Jump to content

Timidity Is Not A Tactic

Guide Balance Tactics

783 replies to this topic

#481 K0M3D14N

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 212 posts

Posted 16 September 2014 - 03:26 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 16 September 2014 - 03:17 PM, said:

Not everyone is born with a soul, Komedian - some people come from test tubes instead. =P


I guess they can't help that they're disgusting, soulless monsters.

#482 1453 R

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 5,572 posts

Posted 16 September 2014 - 04:55 PM

Hey - I'm a disgusting soulless monster that wins games. Those squishy misty things just get in the way anyways.

#483 White Bear 84

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,857 posts

Posted 16 September 2014 - 05:25 PM

View PostDamon Howe, on 19 October 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

Every now and then you'll have someone in the team chat type "PUSH". Usually, this is not without merit. Usually, it comes from a player or players who either A) know what they're doing or :( have some knowledge about the overall battle that gives them at least some reasoning to call for a combined forward effort to break the enemy's back.

Now, when the call goes out, PUGs may push. Some may even push hard. But when they start coming under fire, they suddenly stop whatever they're doing and start looking for cover and backing up. Typically they die about five seconds later, but not before they've held up their own team long enough to get into position to roflstomp whatever 'push' you were hoping to make. THIS is what really "grinds my gears" when it comes to PUG timidity. The PUSH is supposed to break the back of the enemy force by overwhelming firepower. Naturally, the guys upfront are GOING to take the worst of it. Likely, they will also die first. But any successful pushes will have these results before the enemy gets completely overwhelmed and destroyed. Its the stop, the 'pause' the hesitation that kills not only the push but your entire friendly team.

And PUGs LOVE to hesitate.

They fear dieing quickly, and thus seal their own death. Same for the pugs who hestiate behind the first wave to die, and then seeing they're down 4 mechs after a minute decide to do their own charge to break the line...but by then its too late and they only offer their juicy mech parts to the mech gods as sacrifice for their efforts. So please, pugs, no matter how stupid it may seem, when the charge order is given, freakin' CHARGE balls-to-the-wall until you find yourself on the other side or a corpse, but at least you'll be a corpse that made the enemy turn tail and run!


You sir have my vote.

I love it when you have a team that's something like 8-4 and you call for a combined charge to overwhelm the remaining mechs, but everyone plays peekaboo, giving away free shot untill all of a sudden the team has lost 8-12. ggclose.

Timidity and attempting to maintain a high KDR is the fastest way to defeat. Note though that timidity should not be confused with patience (i.e. waiting for the enemy to make their move e.g. for ambush or counter manouevre). If you are going to push, go the full 100 yards! Especially if your team has a lance that has managed to flank and catch the enemies attention - when they have their backs to the majority of the team that is prime time for taking out mechs. Cannot believe how many times have seen this opportunity literally thrown away, ending up with the lance 1st getting stomped then the remaining team getting stomped after that.

I also think some people need to get over being given orders. Often it is from someone who knows what they are doing or where the enemy are coming from. Being a little **** about it is not contributing to teamplay..

WB

#484 Seeker Kirov

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 90 posts

Posted 16 September 2014 - 05:57 PM

The real strange thing about people who focus on KDR in MW:O is that KDR is a very poor indicator of your skills. Having a high KDR really means two things - you don't die much and/or you are good at getting the last shot on an enemy. Because it takes a decent amount of clicking to bring down a 'Mech, it is almost always a group effort. This is also why assist counts are consistently high. I'm not saying it's a useless metric, just that you can't really view it in this game as you would in BF or something.

#485 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 7,022 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 16 September 2014 - 06:37 PM

Well, it's not really strange - it's an easy stat to focus on because it's so simple, and such a common stat in other games. You're right, however; it's a poor metric by itself. The problem is that "I average X experience per match" is a much more nebulous metric- and that we are focused on fighting the enemy team, which encourages a focus on damage and kills.

View PostWhite Bear 84, on 16 September 2014 - 05:25 PM, said:

I also think some people need to get over being given orders. Often it is from someone who knows what they are doing or where the enemy are coming from. Being a little **** about it is not contributing to teamplay.

That's post-modernism for you - but you're absolutely right. Even if the orders are stupid, either support the team anyway or ignore them - but in either case shut up. Unless you think you might be able to offer, quickly and without rudeness, a better way, you'll just annoy your team and make them play stupider.. er. It's actually a proven fact that ticking people off impairs their judgement; so whatever you do, don't get into fights in chat.

#486 MadLibrarian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 334 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationYou Essay

Posted 16 September 2014 - 07:10 PM

Just going to throw another tip in the jar. Don't wait for your team to do all the stuff you're going to whine about later. Talk early, often, and as specifically as possible so you don't have to whine after you die.

Whining and insulting people doesn't inform them for next time, it just teaches them to whine, insult, and blame their team too. Teach people tips nicely, and tell the whiners to play in the group queue.

Honestly though, the bigger problem is that voice comms aren't built in.

#487 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 7,022 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 16 September 2014 - 07:56 PM

Maybe; but consider - whining and insulting people is so much easier on voice comms, too.

However, you're quite right; it's better to fix the problem, not the blame - no matter how tempting it may be, particularly when you told people what to do and what would happen if they didn't, and it all still happened anyway.

#488 Colonel Jaime Wolf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Death Star
  • Death Star
  • 127 posts
  • LocationPhilippines

Posted 16 September 2014 - 10:03 PM

I know this is old but I agree with the statement that an Atlas should not be in a fire support role with LRMs. I tried it with the DDC + ECM thinking it would be nice to have an indirect fire combo with that stealth gizmo but I had more success with triple SRM6 and getting in the enemy's face with a good team backing me up.

I used to run an Atlas RS with 4x medium pulse lasers, the command console, BAP, and 2x LRM15 + artemis. Well. it sucks. This is my crummiest atlas build and I'll revise it for more aggressive play.

#489 Obscillesk

    Rookie

  • Sergeant
  • 9 posts

Posted 16 September 2014 - 10:15 PM

This is a solid post, and I'd like to add the only way for the habits outlined to go away is for those who are aware of the problems to communicate. And that bit about ALWAYS supporting your team, thats damned important. I've seen tactics I knew were going to fail end up succeeding, because the enemy team was scattered all over the map rather than responding properly to a poorly thought out assault. I've wisely shut my damn mouth and just gone with what seems to be the plan, rather than look like one of those dumbasses who predicts the outcome of the match when its 1-0 or 1-1. The more dissenting voices to a plan, the more confusion happens once someone notices deviations on their minimap.

#490 White Bear 84

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,857 posts

Posted 16 September 2014 - 10:22 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 16 September 2014 - 06:37 PM, said:

That's post-modernism for you - but you're absolutely right. Even if the orders are stupid, either support the team anyway or ignore them - but in either case shut up. Unless you think you might be able to offer, quickly and without rudeness, a better way, you'll just annoy your team and make them play stupider.. er. It's actually a proven fact that ticking people off impairs their judgement; so whatever you do, don't get into fights in chat.


I remember one game where I was in a firestarter, perched on the corner of the tunnel area in forest and was giving commands to the team - they actually listened and we won; I had seismic so knew where all their mechs were & thankfully no one was stupid to tunnel rush or doing anything else stupid. Got some good thanks at the end too & a couple of friend requests.. ..now that is good form.

None of this STFU noob/NO!/I dont have to listen to you *because my mom brings me cookies* bs..

#491 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 7,022 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 21 September 2014 - 10:38 PM

It's always nice when that happens - but even when you have trolls, snapping back at them isn't helpful to you. As tempting as the possibility is. Best thing I've found is to try and encourage people to stay together, focus fire, and keep moving, with perhaps additional advice for the more specialized maps. If people listen, great! But if they're determined to ignore you, browbeating them will simply make their reasoning ability even poorer. ;)

#492 Senator Blutarsky

    Rookie

  • 8 posts

Posted 27 September 2014 - 09:26 PM

Communication is obv the key but in the pug games people just don't say much. You might get a comment or two at the beginning but then it's "d4 lots" at best. Perhaps someone should be forced to take company command? Xp for communication? MWO is a reasonably slow paced game there really isn't much of an excuse for not taking a couple of seconds to write something out. And yet even the experienced players in pug games rarely do.

Their are tons of LRM and gauss/pc sniping builds in the game at the moment so probably too many teammates trying to hang back and offer fire support for what would be tactically optimal. To be honest though another culprit for timidity has to be the gospel that the team needs to stick together. The murderball is not a good tactic ! Blocked lines of site and often single file when you start to push. Also horribly easy to flank when the guys up front are immobile and lined up trying to snipe downrange.



#493 Kodyn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Pest
  • The Pest
  • 1,444 posts
  • LocationNY, USA

Posted 28 September 2014 - 03:19 AM

Sometimes communication just doesn't matter, unfortunately. I sometimes end up playing late night/early morning hours, eastern time, and I seem to get a lot of people who are just either too tired to bother, or don't speak any english, so they just ignore everything, and do the exact opposite. It's extremely rare to find a match in which a team actually listens to the person trying to lead, whether they're being nice or not, I just enjoy it when it happens, and look forward to company drop nights within my unit for actual teamwork and comms.

Of course my elo is likely rather low, so the pool I have to choose from as far as teammates is more than likely newer players, or lazy players who refuse to get better...so perhaps I just need to take it up a few notches myself and try to get into a higher elo bracket.

#494 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 7,022 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 28 September 2014 - 09:15 AM

A lot of the communication issues are caused by laziness, or just post-modern narcissism. Players dropping solo often just don't care about the team enough to even warn it that they just got murdered by a flanking force of Dire Wolves - even though doing so would dramatically reduce the chances of a loss and help ensure they get more c-bills from the match, even if they're just disconnecting to drop again.

View PostBlutarksy, on 27 September 2014 - 09:26 PM, said:

Their are tons of LRM and gauss/pc sniping builds in the game at the moment so probably too many teammates trying to hang back and offer fire support for what would be tactically optimal. To be honest though another culprit for timidity has to be the gospel that the team needs to stick together. The murderball is not a good tactic ! Blocked lines of site and often single file when you start to push. Also horribly easy to flank when the guys up front are immobile and lined up trying to snipe downrange.

Now, I've had this conversation a few times now, so hear me out. You're absolutely right that staring downrange with no one watching the flanks, or trundling into the enemy team single file leads to Bad Things and Shame. But those are bad uses of grouping, not an indication that grouping is a bad tactic. Unfortunately, grouping works better than splitting up, on balance, because of the cumulative effects of focus fire.

If you split up - say, to flank around a large bit of terrain - the enemy gains local fire superiority against your elements in contact. This makes them more likely to damage your teammates, or push into you before your flanking element is in position. If they have an ECM scout somewhere doing his job (a rarity, I know) they can identify the flanking attempt and simply roll over whichever element they choose. Of course that doesn't always happen - you can have great results with flanking - but without voice communications it happens enough that people choose to group up for a reason. It's not a random tactic that all "the PuGs" decided on because they were bad. =)

All that being said, I totally agree that many of the tactics people use while grouping are... imperfect. Just because it's better not to split up, you don't have to all hug the D-DC, or huddle behind the same rock. The only thing you need to do is be close enough to each other to offer and receive supporting fires. There's a right way and a wrong way to do everything.

But then, that's Another Thread. B)

#495 Senator Blutarsky

    Rookie

  • 8 posts

Posted 28 September 2014 - 01:55 PM

There is some good stuff in that thread too. Perhaps assaults should default to being lance commanders?

As a new player I will say that there is plenty to read about on map strategy and build design but really only these 2 threads in the forum that deal with tactics. A shame considering that small unit tactics are probably the most useful as far as how to win a pug match. Strategy is mostly useless as pug maps and teammates are random. Mech choice and loadout is almost useless as mech class composition is fixed within the team and your loadout is locked in. All the time you spent tweaking and perfecting your mech is mirrored on the opposing team so that's a wash too. I don't buy the kinda lazy consensus that it isn't worth the trouble given that there are language/willingness/disconnect barriers to effective tactics. In theory they affect both teams equally.

MWO is tactically a simplified version of real combat because you know exactly how strong the enemy is and where they are as they spawn across from you. As far as oversimplified tactics go the worst thing that can happen to you is that you get surrounded, taking fire from all sides. Close second is you get flanked and are now taking fire from two sides. Initial contact in pug matches is almost always ranged indirect fire. You're both behind cover almost by definition or else you would have fired on each other earlier so its usually ineffective fire. Fire and maneuver doctrine is to hold (hopefully) suppressing fire at the initial skirmish line while part of your team moves to try and flank. In most cases it's do it to them before they do it to you. If you're in a tight group initially this is difficult to organize but if your lance's are advancing with some modest horizontal spacing it will happen naturally. As far as small unit tactics the default lance construction is not too far off the mark as you've got a solid mix of capabilities. A tight group just seems to invite getting surrounded. Line of sight with the lance next to you would be optimal but is admittedly hard on some of the maps. Being spread out is bad only if it is to the extent that you can't support one another quickly, otherwise it is pretty much what you're supposed to do.

Anyway I wonder if you could issue some quick team messages at the outset that would give you better odds than simply saying, "stick together" "rally D4"

Perhaps something like: "stick with you lance", "heavy & medium should flank the assault"
Seriously I wonder if just forming a long horizontal line of mechs would be a step up tactically for most pug matches.

#496 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 7,022 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 28 September 2014 - 03:30 PM

Well, a quick skim over the first few pages of both my threads will tell you how divisive tactical discussions can be - people assume that their tactics are the best, so they either assume that you agree, or argue vehemently over minutae.

Similarly, there's a disconnect over what terms mean, particularly when a specific meaning of a general term is beneficial to the person making an argument. I've had people insist that "staying together"always has to mean, "clumping together under a single ECM umbrella so that no one has room to move or maneuver. That... was not what the very general "stay together" was meant to say, but my opponent tried to insist on it, in order to catch me out in a "contradiction" of his own devising.

The problem with adopting standard flanking tactics for cav and infantry in MWO PuG matches is that they require a degree of team cohesion, unit composition, and coordination that's unrealistic to expect in a PuG environment. If your elements separate beyond close-set mutually supportive positions, you end up with a window where a push by the enemy against either element can result in that element's defeat in detail. A well-coordinated team with good tactics and cohesion can see it coming and adapt, but PuGs are not a well-coordinated team with good cohesion; they've all been burned by their teammates too many times.

The communication problem also cannot be overstated; given that it's impossible to rapidly communicate complex information to the team, you need a low level of dispersion as a tactical control measure. The more separation you have between your elements, the lesser your control over them; lack of communication also lessens tactical control - and that's even before the disruptive effects of discipline (or rather, its lack) come into play. It would be nice to be able to advocate a more robust doctrine of maneuver tactics, but unfortunately the inability of PuGs to drop together in subsequent matches limits my ability to informally train people to recognize good tactics on the field.

When I start out, I usually just say, "Stay together, focus fire, and keep moving," unless the map is Terra Therma - then it's, "Stay away from the giant bowl of heat and failure; set up a kill zone or rotate around the outside." But I digress; my point is that anything more complicated than that will start to shut down peoples' brains for various reasons - or even encourage The Stupid to argue.

#497 IraqiWalker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 9,682 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 28 September 2014 - 05:05 PM

View PostBlutarksy, on 28 September 2014 - 01:55 PM, said:

There is some good stuff in that thread too. Perhaps assaults should default to being lance commanders?


Lights would be better suited for it honestly. They're the ones that usually have the most intel available to them, plus the luxury of hiding under ECM/behind cover, and analyze the field for better orders. When I ran 12 man drops for my unit, I usually commanded from a COM-2D.

#498 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 7,022 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 28 September 2014 - 09:02 PM

View PostBlutarksy, on 28 September 2014 - 01:55 PM, said:

There is some good stuff in that thread too.

Aw, thanks!

Setting up anyone to command by default wouldn't be a good idea, though. It would trivialize the role and very likely encourage players to ignore it more than they already do.

Edited by Void Angel, 28 September 2014 - 09:03 PM.


#499 The Driver

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 43 posts

Posted 30 September 2014 - 02:02 AM

excellent post. I totally agree, unfortunatly, I think its impossible to convince players mid pug of their shortcomings so I hope many people have read and learn from this.

I abhor timidness in all its forms. thats why I play mainly lights.



I even watch back videos like this, kick myself and think to "Why didnt i shoot the Dragon Slayer as my team's LRMs hit?" (to mask my presence but up the damage on him)

#500 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 7,022 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 30 September 2014 - 08:17 AM

You're absolutely right that remonstrating with people in-match won't really help - that's why I made this thread, along with Follow the Fracking Atlas, in my signature. If I can reach enough people, I can effect some change in some Elo ranges, at least. That's really all I can hope for, but it's worth the effort of trying.





7 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users