783 replies to this topic

[orsonic]

Q: Whats the easiest way to make an assault mech move in reverse ?

A: shoot it



I agree about the timidity ... focused aggression is a key element in victory , and the close in brawl situations are such a blast , literally .

No more cowering in the valleys ! Take it to them and over the top , to victory !!!

[Wrathful-Khan]

So sick of seeing 6-7 guys in heavies and assaults just huddling in some corner of the map literally doing nothing while people die.

Also sick of when i'm in my cicada or xl-jager and the brawler mech with me decides hes not moving until I take point and check the ridge/alley/corner. Must I always do the dirty work? I'm happy to do my share, but must it ALWAYS be me in my little squishy mech?

Edited by Indiandream, 31 January 2014 - 05:43 AM.

[Vidarok]

Perhaps it would be best if you let people play the game the way they want.

[1453 R]

Pardon me, Vidonik.

This is the Guides and Strategies section of the forums. it's a place specifically intended for people to post ways in which their fellows may improve their games. "Play the way you want" is not the way this section works; it is intended for players who wish to play better.

perhaps it would be truly best were we to make every possible effort to convince people that cowering behind a rock getting lurmed and dakka'd at until such time as the enemy has a comfortable lead with which to charge in is not, in fact, a winning strategy, hm?

[Nikkoru]

I have a different take on this than the OP.

Humans are very simple creatures at their core. They follow rewards, and they avoid penalties. This is sometimes called the stick and carrot.

In game design, player's behavior can be easily predicted by the way the game structures its sticks and carrots. If a game rewards a certain kind of behavior, it will become more common. If you penalize other behaviors, they will become less common. There will always be a few rogue individuals who will do whatever they please regardless of rewards and penalties, but by and large most gamers will follow the carrots and avoids the sticks the game lays out.

So, onto my point:
Players behave timidly because that is what the game rewards. The structure of the game's reward system is to blame, not the players themselves. Currently the game penalizes anyone who is the tip of the spear, so no one wants to be the tip of the spear. If the game rewarded agressive behavior more, then we would see more of it.

It's as simple as that. Rather than wasting time trying to blame and shame players into changing their behavior, I think a far more productive approach would be to come up with ideas about how the kind of behavior you want to see can be encouraged by alterations to the game design.

If you want to change the way people act, chance the placement of the sticks and carrots.

Edited by Nikkoru, 31 January 2014 - 08:58 AM.

[Wrathful-Khan]

Victory is the carrot. Losing is the stick. At least for me. I'll do what it takes to win, even if that means being the guy making the risky run up the flank, or the guy cresting the hill to lay a base of fire.

You say the game rewards timidity.

I say the game rewards fast reading of the play, good positioning, movement and initiative.

In addition: playing as the "tip of the spear" as you put it can sometimes net 4 or even more kills - sounds like a tasty carrot to me.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Edited by Indiandream, 31 January 2014 - 09:26 AM.

[Nikkoru]

Indiandream, on 31 January 2014 - 09:11 AM, said:

Victory is the carrot. Losing is the stick. At least for me. I'll do what it takes to win, even if that means being the guy making the risky run up the flank, or the guy cresting the hill to lay a base of fire.

You say the game rewards timidity.

I say the game rewards fast reading of the play, good positioning, movement and initiative.

That's the thing, though. Being the tip of the spear and leading a charge early on may eventually lead your team to victory, but it also means that you'll probably be the first one to die, which means either you sit around for eight minutes just to see if your team actually won, or you leave the game and never know. Those are pretty big sticks.

And that is just from a simple win/loss perspective. It gets worse when you consider resources. When you die early you make far less coin and xp. As far as the game design goes, win/loss is irrelivant, it's the amount of damage/spotting/capping you do that counts. Sure, your noble sacrifice early on may lead to a victory, but the game doesn't reward you for that behavior, it rewards the guys sniping from the back while other people take the damage, so that is what people gravitate towards.

So, because the game design penalizes being the first to die, people are more reluctant to do it. If, for example, the xp and c-bill rewards were based very heavily on win/loss, and if players weren't forced to stick around after being killed to recieve their full xp and c-bills, then you'd see a lot more people willing to get stuck in.

Like I said, game design drives behavior.

Edited by Nikkoru, 31 January 2014 - 09:32 AM.

[Wrathful-Khan]

Actually I'm often the last guy alive and with the highest damage. It's the guy who was hiding and oblivious to the situation around him that died first.

Scratch that - if everyone chips in and does their bit theres no need for anyone to be last guy alive or even the first to die.

Edited by Indiandream, 31 January 2014 - 09:40 AM.

[Nikkoru]

Indiandream, on 31 January 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

Actually I'm often the last guy alive and with the highest damage. It's the guy who was hiding and oblivious to the situation around him that died first.

Well, then, I would describe your situation as being atypical. For most players, they learn very quickly that the second you stick your nose out too far, you get crushed, so they learn to play extremely cautiously, because that is what the game rewards, that is what the game teaches.

[Wrathful-Khan]

Oh I understand caution. Prudence is my best friend. - Of course its a bad idea to run solo into an entrenched group of enemies.

But my spider senses also tell me that it's not cautious to stay in one place and allow ourselves to be out-maneuvered.

Better to force the enemy into a corner - That's prudence.

Edited by Indiandream, 31 January 2014 - 09:49 AM.

[DAYLEET]

All this wouldnt be so bad if it was like any other game where you can chose the server you want and play again the day after if you like the guys or avoid it. At least learn the guys that play on it, ok im with him and him so i can do this and that. We basicaly have no confidence in anyone backing you or knowing what to do when the time comes. Having 3 guys with you as you start taking damage is as good as having noone most of the times, they all run away without even knowing what we are facing.

Ofcourse you have the matter that money earning is the backbone of this game, that a win pays the same as a loss or a draw, that assist(just hitting someone once) pays so it push people to splash their damage rather than focus with 11 where getting a kill is almost the luck of the draw (we have damage rewarding cbills, remove assist completly, not the stat, the cbill earning).

Then it's a game realy hard on newbies because it's a lot more about knowledge than dexterity/reflex or what the gaming community call skills. The game is not viceral so you are less inclined to try hard, i can go right to bed after a game of mwo and i could never do that after a game of another fps.

So Much have to be learned, known realy fast as you lock into someone. We all come from other FPS i believe and we realy should come from RTS, you never focus the biggest ************* on the battlefield when he has a swarm with him. In other fps, if you're good, you can wreack 12 guys all by yourself if you play it right, 2 guys can win a game all by themselves. In mwo you only have one life, you need everyone to do his part even if that just mean absorbing all the damage while everyone move forward with him, sure you then get "i carried you all with my 900damage!!!1!" but it just shows his ignorance.

[Wrathful-Khan]

DAYLEET, on 31 January 2014 - 10:50 AM, said:

d we realy should come from RTS,

Totally agree with that. I've played a lot of Company of Heroes and Total War - These kinds of games teach you to probe the enemies line and defenses to find and exploit weak spots.

Edited by Indiandream, 31 January 2014 - 11:09 AM.

[1453 R]

DAYLEET, on 31 January 2014 - 10:50 AM, said:

...
Then it's a game realy hard on newbies because it's a lot more about knowledge than dexterity/reflex or what the gaming community call skills. The game is not viceral so you are less inclined to try hard, i can go right to bed after a game of mwo and i could never do that after a game of another fps.

...

...ERMAHGERD

You mean there might actually be video games out there which reward intelligence, forethought, and the ability to rapidly make and follow through on proper decisions in response to battlefield information more than blind-{Dezgra} meth-headed frag-obsessed twitchmonkeys with the rational-thinking ability of a half-rotted rutabaga? SAY IT AIN'T SO, DAYLEET! WE CAN'T POSSIBLY LET THE CALL OF DUTY FOLKS DOWN, CAN WE?!

Put a bit less sarcastically: I hold the entirely opposite opinion. A match of MechWarrior Online is much more deeply involving and rewarding then yet another slog through a few rounds of Call of Derpy or its various and attendant clones. It's impossible for a player's oh-so-vaunted Lightning Twitch Headshot Skillz to cover for the fact that said player's I.Q. is measured in fractions rather than integers in this game. If you're a good shot, but you're dumb, then in regular FPS games you're still one of the best players out there. In MWO, you're dead.

Certainly this comes as a culture shock to regular FPS folks, to whom kills are everything, survival is nothing, and brains are not only optional but actively discouraged. This doesn't mean we should try and swing back towards the Call of Derpy end of the spectrum, this means we should educate our rookies as to how to try and win fights even without the ability to respawn and take advantage of your own suicide scouting.

Which, funnily enough, struck me as being a large part of the entire point of this thread.

[NRP]

I can't believe people are still debating this.

Anyone who PUGs solo often knows very well the high level of cowardice exhibited by most people. When I have to lead a charge in my Cicada 2A and kill a few mechs just to get the two wimpy Atlases hiding behind the hill on Alpine to follow me, you know something is wrong.

[Void Angel]

Vidarok, on 31 January 2014 - 06:58 AM, said:

Perhaps it would be best if you let people play the game the way they want.

Do you realize that your own statement contradicts the principle it is trying to apply, and thus cannot be a valid thought? Not to mention, as has been mentioned, that this is the guides section. Your post is non-constructive. If you have anything to add to the conversation, please do. Troll more, and I'll report you to moderation.

[Void Angel]

Nikkoru, on 31 January 2014 - 08:55 AM, said:

Players behave timidly because that is what the game rewards.
If you want to change the way people act, chance the placement of the sticks and carrots.

Nikkoru, on 31 January 2014 - 09:30 AM, said:

Being the tip of the spear and leading a charge early on may eventually lead your team to victory, but it also means that you'll probably be the first one to die, which means either you sit around for eight minutes just to see if your team actually won, or you leave the game and never know. Those are pretty big sticks.

And that is just from a simple win/loss perspective. It gets worse when you consider resources. When you die early you make far less coin and xp. As far as the game design goes, win/loss is irrelivant, it's the amount of damage/spotting/capping you do that counts. Sure, your noble sacrifice early on may lead to a victory, but the game doesn't reward you for that behavior, it rewards the guys sniping from the back while other people take the damage, so that is what people gravitate towards.

So, because the game design penalizes being the first to die, people are more reluctant to do it. If, for example, the xp and c-bill rewards were based very heavily on win/loss, and if players weren't forced to stick around after being killed to recieve their full xp and c-bills, then you'd see a lot more people willing to get stuck in.

Like I said, game design drives behavior.

You're partially correct, but I have to disagree with a couple of things.

First, this is the guides section; I've posted other places about what I think is wrong with the metagame and what needs to be improved to bring things to better balance. But this thread is about how to live in the world game balance gives us.

Second, don't get sucked into the brawler-sniper-hider sub-debate that's been spawned in this thread (notably by people jabbering about tactics and Sun Tzu - while understanding neither.) I'm not telling people that they have to mass up and charge - or not. I'm telling them that while I understand why they're hiding in the back, there really is a carrot waiting at the end of the path of courage. The problem isn't that there's a lack of reward for playing with intelligent aggression (even while sniping.) The problem is that the behaviors that would result in those rewards are being precluded by the set of emergent player tactics we all call "the metagame." The relevant aspects of the meta are the combination of poptarts and dakka.

Jump sniping remains effective (though with a higher skill cap,) and the nerfs to some of the related weapons produced a rise in dakka-mechs. Because both dakka and poptarts excel at killing 'mechs who cross open areas, new players are often punished simply for trying to fight. Because of this, then never learn that there's another, better way to play the game than "hide and hope" cowering tactics. If one guy charges foolishly; he dies, and this is good. But if only one or two guys charge at the right time, they can still die - because their team did the wrong thing. Again, don't get hung up on this example; the same principle applies to flanking, or even falling back to a better position ("get out of the caldera!") If the team had taken proper action (which isn't as complex as it sounds; they just have to act as a team, even if they think the team is wrong,) they'd all have been rewarded with kills, damage, and victory. The reward, in victories and KDR, is there - but punishment is precluding those behaviors that lead to the reward.

That's the point of this guide, as well as the other that's in my signature: to tell people that there is a carrot behind Poptart Hill - if they just cooperate to go get it.

Edited by Void Angel, 31 January 2014 - 12:51 PM.

[Ruhkil]

the thing that strikes me after reading a few other pages is this issue of cowardice is multifactorial. in previous mechwarrior games our radar was a bit more complete if that is the right word. I remember in MW4 I could cycle trhough the R key and see most of the enemy force at a given time on the battlefield and it was very difficult to sneak attack the enemy. secondly that siesmic sensor only works when you are still and costs more than most mechs running around. that plus no voice comms means that each person has extremely limited information and cannot quickly respond to say an enemy flank attack or a break in the line. hudding in a corner is not the response to any problem but its more diverse than just cowardice though.

[Void Angel]

Procrastination for the win! (archival post moved to later in the thread.)

Edited by Void Angel, 09 May 2014 - 07:22 AM.

[Vanguard319]

I have a story of a recent match that exemplifies what Void is trying to say. I was pugging in an assault on Crimson Strait, my team moved out only to find that the other team turtled inside their base. Their plan was to basically let their turrets deal and take most of the damage, and if they were short on manpower, it would have been a good strategy. I was in my RVN-3L, and was the only light on my team, as well as the only ECM-equipped mech on my team. Since I couldn't get a direct LoS without being shot to pieces, I instead used the cover from the buildings to get close enough to launch my UAV, while at the same time, providing ECM cover for the forward units on my team.

We gradually ground down their defenses and won with few losses, and there are three reasons why we won:

1. They almost completely surrendered initiative to our team, only one light mech went out to scout, and suicided to a single lance early in the fight, he probably reported what he ran into, but missed the eight remaining mechs under my ECM, so his team had little to no intelligence on what they were really facing.

2. They failed to kill me, as I stated, I was the only mech on my team with ECM and scouting modules, and I used them to full effect, keeping my teammates relatively safe from LRM locks, while pinpointing enemy locations for our LRM carriers with my UAV. They knew I was there, as I did receive a fair bit of damage, but they never made any attempt to corner and kill me, even though I was close to their front line. Doing so would have exposed my team, and their LRM turrets would have been more useful, which brings me to #3.

3. They just sat in their base and stuck with their original strategy, even after it was trumped by assets they did not consider in their plans. Once they realized that the effectiveness of their turrets was gimped by an ECM cloud, and that they were visible to us, they should have moved out of the base and started clearing our forward units. Instead they sat in the open area of their base and waited for their turrets to magically save them while we stayed fairly mobile, wore them down with LRM support and took potshots at targets of opportunity. The only thing that relying on the turrets did for them was delay their defeat by ten minutes or so.

Edited by Vanguard319, 17 March 2014 - 10:27 PM.

[PACoFist]

I just had match in Caustic Valley. The opposing team had an Awesome, a couple of Atlants and 4 (!) Stalkers, all of them crammed with LRMs. So it was pure LRM-hell.
What is the best way to deal with LRM-boats? - Get closer than 180 metres.
What did my team do? - Sniping and rock-hugging until the missiles had done their work.

And this happens almost every single game.
The LRM-buff would not be half that bad, if people were not so shy to get in close combat. Most people seem to be unable to adapt their tactic to a situation. All they do is sniping. The only time they get more aggressive is when they are leading like 8-4.