777 replies to this topic

[Phoo Phighter]

A caution against being too dogmatic regarding what other people should be doing. This is a game, and they should be having fun. Especially in a PUG.

That being said...I agree that some players put the "ugg" in PUG. Try and talk to them, suggest things etc. but don't be a tool. (read Void Angels post: http://mwomercs.com/...fracking-atlas/ )

Cheers,

~Foo Fighter~

Edited by Phoo Phighter, 21 January 2013 - 09:37 AM.

[Strumtruppen]

i love debates and i agree with void angel too many times have i told my team-mates "ok lets go over on 3" and only me and 1 other brave mechwarrior actually follows through with the plan. many times have lights gone off into corners and shut down to hide themselves from enemy's when their presence might have won the fight. fear can cause stupidity and i find it really annoying where team mates will get themselves killed and therefore screw us over in order to get 1 kill.

Edited by Strumtruppen, 21 January 2013 - 01:28 PM.

[Abivard]

I Changed my D-DC LRM boat the second stalkers came into game, It is unfair to my team mates for me to take a mech that is in a sub-optimal build into a drop, unless everyone in the 8 man is ok with goofing off.

I do Recon and LRM builds often, and employ appropriate tactics for each role. There will always be a couple clear favorites for any role, and builds to avoid for certain roles. These choices can and do change as the game goes along, The Atlas LRM boat being a good example, after ECM and before the stalker an Atlas ddc lrm boat was viable and in good hands deadly. The stalker is introduced, Longer range TAG and people becoming use to ECM meant the DDC LRM is no longer best suited to the LRM role, the Stalker is.

Scouting and spotting are not the same. In fact lights are ill suited to the role of spotting in MWO, this is a role better filled by heavy/assault Mechs. An ECM Recon role is to scout, shield team from enemy scouts, harass. Not spotting for a LRM boat that is hidden behind a ridge firing indirect at near to max LRM range.

What once worked may not always work again.

You have to crest a ridge to see whats there, your stupid if you 'stay' sky-lighted on the ridge, but your more stupid if you stay blind and safe, recon is not a safe role.

You can always choose to do otherwise, you can take an all missile build or what ever you feel like, just don't be surprised you get pwnd, Also, please do not then post how your MG/flamer build should be just as Viable as any other build, the mechs don't have feelings, they won't get sad because you don't ever take them out to play anymore.

[Remarius]

Mmh, I partially agree with this post but it has some holes (yes possibly from trying to keep it simple for people!).

The number of times I've seen a light circle around the dropship and scout/tag.... with the rest of their team waaaay out of range to assist, or with the rest of their team having no LRM's, or with the rest of their team bafflingly not firing at targets you tag, or with the rest of the team hanging back..... and then dying solo as 6-8 other players could concentrate on them is painful. I can see why after experiencing that sort of "experience" light mech players may not be so keen to "scout that ridge".

I have to be honest and say I don't trust most other stalker/atlas pilots myself as a Flame large laser boat as the vast majority seem to way to hang back and survive rather than get in the other teams face. That means I have to take point... and I have a lot less armour and an xl engine. Its worse as with lasers I have to hold my fire on a target. Stop being cowards assaults and heavies! I paired up in two matches with the same Atlas pilot two days ago and we rampaged through the other side (city night and day) as everyone concentrated on the scary big mech which gave me time to strip the armour off their torsoes easily so the other pilot could nail them with his short range armament. Result: 5 kills between us in match 1 and 6 in match 2. Lovely experience and wish I'd jotted down the atlas pilots name.

PS: Is it really hard to target in an atlas as most pilots I watch seem to struggle to hit? (genuine question and not being sarcastic as never used one)

[Joseph Mallan]

Void Angel, on 18 January 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

Cowardice is not a tactic.

Fire Support is not cowardly. Anyone who thinks that way is a fool and destine to die in the rain of a 1,000 missiles. OR at the end of my Gauss and ER Large Laser.

Its a fine line between brave and stupid. It is stupid to fight an enemy at just one range when there is so much map to be killed on.

[MustrumRidcully]

Regarding the Sniper situation... What is the English term for the expression "Wirkung vor Deckung"?

Joseph Mallan, on 22 January 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:

Fire Support is not cowardly. Anyone who thinks that way is a fool and destine to die in the rain of a 1,000 missiles. OR at the end of my Gauss and ER Large Laser.

Its a fine line between brave and stupid. It is stupid to fight an enemy at just one range when there is so much map to be killed on.

The entire point is - hiding behind cover and being unable to fire is not sniping. It's cowardice. The only reason you are in that cover is because you fear getting shot, which is hindering you from doing your job - providing fire support.

If yo ustand behind the ridge and wait... and wait.. .and wait... You're not doing anything. If your team decides to go over the ridge and attack, and you still stay there and wait for something to come in sight instead of trying to move into a position where you can support your allies, you're acting cowardly.

You're not acting cowardly if the enemy is coming over the ridge and youtake a shot, move back into some cover until the weapon is ready again, go back out of cover, take another shot, and so on. But that's not the scenario Void Angel is referring to - it would be a perfectly fine tactic.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 22 January 2013 - 05:32 AM.

[Void Angel]

Void Angel said:

Cowardice is not a tactic

Joseph Mallan, on 22 January 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:

Fire Support is not cowardly. Anyone who thinks that way is a fool and destine to die in the rain of a 1,000 missiles. OR at the end of my Gauss and ER Large Laser.

Its a fine line between brave and stupid. It is stupid to fight an enemy at just one range when there is so much map to be killed on.

Quoting out of context is not a good way to demonstrate your knowledgeability of the topic, much less critique my opinion. I'm not down on fire support at all; I've done the job, and enjoy it. But it's a crappy Atlas build (which is the only way I've mentioned fire support at all.) Doesn't mean you can't put some LRMs on your Atlas for the initial engagement phase, if that works for you, but boating - I did not make up the example of three LRMs and literally two medium lasers... That's not effective. You'll see Catapult LRM boats with comparable firepower, because you're wasting the additional hardpoints that round out the Atlas into a real threat. You'll get outslugged at range by any other missile platform that's not a Hunchback, and any sniper or brawler setup will just stand in front of you and laugh while they core you out.

Edited by Void Angel, 22 January 2013 - 05:46 AM.

[StalaggtIKE]

Gremlich Johns, on 19 January 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

Until ECM implementation is adjusted (meaning, removal of the cloak over the friendly mainforce) mechs (specifically lights) with ECM only fill an ECM role, not a scout role.

Exactly. ECM lights are becoming nothing more, but escorts for the brawlers. They rarely scout anymore.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 22 January 2013 - 05:58 AM.

[Hauser]

Remarius, on 22 January 2013 - 04:00 AM, said:

PS: Is it really hard to target in an atlas as most pilots I watch seem to struggle to hit? (genuine question and not being sarcastic as never used one)

The Atlas has a fairly small elevation and azimuth. The arm reach is small and the cockpit view fairly confined. Combined with the slow speed it means that there are allot of situations in which you can not hit some one. Add in a little lag and you have to plan ahead with your aim, and aim where your opponent will be in 10 seconds. I suspect most people are trying to chase their targets. Another contributing factor is that people are afraid of the Atlas, it gets focused on allot. This means allot of shaking which also makes it harder to focus your aim.

And regarding the topic. There are no healers so even an Atlas can't wade into the fight and expect to stand. Unless I have people who I can trust to either back me up properly I won't crash into an enemy line. Once I am committed to that it's either do our die. So instead I try to keep my damage up on which ever target is convenient. This generally means waiting for some one else to pick a fight and backing them up.

[Broceratops]

I get your point OP but there is no point arguing over this until ratings are out. One of the things that make bad players bad is that they don't recognize they're bad. If they were capable of understanding why a LRM Atlas is a detriment to the team regardless of how they play it, then they wouldn't be playing it.

[Void Angel]

Eh, we all had to learn sometime - I remember when I was one of those stupid people on the Horde side who just wouldn't charge the bridge in Alterac Valley (if any of you are vanilla WoW players, you know what I mean.) I like this game; I get how team combat with vehicles works, and I love the flavor of the Battletech game universe - but not everyone understands tactical concepts as readily. I cheat; I have military training and overseas experience in armored vehicles - not everyone has that.

So I know there's gonna be some that just jabber out whatever silly objection comes into their head, arguing for the sake of arguing; or pushing back in a knee-jerk reaction simply because someone just told them they were wrong. I'll respond to them reasonably, and try to bring them around, but I'm not after them. If they're really just going to stamp their foot and scream "NO!" like a two-year-old who doesn't want to use the potty, I can't help them. I'm after the guys who really want to become better at the game and learn. So I explain how things fit together, and try to help people improve their understanding of how tactics fit together with the individual capabilities of their 'mech.

StalaggtIKE, on 22 January 2013 - 05:52 AM, said:

Exactly. ECM lights are becoming nothing more, but escorts for the brawlers. They rarely scout anymore.

They're doing it wrong, and I don't think they're doing it to escort the brawlers. Oh, some do; you see them all the time, but the reason they won't get out and scout is generally one of two reasons: either they're afraid of getting blown up, or they think of themselves as glass cannons who kill Assaults by virtue of their awesome lag shields maneuverability and skill. These two general motivations are often excacerbated by the erroneous belief that ECM is the god-king of combat, when in fact the way to defeat ECM when you don't have it is to stay together, use blocking terrain to close with the enemy - and have your light 'mechs scout.

Edited by Void Angel, 22 January 2013 - 04:20 PM.

[StalaggtIKE]

Void Angel, on 22 January 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

Eh, we all had to learn sometime - I remember when I was one of those stupid people on the Horde side who just wouldn't charge the bridge in Alterac Valley (if any of you are vanilla WoW players, you know what I mean.) I like this game; I get how team combat with vehicles works, and I love the flavor of the Battletech game universe - but not everyone understands tactical concepts as readily. I cheat; I have military training and overseas experience in armored vehicles - not everyone has that.

So I know there's gonna be some that just jabber out whatever silly objection comes into their head, arguing for the sake of arguing; or pushing back in a knee-jerk reaction simply because someone just told them they were wrong. I'll respond to them reasonably, and try to bring them around, but I'm not after them. If they're really just going to stamp their foot and scream "NO!" like a two-year-old who doesn't want to use the potty, I can't help them. I'm after the guys who really want to become better at the game and learn. So I explain how things fit together, and try to help people improve their understanding of how tactics fit together with the individual capabilities of their 'mech.


They're doing it wrong, and I don't think they're doing it to escort the brawlers. Oh, some do; you see them all the time, but the reason they won't get out and scout is generally one of two reasons: either they're afraid of getting blown up, or they think of themselves as glass cannons who kill Assaults by virtue of their awesome lag shields maneuverability and skill. These two general motivations are often excacerbated by the erroneous belief that ECM is the god-king of combat, when in fact the way to defeat ECM when you don't have it is to stay together, use blocking terrain to close with the enemy - and have your light 'mechs scout.

*SHRUGS* It works for me. What am I afraid of? I have my whole team with me. You scout to figure out the enemy's movement, so you can make safe passage. With ECM, you don't have to worry.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 22 January 2013 - 05:01 PM.

[Void Angel]

Well, you've rather proved my premise by way of disagreeing with me. But your reliance on ECM is going to bite you hard if they ever implement an Elo system - which I think they will. The problem with your logic is that you've misunderstood what scouting is about. Scouting isn't about "safe passage." Safe passage to where? We're trying to find and kill them. Scouting is about finding the enemy first.

ECM doesn't help at all against visual spotting - anyone using heat vision can see you (Caustic Valley is of course an exception.) What ECM does is protect you against LRM fire and prevent the enemy from seeing who is most damaged in order to focus fire. Terrain is scattered all over just about every map for the express purpose of providing places for you to hide from LRM artillery, so while ECM helps a lot, it's not a hard requirement for countering LRM fire.

Good scouting, on the other hand, lends an advantage in all situations. If your scouts locate the enemy (or just as importantly, determine where he didn't go) efficiently, you can respond appropriately to hit him where he's weak. It's the difference between hitting them from behind in the tunnel on Frozen City, and being hit from behind because nobody poked their nose over/around Coward's Ridge far enough to realize that it's just the one Gauss sniping Cataphract over there. At the very worst, your scouts will end up stumbling over their main body at point blank range and get smoked - but now you know where they are.

[StalaggtIKE]

Void Angel, on 22 January 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

Well, you've rather proved my premise by way of disagreeing with me. But your reliance on ECM is going to bite you hard if they ever implement an Elo system - which I think they will. The problem with your logic is that you've misunderstood what scouting is about. Scouting isn't about "safe passage." Safe passage to where? We're trying to find and kill them. Scouting is about finding the enemy first.

It's safe passage to where ever your goal is; whether it's to capture the base or fight the enemy. Surely you wouldn't prance right through open fire.

Quote

ECM doesn't help at all against visual spotting - anyone using heat vision can see you (Caustic Valley is of course an exception.) What ECM does is protect you against LRM fire and prevent the enemy from seeing who is most damaged in order to focus fire. Terrain is scattered all over just about every map for the express purpose of providing places for you to hide from LRM artillery, so while ECM helps a lot, it's not a hard requirement for countering LRM fire.

Good scouting, on the other hand, lends an advantage in all situations. If your scouts locate the enemy (or just as importantly, determine where he didn't go) efficiently, you can respond appropriately to hit him where he's weak. It's the difference between hitting them from behind in the tunnel on Frozen City, and being hit from behind because nobody poked their nose over/around Coward's Ridge far enough to realize that it's just the one Gauss sniping Cataphract over there. At the very worst, your scouts will end up stumbling over their main body at point blank range and get smoked - but now you know where they are.

Exactly my point! Lights with ECM are no longer scouting. As they are better used as team escorts to keep everyone safe from LRM.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 22 January 2013 - 06:22 PM.

[Void Angel]

No, that's exactly opposite of what I'm trying to tell you. Buildings can keep you safe from LRMs. But only scouts can scout. My hunchback does 92.7 Kph, and I'll run recon if I have to - but there's a huge difference between me and a light with 150 Kph and jump jets. Similarly, you can deny the enemy information about your movements by simply keeping to low ground. This tactic is in fact superior to ECM in this regard because ECM doesn't block visual spotting - line of sight blocks everything. Then of course there's TAG. In general, if you're far enough out of cover that you get hit with LRMS without ECM, you're far enough out of cover to get locked by TAG through ECM - still harder to hit you, but my point is that you're reliant on cover to some degree anyway.

In the end, only scouts can perform their role; they're the only ones fast enough for it, and ECM is still a huge help to them in that role. Remember, you can always come back and either shield your buddies or lock down their LRM boats once the melee starts - and if you're on the flanks scouting, you can get to their LRM boats without having to run past their whole team to do it. =)

[StalaggtIKE]

Void Angel, on 22 January 2013 - 06:30 PM, said:

No, that's exactly opposite of what I'm trying to tell you. Buildings can keep you safe from LRMs. But only scouts can scout. My hunchback does 92.7 Kph, and I'll run recon if I have to - but there's a huge difference between me and a light with 150 Kph and jump jets. Similarly, you can deny the enemy information about your movements by simply keeping to low ground. This tactic is in fact superior to ECM in this regard because ECM doesn't block visual spotting - line of sight blocks everything. Then of course there's TAG. In general, if you're far enough out of cover that you get hit with LRMS without ECM, you're far enough out of cover to get locked by TAG through ECM - still harder to hit you, but my point is that you're reliant on cover to some degree anyway.

In the end, only scouts can perform their role; they're the only ones fast enough for it, and ECM is still a huge help to them in that role. Remember, you can always come back and either shield your buddies or lock down their LRM boats once the melee starts - and if you're on the flanks scouting, you can get to their LRM boats without having to run past their whole team to do it. =)

But why waste that time scouting? You can see most people in the distance with thermal, as you said. You know where they're going. Not to mention most games consist of everyone standing in the middle with a ridge between them, waiting for someone foolish enough to poke his head out. ECM has screwed up the role of scouts. Not just because they wont do it, but because it's no longer necessary. Besides you get more cbills and xp for killing than spotting.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 22 January 2013 - 06:47 PM.

[Void Angel]

Because you only get intermittent visual contact via thermal - often at the expense of receiving multiple doses of relativistic nickle-iron, or the occasional charged particle injection. So you sit back, play sniper tag for a while, but you don't have a good vantage point unless someone pokes their nose over/around/through into enemy territory. If a heavy or medium does that, he could easily be looking at amber or red armor, depending on how many of the enemy are in a position to open fire on him. In order to really make a good decision tactically, you have to actually know where they are and what they're doing.

ECM is great for that - if any other light gets into sensor range, they get a blip on their compass and an arrow on their hud. But with ECM, they actually have to be looking at you, and if you've kept to low ground like you should, that's not a sure thing. If nothing else, (using Coward's Ridge again) you get to see a snapshot of whether they're just hanging back, getting ready to storm over/around the ridge - or if the battlefield is suspiciously empty, and has anyone checked the tunnel, by the way?

Edited by Void Angel, 22 January 2013 - 11:13 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Void Angel, on 18 January 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

<SNIP>
Cowardice is not a tactic.

Okay, first off, you know nothing of which you speak. What you call cowardice, I call: tactical retreat, smart playing, common sense, non-lemming bull rush behavior.

Just who the heck <so wish I could use the word I WANT to use here, but, what ever> do you think YOU are to decry ANYONE of a play style that is NOT YOURS? It is idiotic at best to bull rush into a fight and get torn to bits because of it. There is a time honored saying, that applies DIRECTLY to you! Discretion is the better part of valor." which, means: if it is going to kill you to engage in a fight you cannot win, then, NOT engaging is the best choice, it is not cowardice, it is a viable, tactical move on the player's part. Oh, and uh, you this guy, from like 500 BCE in China? Name: Sun Tzu? He has a word or two on this:

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy with out ever fighting.

Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance with out ever fighting.

Ultimate excellence lies not in winning every battle, but in defeating the enemy with out ever fighting.

To win 100 victories in 100 battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy with out fighting is the acme of skill.

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

He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious.

To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists of breaking your enemy's resistance without ever fighting.

So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike what is weak.

These words are by Sun Tzu, and by your definition in your rather zealous post, define him as coward as would be any who fight by his wisdom. Sorry dude, but, honestly, cowardice lies in attacking that which you do not understand.

[LarkinOmega]

Rejarial Galatan, on 22 January 2013 - 11:11 PM, said:

Bad argument and Sun Tzu quotes.

All those quotes support Void's position. Please don't try and reframe an argument that you do not understand.

[Void Angel]

Rejarial Galatan, on 22 January 2013 - 11:11 PM, said:

Okay, first off, you know nothing of which you speak. What you call cowardice, I call: tactical retreat, smart playing, common sense, non-lemming bull rush behavior.

Just who the heck <so wish I could use the word I WANT to use here, but, what ever> do you think YOU are to decry ANYONE of a play style that is NOT YOURS? It is idiotic at best to bull rush into a fight and get torn to bits because of it. There is a time honored saying, that applies DIRECTLY to you! Discretion is the better part of valor." which, means: if it is going to kill you to engage in a fight you cannot win, then, NOT engaging is the best choice, it is not cowardice, it is a viable, tactical move on the player's part. Oh, and uh, you this guy, from like 500 BCE in China? Name: Sun Tzu? He has a word or two on this:

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy with out ever fighting.

Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance with out ever fighting.

Ultimate excellence lies not in winning every battle, but in defeating the enemy with out ever fighting.

To win 100 victories in 100 battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy with out fighting is the acme of skill.

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

He who is prudent and lies in wait for an enemy who is not, will be victorious.

To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists of breaking your enemy's resistance without ever fighting.

So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike what is weak.

These words are by Sun Tzu, and by your definition in your rather zealous post, define him as coward as would be any who fight by his wisdom. Sorry dude, but, honestly, cowardice lies in attacking that which you do not understand.

I have a copy of The Art of War in my library - I suggest re-reading it. In fact, "Sun Tzu" is a title, not a name. The author's style name, "Changqing," survives, but his precise name is lost to history - a fact which contributes to some dispute among historians as to whether he actually existed.

You spend an embarrassing amount of time ranting in high dudgeon about things I've never said; it's quite obvious you've only skimmed my post at best - and seem to have given the same treatment to the The Art of War. You begin your diatribe with the self-defeating premise that it's arrogant of me to tell other people what they should do, while at the same time insisting that the tactics you (again wrongly) attribute to me are bad - then tell me to take the advice of a comic relief character from Henry IV, Part One. You then proceed with random quotes from The Art of War, a work which is largely concerned with stategic superiority in addition to the tactical combat we're discussing - and, where applicable, the work you quote agrees with me.

None of your quotations which deal with winning by not fighting have anything to do with tactical combat - these are in reference to strategic maneuvers, political stratagems, information warfare, and psychological operations. What Sun Tzu says is that it is best to never need to fight; but if one must fight, it is best to have have secured victory before ever the battle is joined. On the tactical side, however, Sun Tzu agrees with me that forceful action is necessary on the attack: "Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt." As for information warfare, your own quotations suffice: "He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.""So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike what is weak." How do you know where your enemy is weak and strong? How can you tell when to attack if your scouts are hiding behind the Atlas' knees?

Indeed, Sun Tzu would tell you that deception is at the heart of warfare - both in protecting your own secrets, and in uncovering the secrets of your enemies. This emphasis on knowledge is at the core of Sun Tzu's military philosophy and gave rise to one of his most-quoted sayings: "Know your enemy and know yourself, and you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles." You, not knowing your enemy, leap rapidly to many conclusions - you accuse me of advocating "lemming bull-rush tactics," when in fact I do not advocate any specific form of attack. Rather, I advocate unified, aggressive action when the time to attack comes, and I agitate against timidity in the face of danger. Sun Tzu agrees. You also, in misquoting the The Art of War, overestimate your own knowledge and tactical acumen. Sun Tsu has a word for you. He says this: "If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

Edited by Void Angel, 23 January 2013 - 04:07 AM.