So what do you prefer/suggest for the Battlefield? Is it statistically measurable what might be the better approach?
Discipline and tactics win. I have seen overly aggressive pushes simply waltz over uncoordinated and surprised defensive positions but just as well splatter against the impenetrable wall of a good team of players that know how to react. Having/taking the initiative in an engagement, however, is a serious force multiplier and often an attacker has more room to dictate his movement. But here again, a good defensive commander can turn that table quickly,...
More often than not concentrated aggression wins - even in a competitive game you need to get the edge then it forces the other side to come to you or lose. The coming changes to assult mode will change that dynamic - not convinced myself as one side will defend the other attack. In that case theres no need to ever go offensive as you win via being defensive.
I personally quickly become frustrated along a defensive or indecisive team. I like to charge and crush my enemy, or get crushed myself. Actually, what I like in the game is to feel that a team is working well together, and it's a feeling I mostly get in offence. I suppose I'd enjoy playing defensive with a good team, but most teams I know are only playing defensive because they lack cohesion and initiative.
We should also mention that clan mechs with their mostly similar speed have an easier time of concentrating aggression in solo/group matches.
If you have the initiative, you can dictate where the engagements occur and to your benefit. So I would say, aggressive wins but not berserking without control. There is often a point whereupon you overextend and get slammed. Stopping before you run into their reformed team is important. PUGs or comp teams can get chewed up in the flanks but all of them will turn to face a threat if they can identify it in time.
Offense should be better most times if your team is Holding together moving in tight Formation with concentrated focusfire. But often it fails when you are pugging with headless chickens on the battlefield. In well-coordinated teams it's deadly because the enemy can only counter it with tight defense formation, which is usually in the competitive scene. That said imo Defense should also be a choice depending on your teammates and their Mechs.
I've talked at length about this a lot for a long time, years, including here randomly, briefly. I prefer playing black in chess. I like to react to my opponent. But this is about countering. See it's like this, I'd like to start from a defensive position in most anything. The logic being, if we're both roughly equal skill level, but I'm smarter or hedge correctly, then my opponent is more likely to make the initial mistake. Then, in that localized moment, I can attempt to seize both the initiative and the momentum. Now that is a force multiplier. Being aggressive is great a lot of the time but it's only done so from an initial position of defense in my case. It might be five seconds of that, and then the opportunity presents itself very quickly and the entire rest of the fight is all aggressive streamroll. That's fine. A lot of time doing this shit is really about holding concentration longer than someone else cuz they rarely make mistakes, if any, just gotta outlast their focus and they'll start to crack. What's really hard is playing defensive but being unpredictable. That's what sets great poptarts apart from the rest, for an MWO example. I like to play reactionary, it's my favorite style. I like to kite, I like to zone, I like to soak, then the opponent fucks up and I flip it and go hard on a mother. That's my shit. It's why I like playing medic old Battlefield series, or a tanky healer in an mmorpg. Only when I'm truly outclassing someone do I go into 'possession' style of play, like a cat toys with a mouse. This is 'passive' aggressive playstyle.
I approach most shooters with a very simple concept: Predator vs. Prey. There's a whole psychological theory that goes along with this, and a LARGE number of players in every shooter conform to it perfectly. Predators are the ones who will aggressively charge through the enemy team, creating opportunities...Prey are the ones who will hide back in cover the whole game, refusing to engage, because "damage is bad mmmkay?" I would say that 99% of the time, the team with the most Predators wins, given equal skill on both sides. Especially in MWO, there are very few places where being timid and camping actually works out to your advantage...since all it takes is the other team pushing around, and you're left with absolutely no cover in a situation where you are now blocking your teammates from returning fire (or they are blocking you). The ONLY good defensive tactic in MWO is where you can create a true firing line, but still have a way to adjust to a flanking maneuver before they start killing your guys. To understand that, watch this gif about the "Crossing T" maneuver, a staple in naval combat: That said, generally speaking, I'd say that being aggressive is better.
But when people use the term aggression, I don't think they are using it very wisely. Look at soccer for a sec. You can play defensive aggressively. IE, counterattacking. Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Man Utd, Chelsea, Athletico Madrid, Juventus........ these teams ring a bell? If not, well, they play aggressive defense. Swarming at opponent, forcing mistakes, and then immediately seizing momentum and then going forward. You can play offense aggressively. Pushing the line up real high, wingers making runs behind defenders [and leaving space open behind them, risky], etc. Like say, Man City, I guess I might include Munich here maybe instead [before Pep]. But guess who just won Champs League? Barcelona. Barcelona doesn't play offense aggressively. They dictate control. Possession. Force mistakes. Own the situation. Stay calm and slowly exert control. Assert. And it's not done with kamizake psycho tactics, either. It's done slow, methodical... ps - this is all philosophy there is no wrong or right tbh
I think that both styles have their time. The most important thing is that everyone works together for whichever style you're doing. I can't count the number of times that half the team has gone aggro while the other hid in a corner and we got picked apart because of it. The reverse is also true though, where a lot of the time people will go off aggressively in ones or twos and get blown to pieces causing a loss.
Couldn't have explained better For me, the worse thing to do in MWO is a pointless push, if it work, it just means you would have won the game in any other way, probably with less losses. Aggressive/unpredictable defense is the best way to go in my opinion, no surprise anyone was poptarting in competitive (and not) when it was still viable. I guess it's like a philosophy, because I used to play same classes in FPS and MMOs.
Durandal, your staple of naval combat won Admiral Lord Nelson his fame when he was the red ships, and won the day against a superior force. (but i presume you know that ) http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread341397/pg1 You're defending, and just unloaded all your weapons and need to cool down, so you retreat. The enemy is already cooled off and seizes on this and pushes in. You're stuck defending while running hot so the enemy has the advantage. This is just one very simple example of action vs reaction.
