dead, your firepower lost to the team. So stay together and don't let them cut you out of the pack. And if you see a group of your teammates charge into the enemy team, for Comstar's sake, go with them.

The title and this do not make my post or point irrelevant.

The fact is most people reading this are newer players, and I know when I first started playing , PuGGing was hell with the many antics going on , The absolute worst thing I could do was stay with the bigger mechs , Because everyone else left them behind to be killed. Its not right and they usually lost through it but no matter whats said they will keep doing it because they're new and inexperienced and want to mech smash.

The only chance we ever stood of winning was basically writing the slow guys or loners off as dead and getting with the largest bundle of mechs we had and hoping for the best. staying with the biggest slowest mechs on the board may be the smartest thing to do but at the beginning end of the game I found it to be the most suicidal , me and the heavy(S)/assault (S) would get left alone and after they died I would.

Edited by Flaming oblivion, 25 April 2014 - 08:21 PM.

[Void Angel]

It's not your "honesty," but the fact that you told us you were only posting to comment on the title. Heck, you never even mentioned premades, speaking of honesty. Your subsequent posting was more constructive, but still wrong, despite using really big bold letters.

The reason you are wrong is that you're looking at it from the wrong end. You look at a situation where the guide was not followed and think it invalidates the guide. The problem wasn't that you followed a small minority of the team and died with them - the problem was that the team wasn't cooperating. There is also the small fact that the guide also tells you to stay together, which you did not do - again, reinforcing our impression that you had not read the guide, and were simply trolling the subject. Skimming is not "reading," for the purposes of generating meaningful, constructive comments.

However, perhaps I wasn't clear enough, or assumed too much abstract critical thinking - I shall edit the post accordingly.

[SethAbercromby]

Void Angel, on 25 April 2014 - 07:32 PM, said:

Having that lance detached means several things:

• The initial engagement against a grouped team is going to be at best 12v8 - if all of your lances are decentralized, it's going to be 12v4. In either situation, you are gambling that the enemy team will not scent blood and simply roll over you before your autonomous lance(s) come to the rescue. If they have any light scouts/snipers at all, they should know that part of your forces are off somewhere else. So, splitting off your lances means that you are now dependent on a grouped enemy committing an error just in order to avoid a near-certain loss. You are literally tossing some figurative dice and hoping the enemy screws up.
  
• You are vastly more vulnerable to random mismatches if you simply go with the lances you're dealt. You have no cohesive group composition, so you likely have different roles in uncomplementary positions - such as a light-hunter grouped up on the opposite spawn from the scouts. Sure, you can make any lance-level comp work kinda-sorta-well, if you work at it. That light-hunter can just guard whatever he's with from the lights, right? Except that if the enemy grouped up and consolidated their lights, their recon elements may be murdering the LRM boats half a map away, and there's nothing the light-hunter can do but cry bitter tears, and beat their breast, saying, "If only I could have been there!"
  
• Finally, knowing that they're out by themselves will indeed affect how the lances think. It will affect their morale in a distinctly non-positive way. That 4-man getting pressured by 8-12 enemies knows that its support is several grids away. People shy away from gunfire anyway - being alone and "away from the masses

Being able to work autonomously does not necessarily mean to separate from the team. It means that the lance is capable of attaching and detaching from the team to keep the 'Mech composition low, but effective. You also assume that any lance isn't allowed to interact with the others. That light hunter to guard the catapults sure, that would be important, unless those catapults also stick with their lance as well, instead of isolating themselves. Regardless of how the lance is composed, they will always have a strong deterrent of larger 'Mech(s) that can provide the necessary cover fire, a spottrer that makes sure it hits all targets, or maybe even a light hunter of their own. And a full lance of LRM boats that knows squat about min range will be able to tear any attacker apart (when someone breaches your ranks, just move apart far enough than when they enter the min range of one, they will leave it of another). Assuming that everyone is stupid only continues the cycle of PUG mistrust. Also, a full lance of scouts will often chose to act as a wolf pack to kill isolated targets. that light hunter will prove effective when acting as a vanguard.

Second, your assumption that it will be a 12 v 8 is wrong on a basic level. Most tactics require at least small parts of a group to split from the rest. If only 2 split, it's a 10v8, right but those 2 will get annihilated by the 4, which will allow to start a flanking maneuver, splitting the main force and allowing the 8 to push. If 6 split up, that lance might get some trouble but suddenly its a 6v8 on the other side. You see how your comparisons don't really reflect how a match progresses (unless it's skirmish)?

[Wintersdark]

SethAbercromby, on 26 April 2014 - 05:51 AM, said:

Being able to work autonomously does not necessarily mean to separate from the team. It means that the lance is capable of attaching and detaching from the team to keep the 'Mech composition low, but effective. You also assume that any lance isn't allowed to interact with the others. That light hunter to guard the catapults sure, that would be important, unless those catapults also stick with their lance as well, instead of isolating themselves. Regardless of how the lance is composed, they will always have a strong deterrent of larger 'Mech(s) that can provide the necessary cover fire, a spottrer that makes sure it hits all targets, or maybe even a light hunter of their own. And a full lance of LRM boats that knows squat about min range will be able to tear any attacker apart (when someone breaches your ranks, just move apart far enough than when they enter the min range of one, they will leave it of another). Assuming that everyone is stupid only continues the cycle of PUG mistrust. Also, a full lance of scouts will often chose to act as a wolf pack to kill isolated targets. that light hunter will prove effective when acting as a vanguard.

Second, your assumption that it will be a 12 v 8 is wrong on a basic level. Most tactics require at least small parts of a group to split from the rest. If only 2 split, it's a 10v8, right but those 2 will get annihilated by the 4, which will allow to start a flanking maneuver, splitting the main force and allowing the 8 to push. If 6 split up, that lance might get some trouble but suddenly its a 6v8 on the other side. You see how your comparisons don't really reflect how a match progresses (unless it's skirmish)?

Skirmish = Assault, really, except for hiding in the base fun.

The problem that you're glossing over is that you don't have "a full lance of..." or any other such. You've got a random selection of 4 mechs, with players who don't know each other and aren't even aware that you want to run as a cohesive lance.

Lance based autonomous action is fantastic with premades or in 12-mans, but in a random drop the game assigned lance is essentially irrelevant. More advanced tactics fail almost all the time in PUG's (unless you've got a couple premades working together to do it) because the lack of coordination and communication make it far more likely that you'll miss the necessary timing to pull things off. The point of this post is to provide a basic guideline, a "how to" to give players the best chance of winning. Advanced and cunning tactics in an uncoordinated PUG lead to failure much more often than success, because everyone isn't on the same page (Note: Not because PUG's are stupid, or whatever else, but simply because mind-reading isn't on most player's skillset)

Even in Conquest, your best generic strategy for success is simple:
Stay together (but, as Void noted, not clumped into a big clumsy mess!) and advance roughly up the middle.

Outcome?

1) Enemy team stays together - you have a nice fight which largely decides the match.

2) Enemy team splits up - you crush a portion of the enemy team quickly, then can react from a position of strength. Even in conquest, this means you have 2 points controlled, a significant numerical advantage, and know where the enemy team is. You can now split off a couple lights to take other points while maintaining a numerical advantage to crush the opposing team.

In either case, you win unless your team makes a critical mistake (or just plays really badly) - the enemy team has to act correctly just to enter into an even contest, any other action has them entering the match at a severe disadvantage.

This applies to every game mode, on every map, though the ideal advancement route differs on some maps, the concept is the same.


I understand what you're saying, and conceptually where you're going with autonomous lances, but the reality is that you need to assume all the players in your lance are willing to work together and autonomously, are ABLE to do so (relatively similar movement speeds/mech builds), and even know what you're expecting of them. You can't assume any of those three things are the case.

[Void Angel]

SethAbercromby, on 26 April 2014 - 05:51 AM, said:

Being able to work autonomously does not necessarily mean to separate from the team. It means that the lance is capable of attaching and detaching from the team to keep the 'Mech composition low, but effective. You also assume that any lance isn't allowed to interact with the others. That light hunter to guard the catapults sure, that would be important, unless those catapults also stick with their lance as well, instead of isolating themselves. Regardless of how the lance is composed, they will always have a strong deterrent of larger 'Mech(s) that can provide the necessary cover fire, a spottrer that makes sure it hits all targets, or maybe even a light hunter of their own. And a full lance of LRM boats that knows squat about min range will be able to tear any attacker apart (when someone breaches your ranks, just move apart far enough than when they enter the min range of one, they will leave it of another). Assuming that everyone is stupid only continues the cycle of PUG mistrust. Also, a full lance of scouts will often chose to act as a wolf pack to kill isolated targets. that light hunter will prove effective when acting as a vanguard.

Second, your assumption that it will be a 12 v 8 is wrong on a basic level. Most tactics require at least small parts of a group to split from the rest. If only 2 split, it's a 10v8, right but those 2 will get annihilated by the 4, which will allow to start a flanking maneuver, splitting the main force and allowing the 8 to push. If 6 split up, that lance might get some trouble but suddenly its a 6v8 on the other side. You see how your comparisons don't really reflect how a match progresses (unless it's skirmish)?

Actually, what you said was:

SethAbercromby, on 25 April 2014 - 02:49 PM, said:

When 3 individual lances can operate autonomously, they can act much more effectively and when the time comes to link forces, they will already know [emphasis added] how each player responds to pressure and how to communicate most effectively within their lance and team.

This indicates that those lances are fighting and learning about each other before ever joining up with the rest of the team. You're still rolling the dice by insisting that randomized formations somehow learn to cooperate with each other via a few minutes of combat - likely against impossible odds. Saying, "well, what if your light hunter happened to be in the right place to fight a light wolf-pack?" doesn't exempt you from my criticism that randomized groups A: are still likely to be outnumbered by anyone they meet who is actually grouping up like they should be, and B: will not be magically able to "learn how each player responds to pressure," within that timeframe, anyway. Nor will randomly shuffling your lance composition produce reliably better teams than actually using your mind organize yourself properly. My objections stand. Insisting on staying within a randomly assigned lance team instead of organizing yourselves logically is counterproductive - the dubious benefit of following around the light-colored arrows is far outweighed by a group's superior weight of fire.

You also said, this:

SethAbercromby, on 25 April 2014 - 05:07 PM, said:

3 well-coordinated lances that can spread the enemy forces and engage multiple objectives at once can beat a clustered mess any day. Communication is, of course, vital for success with this method, but is not impossible in PUGs. A lot of players just want someone else to call the initiative and call the shots and/or is open to communication. [again, emphasis added]

This last is just flat-out wrong. The level of communication you're asking for is impossible in a PuG as a matter of practicality. You might get a group, once in a blue moon, which is both willing and able to type and cooperate with each other to this extent, but they is the exception that proves the rule. You can't make a rule of thumb based on exceptions.

What you're expecting here is for random players to play and communicate as though they were premades. It makes a nice dream, but unfortunately it won't happen. The complexity of encouraging people to try and act as autonomous lance combat teams will cause failures and bad tactics - such as lances trying to operate as autonomous combat teams - and I cannot endorse it.

Edited by Void Angel, 26 April 2014 - 03:32 PM.

[plodder]

I think you are reading too much into it, dissecting to much.

Bar fight coming up, I'm with the big guy.
As an Atlas pilot myself, I find most the enemy focusing on me in a battle if I am visible. Those around me can shoot those that are wearing "I must takedown the Atlas" blinders. Noobs, vets. In comms, out of comms. I love mid to short range brawling, and when 5 to 8 friendly mechs are within 300 meters of me.
Also, Atlas, follow your heavies!

[Void Angel]

You have to apply a certain amount of study to any game if you really want to get good returns out of it - this one more than most. If you don't understand how things work together, you can be more easily captured by bad reasoning or common-wisdom errors, and end up saying stupid things, like "Mana Tide Saves Raids." But I digress.

My purpose here is to give people enough to think about that they start operating on sounder principles, not necessarily following rote responses that may become outdaded, or simply be wrong.

[Vargralor]

Love the guide and the tips. Great stuff. Just one comment I would like to make on the If your not shooting you don't matter point. There will come plenty of times where you will drop in a close range brawler such as Yen-Lo-Wang and your entire team is long range sniping in Alpine Peaks or Canyon Network. Do not charge off alone to get in combat or stand on a mountain peak and get shot at repeatedly far outside of your own maximum range. Check around and keep an eye out for flankers coming at your team from an unexpected direction and sing out if you see anything. Bide your time until the inevitable close range brawl and then power on forward into the combat to do your thing. Whilst some people may see value in providing the enemy team with an additional target at range to spread the damage around your team, it will mean you are more likely to drop when you are in range for your weapons.

[Void Angel]

Which is part of what Rule Five is for. =)

It's also why I tell people to stick together - and why "If you're not shooting" specifically mentions the futility of trying to use the AC/20 as a long-range weapon.

[Abivard]

Void Angel, on 27 April 2014 - 08:38 PM, said:

Which is part of what Rule Five is for. =)

It's also why I tell people to stick together - and why "If you're not shooting" specifically mentions the futility of trying to use the AC/20 as a long-range weapon.

Just about the short range weapons and not shooting on big maps....

relay info! if you are with the group but not in range, you can type and relay things for the rest of the team, if you are in a premade, relay what your premade is doing or who they are focusing on. In any case, always be doing something useful!

[Void Angel]

Good point: added a few lines under "Be Their Eyes."

[Vargralor]

Good points.

[Munin Ravensong]

If your atlas is fracking, doesn't it need a burn off tube on top so the gas pressures don't become explosive when mixed with enemy fire?

[plodder]

Munin Ravensong, on 30 April 2014 - 06:07 PM, said:

If your atlas is fracking, doesn't it need a burn off tube on top so the gas pressures don't become explosive when mixed with enemy fire?

I think yee have been yer cabin with yer black cat too long and may have started cackling?

[Void Angel]

Munin Ravensong, on 30 April 2014 - 06:07 PM, said:

If your atlas is fracking, doesn't it need a burn off tube on top so the gas pressures don't become explosive when mixed with enemy fire?

It's often mistaken for an anti-missile system. =)

[East Indy]

I'm confident 3/3/3/3 is going to ease the Atlas' identity crisis a bit.

Half the time, pushing forward, you're like, "Oh, there's a Victor. And another Victor. And a Battlemaster. Two D-DCs. A 3E. Four Jagers." You realize you're not special, except that you're a broader target than most assaults. Then your 'Mech's right half disappears. Then you run a heavy next match and do two and a half times the damage.

When you — and your once-huddled teammates — need only worry about three assaults and three heavies, 100 ponderous tons will matter a lot more.

[Void Angel]

The Rule of 3s should help a few things, though I also expect it to lead to some metagaming on 'mech selection, if certain 'mechs are perceived to be The Best, and other 'mechs aren't chosen. It'll definitely reduce the amount of firepower available on the battlefield, which will slow down time to kill and make brawlers in general more viable.

It won't limit the structural problems with the way the game trains people to hide and snipe, but it should lessen the size of the stick that it's beating players with (see also: Timidity is no a Tactic.)

Edited by Void Angel, 09 May 2014 - 04:47 PM.

[GunnyKintaro 01]

Well put!

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

I got 2 cents to add, been trying to figure out a way to make it into a whole topic, but :effort: and this is actually a good place to put it.

This especially pertains to those 4 mans that try to act autonomously from the rest of the team.

"If your teammates are dying, and you're not shooting the enemy, you have ****** you team."


What do I mean by this? I see it in about one of six matches where one 'hot ****" 4man thinks they can be all tacticool and go for a bold flank. Or going to cap the base. Or spreading to the winds to cap resource nodes. And what happens is the fight winds up being 10-12 on 7-8 and it cascades from there. And suddenly that 4man is screaming at the rest of the team for dying.

And ultimately it's that 4mans fault. 100% their fault. Their teammates were dying and they didn't help. Vets will recognize the term 'Blue Falcon.' And that's what those 4 mans are. They failed their team by not being a position to support the other two lances.


This is a two way street though. If you have a well coordinated 4man on your side making an aggressive push to seize initiative or exploit a weakness in the enemy, and the rest of the team is refusing to grow a pair and push the initiative with their 4man then that 4man just had their ass flapping in the wind.

[Void Angel]

Oh, I know; nothing ticks off an Assault pilot who's getting shot than seeing his teammates all watching interestedly from behind their favorite camping rock. If the enemy is shooting at ME, they can't shoot at you! Damage is like water... And 4-mans are not the fury. I've actually already put both of these points into this thread - it's under the Appendix, spoilered for space concerns. =)