777 replies to this topic

[DustySkunk]

Throet, on 31 July 2014 - 10:48 AM, said:

Sometimes it amazes me how often people tend to try to follow me when I run off in my Spider-5D... and I look down at my radar, and I see the trail forming behind me, and I'm thinking, "Are they following me, or is this coincidence?"

I still don't know the answer to that question, but this happens very often... I hope it's not just me going the wrong direction to scout... lol

Lol the stream of people following you does not necessarily mean you are doing it wrong. "Chase the lone light" is a well known (and documented) factor/phenomenon regarding PUG psychology. Nine times out of ten, you'll draw a quarter of their team. Why? Any one of these:

• They think the lone Spider is an easy kill. After all, you aren't going to blow their face off with a gigantic alpha like the DW they've been trading PPC and Gauss rounds with. The perception of less danger is not necessarily true, but it is a matter of perceptions regardless
  
• There is strength in numbers. When you are there behind enemy lines, you have no backup
  
• "OMG he's going to spot for lurms. Kill it with fire!!!1!!"
  
• etc...

You can actually use this to your advantage. If you tell your team what you are doing and draw a bunch of their mechs, your team can push at that moment and face much less firepower. Requires a semi-competent team, though.

Edited by DustySkunk, 01 August 2014 - 08:57 AM.

[PACoFist]

I think he was talking about his own team following him.

[Void Angel]

He was. Many times, people will simply follow the blue triangles without really thinking about where they're going and what they're doing.

[Kamikaze Viking]

Soo many sheep players in some games just following the blue triangles irrelevant of speed differences between the mechs. But alternately, in other games too many independent wolves who think they know better.


As a Medium pilot with impatience and a love of brawling setups i totally agree about timid teams camping bad spots.
if you camp you need to have a defensive position, setup a crossfire and wait it out. If you are camping and pop-sniping. make sure you learn the concept of 'winning the trade' and don't expose yourself to counter snipers.

Also playing with various groups lately comprised of fairly experienced players, but who aren't a 'team' as such really shows the difference between a good plan and sticking to it, OR the need to abandon plan to the situation and adapt. EG last night the group started as the former and often plans failed, until we got used to each others play styles and then the tactical adaptation began when situation warranted, then the win streak started.

Overall I think the Timidity is a factor of Experience, pugs vs groups (eg. mostly pug players don't expect the group to help in a charge, and hence never make the charge) and the fear of dying first.
Personally I like being the one who gets in fast, brawls the group throws up a UAV, shreds some 500 points of armour and dies while dropping a suicide arty. While my team sits in fire support position shooting at all the guys chasing me. 12-1 wins with me dead is fine my me.

[DustySkunk]

PACoFist, on 01 August 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:

I think he was talking about his own team following him.

Void Angel, on 01 August 2014 - 09:16 PM, said:

He was. Many times, people will simply follow the blue triangles without really thinking about where they're going and what they're doing.

Roger that. I read the post out of context. My apologies.

[Rattler85]

I have found that you have to balance aggression and timidity (patience). Charging into four or more enemies when you are alone is foolish. I have brought down a mech or two, on multiple occasions when I was the only one left and I circled around the map using terrain to my advantage.

To win you should choose the terrain and control the tempo of the match if needed.

People have bitched to me about playing smart when they get themselves killed. By knowing when to be timid, I have helped my team.

[Emilio Lizardo]

The toughest thing about this game, IMO, is communication. Yes, the built-in C3 and sensor functions are awesome and do a great job of replicating the old BT double-blind system, but it's impossible to type specific information in the middle of combat so TeamSpeak becomes pretty much essential.

That said, most players (like myself) mostly play pick-up games and don't know their comrades. So, they're usually left guessing and reacting to what they have to assume are good judgment calls from the other friendly players. As an amateur student of psychology and the BT universe, the most interesting thing about this game to me is the human dynamic. Should you follow your two badly-damaged medium 'mechs over the hill and support their charge or flank around solo and try to divert attention, keeping their firepower in play longer?

Regardless, teamwork usually necessitates following a leader. When there is no leader, you either lead or you follow. You can determine whether you're leading or not simply by counting the players following.

Sometimes you have to support bad leaders/players. Just as in most real-life situations, even if you have the worst leader conceivable, it's in your best interest to prop him up and MAKE him succeed despite himself because your success (and the organization's) is tied to his.

Getting yourself killed and then cursing at your teammates is not productive. It's just distracting to your own allies and will only help to ensure that you died for nothing, rather than sacrificing yourself for a winning team.

Void Angel, this is a great post/discussion thread. Thanks for taking the time to write this up.

[Void Angel]

Thanks! I wrote it to try and alleviate some of the frustration I often felt watching people do things that I knew from long experience with other games was tantamount to suicide - and the only way to help myself was to put out a guide so at least the people who were interested could be exposed to the discussion. I didn't need to convince all the people - just enough of them.

[Void Angel]

Rattler85, on 02 August 2014 - 09:32 AM, said:

I have found that you have to balance aggression and timidity (patience). Charging into four or more enemies when you are alone is foolish. I have brought down a mech or two, on multiple occasions when I was the only one left and I circled around the map using terrain to my advantage.

To win you should choose the terrain and control the tempo of the match if needed.

People have bitched to me about playing smart when they get themselves killed. By knowing when to be timid, I have helped my team.

There is never a time to be timid, just as there is never a time to be reckless. There are indeed many times that you don't want to default to berzerker face-rushing, but that's not what this thread is about - either way. What I'm dealing with here is excessive caution to the point of what psychology calls "maladaption." Maladaption occurs when a person is harmed by a behavior - say, excessive sunbathing - but still cannot or will not stop. Players are too often (even after the shakeup of the Clan Invasion) huddling together like a flock of sheep, each waiting for someone else to make a move - while the wolves prowl the edges of the herd and drag them bleating into the night, one by one.

As I pointed out in the original post, recklessness is the courage of the fool - but in no way are timidity and patience synonymous.

[IllCaesar]

I think its humourous that the person who made "Follow the Fracking Atlas" also wrote "Timidity is Not a Tactic", seeing as most of the time, it seems to be heavy and assault mechs that are timid the most. Before I take them down a peg, I will acknowledge that all those light mechs, grouped up with timid heavy and assault mechs, are a problem. Its one thing to be that annoying light from far away that is actually causing the timidity by firing off their LL/ERLL, but peeking aroud the corner as a light mech, armed with one to three medium lasers, isn't a good use of your abilities. Back to the point, heavies and assaults, coming from a medium pilot, I'm waiting for you to move. If you move up, I will follow. The reason I'm not being that first person is because you guys have more armour, more firepower, and a larger profile. Smaller mechs behind you are extra guns shooting your enemy, and as long as you have enough guns on your side, you, pushing, can quite often force a retreat. I will follow an Atlas, a Battlemaster, a Dire Wolf, a Highlander, even a Thunderbolt and Cataphract, but you guys have to make the first move.

Worth noting, I have a BJ-1 in my hanger. It has two AC2s, with 450 rounds, and enough heat efficiency that it will never overheat by firing them, not even on Terra Therma. I can chainfire for a constant barrage, and that can go on for literally minutes. I used to use this, back before my hiatus (started in January), because of all the shake it causes, and because its a constant distraction. It works well for that, but now, everybody is more timid than ever, and I can lock down an entire lance, and keep them holed up in one spot for minutes at a time, all on my own. I've done that. My Blackjack is a 45-ton mech, and one well-placed alpha strike can take me down. Those AC2's really don't do that much damage in the time it takes for you to take me down. You don't have to fear much from me, yet most players do. Its the same with that occassional mech that is firing like one LL or the single LRM10 - it won't do much damage, you don't have much to fear. You've got to move, you've to take the hits and move. When I use that Blackjack, one of three things happens;

1. I keep those mechs at bay until my teammates decide to walk through and mess up their face.
2. A player with some guts takes the few hits in the face it takes to wreck me.
3. I keep them at bay so long that other players on their team end up attacking me.

When number one happens, I am winning. When number three happens, I took a few enemy players out of participation while my teammates waged a separate fight that they ended up losing, and would've lost anyways if I weren't holding people at bay with my AC2s. When occurance two happens, I lose, the enemy team wins. Replace "AC2" with "LL", or "LRM". When you and other teammates taken out of the game by the threat of relatively weak firepower, they've won. They've taken you out of the game, and it becomes something more like 11 v 8, with the odds against your team. I can with regularity take a lance with a collective weight of 200 tons out of play, if only for a few minutes, with my 45-ton, tissue-paper Blackjack. Remember, that Spider with that one ERLL only does 9 damage total, .9 for every tenth of a second. You probably have two to four weapons that eclipse that. Those AC2s I have? A Small Laser does more damage than that. Don't be afraid to take damage, because as the adage goes, you have to spend money to make money. I'm not saying to drive headfirst into the platform above the volcano on Terra Therma without at least checking the resistance, but when the damage you'd face when you go around the corner is miniscule, please consider going around the corner.

Edit: Just to make my point about being timid in a light mech, which shouldn't really need to be touched upon, I'll tell you what I just saw in a match. A Jenner on my team attempted the steps forward, fire, walk backward technique, trying to score some damage. It walkedinto an AC40 Jager and two PPCs. Little guy got wrecked in an instant.

Edited by MarsAtlas, 14 August 2014 - 02:47 PM.

[VonFrundsberg]

MarsAtlas, on 14 August 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

I think its humourous that....

I didn't want to quote the whole post as I have a very broad point to make that isn't necessarily aimed at, but instead inspired by your post. The timidity that people have stems from, in my opinion, two factors:

1. There is a stats page. On that stats page is listed your KDR. For some reason, people care about this number. I think this is a very poor mentality to have when playing video games, but I fear I am in the minority.

2. Weapons converge quickly and fire accurately. This is a stark contrast from tabletop where shots have certain percentages to hit certain parts of a target. The end result is that BT on a table turns into a vicious brawl where 'Mechs with barely any armor and a missing arm are still up and fighting because damage rarely gets loaded all onto one spot. I don't really care if some people think that is unrealistic (it isn't) - because it makes the game much more fun. It also makes you less risk averse. Sure my Raven has had all the armor on its Left Leg stripped, but if my enemies can't effectively pinpoint attacks on my leg, I'm more willing to have make a wild run across a street to get into a better spotting position for those sweet, sweet Arrow IVs.

And therein lies the divergence. MWO uses a lot of basic concepts and data from the tabletop. As the logo at the top of the forums indicates, it is a BattleTech game. If you are going to give weapons the damage that they (roughly) have in the boardgame, but not give them the same (in)accuracy - you cannot rightfully be surprised when you find that you are not capturing the feel of combat that you get from the original game. This horse has long been dead and beaten into an unrecognizable state, but I still believe that weapon accuracy needs to be hobbled. Not so much that I can't deliver crippling blows at close range - but certainly so much that I cannot deliver pinpoint alphas to the CT of a Cataphract some 600m down range. With some decent gunnery a pilot can put down an enemy 'Mech that still has more than 60% of it's "health". I want to see games where it is rare for a 'Mech to go down until it goes below 30%. Imagine how much more important maneuvering (and possibly teamwork?) would be if weapon accuracy wasn't as reliable?

I would not be surprised if some people took issue with my stance and argued that MWO is not a tabletop game and should not play like one. In preemptive response: I do not think you belong in this community. I do not mean that as an inflammatory remark. I genuinely think you have come to the wrong place. As stated, it says right under the logo: a BattleTech game. We're not here for SpaceRobots: Online, or Hawken, or MAV, or CAV, or Robotech, or Macross, or Fang of the Sun, or Gundam, or Chromehounds, or Steel Battalion. People are playing this game because it says "Mechwarrior" and "BattleTech". That means something. That meaning is why there is a playerbase. I don't see why anyone would be dismissive of something so essential to the game's survival.

[Void Angel]

Spare me. Has every game in the Mechwarrior series also "not been Battletech" because damage could be effectively loaded onto one place? Hardly; you don't own the definition of "Battletech/Mechwarrior," and it is genuinely presumptuous of you to set yourself up as a gatekeeper for who "belongs" in this game. I came to this game because it was Mechwarrior - and I've stayed because it's an enjoyable Mechwarrior game, despite its flaws and the rocky road in development. You do not speak for me, or anyone like me, and you do not have the right to tell me in my own thread that I "don't belong." Stop trying to hijack my thread, and go jump in a lake - you can take your high horse with you.

On-topic, while weapon accuracy does have a detrimental effect on gameplay, accuracy alone isn't responsible for the poor battlefield practices that this thread tries to address. The idea that the mere existence of a stats page has a noticable impact beside the c-bill reward system is a silly assumption that I shall not dignify with a rebuttal.

PS: I've met quite a few guildies that aren't Battletech fans at all - yet another unfounded assumption shattered, if only anecdotally.

[VonFrundsberg]

Void Angel, on 14 August 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

Spare me. Has every game in the Mechwarrior series also "not been Battletech" because damage could be effectively loaded onto one place? Hardly; you don't own the definition of "Battletech/Mechwarrior," and it is genuinely presumptuous of you to set yourself up as a gatekeeper for who "belongs" in this game. I came to this game because it was Mechwarrior - and I've stayed because it's an enjoyable Mechwarrior game, despite its flaws and the rocky road in development. You do not speak for me, or anyone like me, and you do not have the right to tell me in my own thread that I "don't belong." Stop trying to hijack my thread, and go jump in a lake - you can take your high horse with you.

On-topic, while weapon accuracy does have a detrimental effect on gameplay, accuracy alone isn't responsible for the poor battlefield practices that this thread tries to address. The idea that the mere existence of a stats page has a noticable impact beside the c-bill reward system is a silly assumption that I shall not dignify with a rebuttal.

PS: I've met quite a few guildies that aren't Battletech fans at all - yet another unfounded assumption shattered, if only anecdotally.

Players have been complaining about the pinpoint damage in Mechwarrior games for almost two decades. The complaints have been diluted and diminished in the past because prior MW titles have had single-player components with long campaigns. It was easier to overlook the problem because the players that just wanted to feel like they were part of the universe could get that itch scratched with the solo component. MWO has no such component. There is only PvP, and PvP always brings out the difficulties and nuances of balance. It shows you things you don't see in a single-player or even co-op environment. This argument is certainly not exclusive to MWO.

I don't know how to couch this diplomatically. Even prefacing it by saying I did not intend for it to be inflammatory, it still is. And that's okay. I'm okay with people being upset. It shows they care and that means a lot. But I'm not going to change my tune for you or this thread. I don't want to play this game with people that aren't fans of the setting. If that is unreasonable, then I am unreasonable. As for my "rights" to say such things.... this is an internet forum operated by a private business. There are no protected speeches here, only what the moderators and admins deem punishable. I'm not here to derail. I'm here to engage because I like the points you make and the way you make them.

On-topic? No, weapon accuracy it isn't alone responsible but I feel it's too important to gloss over. If you pick and choose mechanics of the boardgame that you want to represent, you will get a game that creates a certain amount of dissonance when looking at the balance of gameplay. If your intent is to add some dynamic elements to the gameplay and recreate the vicious slug matches that the setting is known for - weapon accuracy would need to be addressed. It's the keystone. The game is about shooting 'Mechs and until you get that part right, the rest won't feel right either.

[Void Angel]

MarsAtlas, on 14 August 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

I think its humourous that the person who made "Follow the Fracking Atlas" also wrote "Timidity is Not a Tactic", seeing as most of the time, it seems to be heavy and assault mechs that are timid the most.

It's a logical progression - being an Assault pilot who remembers he has armor, I get a lot of frustration out of situations where I see an opening, but my team falls back under a withering hail of fire from a single Medium Laser when I try to exploit it. To be fair, however, the reason you see Assault and Heavy pilots dithering more is that they know they're less able to escape the scary green laser pointers than their lighter, faster companions. So, for the reasons I outlined above, they're more susceptible to the problems with the game's reward system, and will sometimes simply sit back and hide at the first sign of incoming fire - and it always turns out they're right, because after all, the team died first, so it's their fault, not his. ~_-

[Void Angel]

Weapon accuracy is actually not the key issue with game balance. The key issue is frontloaded pinpoing damage - because other damage can be spread, and will be spread by a skilled pilot. Accuracy is a part of that, but not the central factor. Regardless, this guide is not about the game balance we would like, but about how to understand and deal with some of its particulars. If you want to make yet another pinpoint-damage/weapon accuracy hobby horse thread, you're free to do so - but it's just going to dilute this topic, so I have to insist.

PS: Saying insulting and presumptuous things "diplomatically" doesn't make them less insulting and presumptuous, nor are you virtuous for insisting on them. It's like saying "I told that immigrant so politely that he'd never be a real American! I didn't intend for it to be inflammatory, but I'm okay that it is. It means he cares about America, and that means a lot - but I'm not going to change my tune for him or anyone!" The air must be getting thin up on that horse.

[VonFrundsberg]

Void Angel, on 14 August 2014 - 05:45 PM, said:

Weapon accuracy is actually not the key issue with game balance. The key issue is frontloaded pinpoing damage - because other damage can be spread, and will be spread by a skilled pilot. Accuracy is a part of that, but not the central factor. Regardless, this guide is not about the game balance we would like, but about how to understand and deal with some of its particulars. If you want to make yet another pinpoint-damage/weapon accuracy hobby horse thread, you're free to do so - but it's just going to dilute this topic, so I have to insist.

The topic is on page 24. It has already been diluted. The point I'm trying to make is that there isn't going to be a change of psychology without a change in game mechanics. No matter how eloquently or consistently you make the argument that timidity is not a tactic - it will remain one until the gameplay changes. The gameplay will not change as long as players are able to build 'Mechs that focus on pinpoint damage. They can currently do this because the game is set to where weapons converge with considerable speed and, for most equipment, the damage goes right where the reticle is.

As you've stated, Assault 'Mech pilots are often the most fearful because their lack of mobility means that once they expose themselves, they have to be exposed longer because it takes longer to back into a safe position. That is, being safe from enemies who can deliver extremely accurate fires. It takes *seconds* to core an Atlas if you do it right. Your suggestions, while entirely relevant and merited, will not have an affect unless the gameplay changes. You yourself have stated that it is learned behavior. The playerbase is not going to collectively tap into some Kantian spirit and change the way they play because it would vastly improve how enjoyable the game will be. To light a fire under the collective bums of the Mechwarriors, the mechanics have to change - the mentality will follow.

Edited by VonFrundsberg, 14 August 2014 - 06:58 PM.

[Void Angel]

Psychology changes without mechanical adjustments all the time. In fact, I have seen many instances where player opinion drove practices that were actually counter to the game mechanics - from Shaman pidgeonholing by the math-impaired, to "you can't tank the Dreadlands at 35th level," and "Al'kabor spells are useless." Much of the PuG metagame environment is the Thomas Theorem in action, so since the mechanics don't really warrant the behavior, it can change regardless of game systems.

When I was pugging Alterac Valley in Wow, I used to run a strat macro, along with a buddy. We'd always get a few people trolling, or someone putting on airs about how "you know they're never going to listen, right?" But once we got rolling, theother people in the battleground would tell them to shut up - because those people were instantly re-queing to try and follow us as we rolled over the enemy like a freight train. It's much the same here; though the absence of in-game grouping and communication tools mean I have to do it through the forums.

People play the way they do because thegame is unintentionally cutting them off from reward feedback; the carrot is behind a corner, and many players have no tactical sense of smell. What I'm doing here is just pointing people toward the tools for victory and better gameplay. Of COURSE the mentality won't go away just because I post here; of course the game mechanics could be set up to better encourage proper (for the game, not real life) tactics - but you don't need to change game mechanics in order to fix tactics that run counterto the mechanics of the game.

[IraqiWalker]

I swear, people are either too timid, or too reckless, the extreme rare is the balanced type that knows when to go and not go.

Just had a PuG match on Terra Therma. By some miracle I got the team to NOT go into the PuG Zapper. We were going to win. Even clipped an early surprise kill, and half the team was at E7, and the other at F6, holding the two exists with a vise-like grip, and every thing looked set up for a proper roll as the enemy trickles in one by one. Then two geniuses at F6 decide to charge into the zapper, cuz you know, a Nova, and a black jack can absolutely take one 10 enemy mechs while being bottle-necked, right?

Despite all the calls for them to not do that, they charged, got hit, and died, and then the other guys at F6, instead of backing up to F7, and abandoning the ramp that was lining them up for the slaughter, decide they should even the score, and proceeded to slowly get butchered, as the entire enemy team realized that F6 has become a weak point, and then my detachment at E7 was no outnumbered roughly 2 to 1, because everyone else died, and was going to get flanked, which is exactly what happened, and we ended up losing.

Why ... Why is it so hard for people to follow a simple order, from a strategy that clearly just paid off? Is basic intelligence really THAT rare?

[Void Angel]

Knowing when to do what is an art, not a science; that's why general rules are as far as you can really go. People follow orders in real organizations, whether military, sports, or whatever, because they trust the person giving the order - or at least they've been conditioned to the necessity of concerted action. Players in PuG matches don't have that, so they tend to do what they think is best at the time. They also don't have clear feedback, because what's clear to people with a lot of game experience and/or tactical awareness isn't obvious to your average person who's playing the game because it's fun and free. They may well think that the team simply didn't play well - or believe the silly urban legend that the matchmaker routinely fails to match Elos well.

So it's a matter of lacking the background of gaming education (for want of a better term) and experience to accurately evaluate the validity of other people's ideas, or interpret the results of team actions.

[Molossian Dog]

This thread should be on top all the time.

Passivity kills. (Heavy/Assault Mech passivity most of the time)

The only means you have to break the passivity deadlock without voice communication is to lead by example.

This doesn´t mean to just charge into the fray on your own.
It means to announce that you are going to charge. And then charge.

Mind your wording too.

"Push!" will work less often than you would like to.
Many will instinctively suspect that you want them to be your meat/metal shield.

"I´m going in. Come or not." works more often, empirically speaking. You have to make clear that you are fully commited to what you propose and that you intend to go first. That you accept the shortest straw, no matter what. Often, as soon as your teammates are assured that -they- don´t have to burden it, they suddenly grow a pair.

"Flank right" <> "I´m going to flank right. Pls support."

It makes a world of difference.

------

Obviously this doesn´t work all the time. But it works more often than
1.) hugging cover and praying someone else shows initiative
2.) getting fed up and charging into the hostile team without a word and flaming your team for your loss after that.

Edited by Molossian Dog, 24 August 2014 - 03:59 AM.