To The Victors - Weekend Tournament

Yes you did just argue that a DWF ASSAULT mech should sit at the back using long range weaponry because that was what happened in my games - usually a trio sitting right at the back with everyone else between them and the enemy.

Coincidentally as much as I love my Raven-3L that is why most other players loathe their pilots as its relatively easy and vastly safer than being a brawler or front line pilot.

 

Nice dream dude... That having said, they actually do things like that on holidays... play xx games and you get a yy cockpit item.

The probem is the you are pitting two groups of prey against each other, you get games dragged on for n o reason, basically watching the AMS fighting the LRM (yes, they are not even good LRM boat doing the job right), and hope that something gets killed.

 

Probably I'm dreaming.
But I really wish they stopped organizing events fueling competition between players, not only players of opposite teams but also between players of the same team, and promoting toxic behaviours. What's absolutely disgusting during these events is that everybody is preying on each other, doesn't care if their actions affect the other's experience and chances to score points. Everybody plays alone against the others. It's not healthy.
But people prefer to think they're "elite" than being part of a community, that's what these "challenges" are selling, and honestly it makes me sick.


About being careful:
There is a major difference between being cautious (rightfully, since this game is all about dealing unreturned damage) and jeopardize your team cohesion/safety/firepower by being a coward.
First, it is as important, if no more, to share the damage between all the team as it is not to take damage. The survival of your teammates depends on you taking fire for them.
Second, most "cautious" pilots do not cause enough pressure on the enemy team, allowing for more pressure on their team. Too many "cautious" pilots quickly leads to half the team down because half the team wasn't really in the fight.

Actually, most of the time a cowardly behaviour is not heavily punished it's not because it works and is a valid tactic, but because there is as many cowards on the opposite team. This is sad.

As for Chicken Ravens, I'm ok with them as long as it's in a large group, or better a 12 mechs group. It's part of the tactic, and they can sync their actions with the main group's.
In solo drops it's just selfish.
(though I have seen some, very few but enough to be the exception to the rule, acting like they actually cared about their team)


PS: On the official forum (yeah, I know) I've seen people saying "in a real war you'll do anything to survive" blablabla in order to justify the surviving condition. This is bullshit.
MWO is not a war simulation, it's a team based "competitive" (I don't like the term but you know what I mean) game where the only thing that matters is the team's victory. If your death can help the victory, so be it - when you're charging for a brawl you expect the firsts in line to die.
When I play with stock mechs we sometimes play scripted battles, in a roleplay perspective. In this case the survival is important as it's a factor of immersion, we try to keep the complete squad alive and rather retreat and proceed to the extraction point than suffer heavy casualties. This works because we're playing tech 1 mechs, the pace is much slower.
But in the min/maxed MWO, with shorter and shorter times to kill, it makes no real sense.

 

As a matter of fact.. I like trying to survive a match rather than die. Not only because I loathe ppl who foolishly rush into the enemy probably screamin' "Walhallaaaaaaaa" only to die 2 seconds later. But also because I like to be alive, seriously.

Rearm & repair... ah, those were the times when ppl really got hurt by losing their Mechs in battle. I wish those times back.... and I'm quite sure they will.

 

Man, we had one match on the weekend where I dropped in my trusty ol' HBK-4P on Alpine Peaks and my client crashed twice. I figured that by the time I got back in after the second crash the match would be pretty much done, but we were still at 11 vs 10 when I finally got back in with about 5 minutes left in the match.

I wound up getting 3 kills, but didn't get a point because my team refused to push with 2 minutes remaining while being up 6 vs 3. An Atlas and I tried to get a something going but noone went with us and just hid behind the hill, though we did take down two of the enemies. We wound up going full-time with one enemy remaining, which counted as a win, but not as completing the game-mode objective.

 

Interesting perspective. I'd say its about taking the enemy team down before you go down but I'm a believer that controlled aggression wins the game in most matches rather than passive camping which your doctrine caters to. Its more evident in the group queue maybe as targets get focused down quicker as everyone is working together (theoretically) and the faster someone dies the less damage their team is capable of doing. Its hard to do in slower moving mechs as you need good firing lines etc but a coordinated rush team almost always wins as they don't have that problem.

I should say I'm a believer in forcing the other team to make mistakes rather than waiting for them to make mistakes.

 

I would rather see players doing a whole GorkaMorka rush than cowards turtleing behind each other.

Rearm and Repair... I know the logic, but I also know the problem. Remember, you can't lose your mech, only repair cost (there are MC mech)
Back in the days I was a n00b and I used to harvest cbills by running some beatup crap commando (commando build with basically just a couple ML, 1 point armor each area, and crap STD engine, and skimp on repair cost), so even with whatever cost I would earn more cbills, it is still better earnings than running anything big and take a risk. The game is no fun relatively.
Also, that hurt newbies even more.

 

Waaaaaaaagh! Is my normal approach to battle, for those of you that get the reference.

Also bit miffed about the lack of tournament continuation. Guess it's only fair but would have preferred to not have been told it was being considered... I was looking forward to finishing it.

 

Sadly, I learned about this a few hours before it closed. I've been lusting after the Victor and the XL350 for a while now.

 

They might be opening it back up for this coming weekend

Oh wait...

where was this?

 

@Solahma, Russ made several tweets about bringing the challenge back up but then made another one to say players cannot easily continue the challenge so ditched the idea.

 

psh... oh well. No mech for my alt then

 

On the same page there, I love the fact there's a strategic, tactictal and psychological side to the game. Even in PUG games one can find a sort of generic herd/Rambo mentality to work on even if that can be unpredictable.

 

I couldn't agree more.
I'm the aggressive type too, always looking for a brawl and trying to get my team charge.

But when I say "it's all about unreturned damage" it's because there is no health regeneration. Also because I mostly pilot light and mediums, with lighter armor than most my targets: if in my Oxide I take 30-ish damage when dealing 30-ish to an Atlas, I lost the trade.
I don't know if you played Quake (or any similar arena shooter). I played this game a lot (and I mean A LOT) and I thought about it in comparison when I spoke about the importance of unreturned damage in MWO. In Quake duel I'm kind of the "map control" guy: my combat skills are weak but I rely on my timing and control of the power-ups, and at the end of the game I could beat you even if I dealt less and took more damage, only because I controlled more resources. I don't care if you hit twice as me in a shaft duel as long as I'm three times as stacked, and once I grabbed the frag it's not a problem if I'm left with almost no health as long as I can rebuild my stack on the red armor and some health bubbles.
That's obviously not an option in mechwarrior.
That is for example the main reason why I don't like to engage in a fair light vs light duel (however it might end, the winner will be left seriously crippled). In any fair fight actually.

 

The problem with controlled aggression in solo queue is it usually means one person goes out, and rather than support him the rest of the team asks why he charged. Then he dies and everyone else on the team is now afraid to charge because they know nobody else will back them up.

This is why I play exclusively conquest now. 90% of the time on conquest, the brawl happens. And if it doesn't, it's easier to do something useful on conquest while waiting for the brawl to happen than it is on other maps. Plus, when there's one guy left, and he's twice as fast as your team, it's faster to finish the game on Conquest by points than on assault by slowly taking the base or on Skirmish by time.

 

Yep, that's why I mostly play Conquest too (at least solo, because it's hard to find Conquest games in groups).
There is much more mobility, much more engagement.

At first I was worried the faster cap times would turn it more into a cap game, with less fighting (some might remember my posts at the time), but I finally grew pretty fond of it.

 

Thoroughly agree but then I'm a masochist and really enjoy the adrenaline rush of piloting fast mechs.

PS: Never played the non solo Quake side at all.

 

Can't pretend I particularly enjoy Conquest ... I get he point of it but with the grouping of weight classes now so many of the conquest points you can find 4 assaults at.....

 

Yes, you find those assaults and they actually fight. The difference I think is that Conquest has lopsided conditions. If one team has 3 points, they will win. If Conquest had 4 or 6 points it would be the same as the other two.

A king of the hill game mode or a defense/assault game mode would do the same thing. Force people to fight over an objective, and you get the best gameplay.

 

Depends how one sided the map is.