777 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

The game rewards you a lot more for combat, even in Conquest. I rake in awesome amounts of XP for "savior kills" which are more like "savior assists" and I can't argue against this awesomeness.

You don't lose money when you die... all you do is deny the enemy XP/money when you live. There's unfortunately no real reward for saving yourself, especially when Repair and Rearm has been removed from the equation.

Feel free to continue being someone that doesn't want to engage. However, in more serious play, people would not be happy at all at such behavior, and occasionally will point that out to you. Don't expect people to like what you're doing, and don't complain if you don't get rewarded for cowardice... because you shouldn't.

[Rejarial Galatan]

I can say that, if this is true and not some HOAX on part of PGI, then THIS is proof positive PGI is just wasting money and spinning wheels:

"Repair and Rearm:

blinkin - Will repair and rearm ever come back? if not please explain the reasoning behind removing it.
A:No plans to bring back RNR. RNR was removed to create a balanced economy. In the end it created more problems than solved, and was essentially a tax. The system was prone to abuse by farmers and active players. The decision was made to protect the integrity of the game at the cost of removing a feature most people did not use (based on telemetry)."

THIS right here, is PROOF positive that PGI is wasting money we gave them and continue to give them. They funded developmental cycles, funding to the programmers to design, test, implement and ultimately turn off? Wasted money, and worse wasted TIME. There are so many other things that COULD have been worked on, collision models, destructive terrain, game modes, Community Warfare, Clan implementation, Clan Mech and other associated technologies, more content. The list is nearly infinite, but the inescapable truth is they have proven willing to waste money and time on things that, apparently are not needed or wanted by the design team.

Edited by Rejarial Galatan, 18 March 2013 - 10:13 AM.

[Deathlike]

That was quoted from one of the Ask The Devs posts. It's real.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Death, which makes what I put in via the edit <while removing those blasted copy/paste color codes> all the more painfully true.

[Void Angel]

... So your response to the proof you asked for:

Rejarial Galatan, on 16 March 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

Until Paul or Garth or Bryan state they are gone for good <would be a HUGE bad thing if they never return>, I will fight with the belief that they are intended to return, blah, blah, blah.

is to pretend that PGI might be lying to you because... what? Because you don't want it to be true?

Rejarial Galatan, on 18 March 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

there is another side to this whole argument that is being ignored. What are the reasons to actually engage? XP is too low in all honesty. Even when I had the free time of the premium clock before they added that button for us to engage the clock on our own, I was lucky to see more than a few hundred xp per match. This is even with a founders mech and 3-4 KILLS in a fight, I was lucky to break 200 MXP in a fight like that. Worse yet is that we have 2 XP types. Mech and General. Mech XP is fast to gain if you play enough, but the other, General is slower than continental drift and takes an obscene amount to get anything useful. Sure you can convert MXP to GXP with MC, but, that is a bad model and is made impossible for those who for what ever reason it may be, cannot or will not pay for or use MC. Given that XP costs are shockingly high the reward is too low to do more than take a few pot shots, rinse and repeat and slow grind it out. IF this feels in any way familiar to another game, you may be a veteran of the grand father of all xp grind games Final Fantasy XI.
The long and short of it is this: the reward system is set too low given the prices we must pay for things in terms of XP.

Actually, that has nothing to do with good tactical practices. If you wish to talk about whether or not the game is worth playing, feel free to make a thread about that. This one is about tactics - your attempt to hijack the thread to avoid being taken to task for your bad arguments has failed.

Rejarial Galatan, on 18 March 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

Go ahead, say what ever you want, but this rings true for many people. Even I cannot spend even my FREE MC because something I MUST spend my FREE 20,000MC on is not in game yet, namely Clans.

So, A: Your opinion is not based on facts, because you will not allow any facts to change your opinion, and
B: You're using an appeal to common opinion (that's a fallacy, by the way) in order to argue a point that doesn't belong in this thread. Please don't try to hijack my thread - you've already resorted to angry invective and heckling others in the past. That's not constructive, and your behavior is not in compliance with forum rules.

Deathlike, on 18 March 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

That was quoted from one of the Ask The Devs posts. It's real.

He knows it's real; I linked him the Ask the Devs, and he claimed to be unable to find the point on Repair/Rearm. That's why I quoted it directly. He's just trying to hedge by claiming the devs are liars.

Edited by Void Angel, 18 March 2013 - 11:12 AM.

[StalaggtIKE]

I love playing a game making a push with my teammates, to find 2-3 just stayed in the rear hiding and waiting. Then once we're all dead and the enemy closing in on them, it's as if they just realized they must fight and attempt a sorry last stand. Getting hit by 3-4 LRM boats and the rest of the enemy just bombarding them with PPC and Gauss. I can't even imagine how else they expected the game to turn out. Did they have that much confidence in their abilities? Perhaps our abilities?

Pro-tip Common sense: if you see 1-2 of your teammates dying, your best bet is to push up, because a few more losses and it will be virtually impossible for you to make a comeback. That's the best case scenarior. 8 out 10 you're already ****ed.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 18 March 2013 - 11:20 AM.

[Void Angel]

Well, you always want to be cautious, and you don't necessarily have to move up right then in that situation - I've been in just that spot and won by communicating with the rest of the team and staying together. That's what you've always gotta do - take decisive action. Taking up a position behind a kill zone is a decisive action; charging the enemy is a decisive action; flanking the enemy team is a decisive action. None of these actions are appropriate in all situations - but even if you pick the wrong action to take, focused, disciplined aggression is always better than refusing to commit to the fight. Or deciding that the game is lost and running off to power down.

Edited by Void Angel, 18 March 2013 - 01:21 PM.

[Abivard]

Rej, you seem to think you understand sunt zu, then how do you miss the part when he says you should execute soldiers who act like REJ to encourage the others.
Or when he says time and again that Rej's style of thinking leads to defeat before battle is even joined?

Do NOT do as Rej says and you will go far in life and gaming.

[Void Angel]

I'd ignore him, but I don't want someone to come check the responses and see his bad ideas. He never has actually rebutted any objection I've raised, or any point I've made. He simply tries to get away with ignoring the objection and repeats himself, or tries to deflect the debate to his next talking point - see above.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Hey Abivard, check this out:

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.”
―Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory:
1 He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.
2 He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.
3 He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.
4 He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.
5 He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“Ultimate excellence lies not in winning every battle, but in defeating the enemy without ever fighting.”
― Sun Tzu

Do I really need to copy all these into this again? Sun Tzu himself states quite clearly that it is better to win with out ever fighting...

Void Angel, on 18 March 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

I'd ignore him, but I don't want someone to come check the responses and see his bad ideas. He never has actually rebutted any objection I've raised, or any point I've made. He simply tries to get away with ignoring the objection and repeats himself, or tries to deflect the debate to his next talking point - see above.

actually void, i see no reason to fire a retort at you, as we see things very very differently. All that matters is this: you play MWO your way, I will my way. IF we are teamed, I will watch your back. You can or do not have to watch mine. THAT is all that matters here.

We are 2 distinctly different people, with 2 distinct back grounds, and takes on what should or should not happen. I am not you, nor you me, but, I suspect you knew that already.

edit: blasted color/copy codes

Edited by Rejarial Galatan, 18 March 2013 - 08:44 PM.

[YueFei]

Rejarial Galatan, on 18 March 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

Hey Abivard, check this out:

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.”
―Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory:
1 He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.
2 He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.
3 He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.
4 He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.
5 He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“Ultimate excellence lies not in winning every battle, but in defeating the enemy without ever fighting.”
― Sun Tzu

Do I really need to copy all these into this again? Sun Tzu himself states quite clearly that it is better to win with out ever fighting...

The context of these quotes from Sun Tzu refer to political manuevering and STRATEGIC manuevering. Both of which have NOTHING to do with a Mechwarrior Online match. Unless you think you can somehow convince enemy players to defect, or give you vital intel on the enemy disposition, or somehow magically decide you're going to fight on the south pole of whatever planet Caustic Valley is on instead of fighting in Caustic Valley.... none of that stuff is relevant.

Hell, even on a tactical level of manuevering, you can't win without fighting 99% of the time. So what if you gain a superior position and have the enemy surrounded with no cover for them to take? You think you can convince an enemy team to surrender by negotiating with them on an open channel? Or are you gonna have to actually fire some shtos and take some return fire to actually resolve the match?

Stop simply quoting things without UNDERSTANDING them. That's just an appeal to authority, and a red herring to boot.

[Void Angel]

I've already rebutted him in detail around page 5 - and my quotes were better. Notice he's trying to deflect again? He keeps on trolling the thread, but he "sees no reason to retort to you" when his opinions get torn apart. He doesn't really have a case, and his attempts to strike the tone of sweet reason just don't hold any more water than his angry invective.

You can't play the post-modern "everybody has an opinion" game if you keep on arguing. If you raise an objection, you have to support it - meaning that you lose the argument and and your opinion is debunked if you can't. This has already occurred. Pointing out irrelevant facts (such as that you want more experience per match, or that we are not in fact the same person) doesn't cut the mustard, and I'm frankly insulted that you still think you can deflect me in that way. You make me sad. Please stop trolling and either answer the objections raised against your arguments - or else make like a Panda and go away.

Edited by Void Angel, 19 March 2013 - 12:03 PM.

[Void Angel]

I think we agree, for the most part. Kudos on the actually applicable Sun Tzu quotation!

As far as tactical dispersion: this guide, and the other linked in my signature, concern the PuG environment where a lot of communication is not possible - if only because you don't have much time to type when it all hits the fan. I've actually had to resort to shooting at in front of my teammates just to get their attention focused in the right direction. The reason you spread out in real military operations is to prevent multiple casualties from one burst/blast, and to give yourself some warning before the enemy rolls up on your main body with an assault. However, dispersed formations come at the cost of reduced comman and control. So, since we don't have artillery yet and communication is so difficult, it makes sense to use a closer formation. However, in neither build do I specify any formations or even movement techniques - the guide is intended for civilian consumption of PuG players like myself, and the added complexity would not be useful.

Similarly, I don't tell people to go out and disregard their builds, or that they have to always assault the enemy in a rampaging cloud of ineffectual fury - if you run at people with LRMS and a couple of PPCs, they're just going to laugh as they kill you. I don't even tell people that they always have to stick with the group. Common sense will tell you that we can't all hide behind that one hut, and trying to hug your buddies (or enemy lights...) just ends up getting people stuck and run over. What I do tell people in this thread is that you need to be decisive. If your LRM boat can't keep locks or get good targets, it's time to move over to get a different angle on the fight - if a sniper won't move from his little hidey hole he's sure no more random targets are going to poke their noses over Coward's Ridge, he's engaging in bad tactical decisionmaking. In short:

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

At the end of the day, you should be cautious up to a point - recklessness is the courage of a fool, after all. But you have to keep in mind that, just as you don't go to a knife fight without expecting to be cut, you can't go to a 'mech fight and not expect to be blasted apart and melted down into commemorative paperweights from time to time. The most important thing you can do is cooperate with your team, no matter what your build - maneuver for a flank shot with your sniper/missile build; being a "light killer" doesn't mean you can't scout so long as you stay close by the main body. If you can't focus fire from your position, you need to move, and if the big 'mech(s) are engaging, go in with them. Don't be stupid, but don't let fear (or tactical tunnel-vision) restrain you from helping the team. As one of the Fracking Atlas pilots, I do not mind dying a horrible death as long as the team backs me up - because teamwork, not fear, is the true key to survival.

And now I am going to bed. Thanks for reading!

[Void Angel]

Cryll Ankiseth, on 19 March 2013 - 01:23 AM, said:

You shouldn't confuse playing smart with being timid!

That is in fact precisely my point! =) But I'd phrase it "you shouldn't confuse being timid with playing smart."

[Devil Fox]

I think the problem is the PuG's have to grow a pair... they need to move out of their comfort zone and try out tactics, communicate more on the chat. I can't count the number of times that my aggressive gameplay has put me into a flanking maneuver that allowed me to smash the enemy unawares, and only 2 or 3 follow me in. We take down half a team, cripple the rest but most of our team either stills holds back not engaging or just disengage completely to return to safety (not like there is if the LRM boat got clear).

What I would love is people to start thinking abit more tactically, pushing the enemy forces them defensive, rushing them can throw them into confusion, why catching a heavier force by surprise with lighter machines gives you the advantage in numbers and battlefield control (had this happen with a pug of mediums vs heavies/assaults). Why even a scout that takes a moment to type *ddc in e6* or *ECM location*... I know I do, nothing worse then seeing the enemy but telling no-one what you see.

[Void Angel]

It's natural to hesitate to commit when you're trying to learn on your own, because you can't always separate what part of a loss (or win) was your actions, and how much was your team's. That can make it really hard to learn what to do - unless someone teaches you. Tactics some easily to me, but that's because I've been trained for it. So it's not just that I woke up one morning and decided, "wow, so that's how it all works! How stupid I've been!" I've been playing video games for a long time, and while some real tactics don't work very well in some games, MWO is basically an armor simulator (which is what BattleTech has always been.) So the fact that real-world tactics adapt pretty well here helps me a lot.

In any case, the whole point of both my threads is to give people without tactical training a good basic framework for cooperating with their team and learning tactics.

[Rejarial Galatan]

<laughs for a few minutes> so, my quotes from Sun Tzu have nothing to do with military tactics either real world or to be applied to the game right? I wonder why they teach his quotes at some of the finest military academies. His quotes are applicable to political maneuvering yes, but, more importantly to effective combat tactics, and as such, they with no shred of a doubt be applied here. Think what you want, assume even more, nothing will change your view of me, or mine of you. At this point, I will make a single suggestion, we part ways, period.

[Deathlike]

When Sun Tzu's comments are applied in a way that don't make sense, it's probably because it's used in the completely wrong context.

[Void Angel]

Your misquotes of a tome primarily concerned with grand strategy and the political ramifications of war do not, in fact, have anything to do with tactics as you apply them. You're like a B-movie comic relief gangster who cuts the words of his ransom note out of the local paper - thinking that he's framing the newspaper for the kidnapping. Also, you are lying again:

Rejarial Galatan, on 20 March 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

so, my quotes from Sun Tzu have nothing to do with military tactics either real world or to be applied to the game right?

No one has said this to you ; we have instead repeatedly pointed out that your quotations from the Art of War do not apply to the points you're trying to make. Pretending that people have said something they did not say, so that you can pretend to debunk their argument, is dishonest. Again, please stop lying; if honesty doesn't move you, at least consider that it makes you look the fool.

The passages from the Art of War which you have so enthusiastically abused do not in fact apply to this game. Particularly the passages which concern winning without fighting cannot pertain to the tactical environment of the game. The concept there is to maneuver your opponent so that he is effectively or (preferably) actually defeated before any battle is fought. Since in MWO both forces are entering the battle on equal ground, this has not occured - so, without a shred of doubt, your misrepresentations of Sun Tzu are not applicable at all.

Rejarial Galatan, on 20 March 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

Think what you want, assume even more, nothing will change your view of me, or mine of you.

And that right there is the biggest difference between your posts in this thread and mine. For you, this is about Rejarial Galatan, and how smart he is to know things about tactics and Sun Tzu; it's about you being right. For me, this is about whether or not the ideas I present are correct. This is why you have presented personal invective and fallacious appeals to authority, while I have offered logical arguments - which you have never been able to refute.

Rejarial Galatan, on 20 March 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

At this point, I will make a single suggestion, we part ways, period.

I'll hold you to it. Darken my door no longer.

Edited by Void Angel, 20 March 2013 - 09:06 PM.

[Abivard]

I shall offer some pertinent quotes from Heinz Guderian;

Man schlägt jemanden mit der Faust und nicht mit gespreizten Fingern. (You hit somebody with your fist and not with your fingers spread.)
Meaning that you should concentrate your Panzers for one mighty push in one direction and not distribute them over a large area. Quoted in "Die Deutschen gepanzerten Truppen bis 1945" - Page 209 - by Oskar Munzel - Tanks (Military science) - 1965

Nicht Kleckern sondern Klotzen! (Boot'em, don't spatter'em!)
This is Guderian's most famous quote, which has become a stock phrase. It roughly means "Don't do things by half." Quoted in "How Great Generals Win" - Page 227 - by Bevin Alexander - History - 1993

Der Motor des Panzers ist ebenso seine Waffe wie die Kanone. (The engine of the Panzer is a weapon just as the main-gun.)
Quoted in "Die Deutschen gepanzerten Truppen bis 1945" - Page 159 - by Oskar Munzel - Tanks (Military science) - 1965

Edited by Abivard, 21 March 2013 - 02:58 AM.