92 replies to this topic

[noten]

In the case where your team is already all on the AA with maybe one person left to reach, and the enemy has to approach the AA, I have already explained that the enemy snipers would not be able to help because of all the cover the AA provides. Unless the snipers flank from the sides which means they would no longer be at their own base. So by 6v6 on the AA, I mean you need to have everyone heading towards or either flanking the AA, and that means no one can remain idle in their own base.

Yes I have seen teams camp the AA just before either team's battleship launches to have a strong hold on it. What I'm describing is the other team needs to match the numbers that are on the AA just to have a fair fight.

[HazaRDReborN]

what I was getting to was that I was mostly commenting on how to hold the AA, not how to capture. The capture is a scenario that really does change a lot depending on many things. Besides team work from both sides, the first and most important is player locations the moment the objective changes.

[HazaRDReborN]

hmmmm, well if you where referring to team players remaining all the way behind (on your own base) then I see how it might be frustrating. I can see how something like that wouldnt work, I was under the impression that no one was that far behind. I dont want to say they dont know what they are doing right off the bat, cause like I already stated I didnt have extensive play in this mode due to connectivity. But as logic permits me to understand it, I think that they would indeed be useless if they remain all the way behind in the home-base area. I havent witnessed anyone do that. lol. even the person I was frustrated with (who might have been doing even testing on settings, dont know) even he was distant from the initial base.

Edited by HazaRDReborN, November 01 2012 - 12:08 AM.

[Talesin]

noten, on October 31 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

As have been explained many times before, if you do not match the enemy's team numbers on the AA, you will lose the game. Your assaults on the enemy position will NOT drive them out of cover because they will be outnumbered, and thus at a disadvantage. It's all about simple numbers, if I have to repeat it again I might as well be teaching math.

I think you missed the point that team game modes are meant to have players selflessly work together and that you have to sacrifice your way of play in order to contribute to the team.

It seems like I'm just repeating all the points I made posts ago.

Simple numbers on the point only works if people are just trying to sit on the point. It's equally as important to remove THEIR players from THEIR point. I know that for some, it's an incredibly advanced game concept when it goes past 'stand here and look pretty'. But there are other methods of playing the game than simply standing around.

No. DEMANDING that someone play in a style other than the one where they can contribute most effectively is the selfish standpoint. Just because it gets your personal panties in a bunch when people play the game in a manner other than the only way you know how, does not make it a valid point. Once you make a valid point though, I'll be happy to respond to it.

[killerjv]

noten, on October 30 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

Don't play a team game if all you want to do is sit behind like an fuzzy bunny thinking you're being a credit to the team when you're not.

The game needs votekick to boot the non-team players. I'm getting tired of wasting my time trying to do everything by myself in siege and missile.

I defiantly agree with you. But I think adding vote-kick option during Beta is not a good call because you have limited amt. of players in a closed beta and vote-kicking a bunch of assh***s won't help the game devs track bugs fast.

[AsianJoyKiller]

noten, on October 31 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:

I have given reasons and examples as well as other people for each opinion stated, but it seems that it has gone mostly ignored. I can only thus assume that the "actual major flaw in your arguments" is my lack of credibility of my player skill.

The lack of credibility I perceive has little to do with player skill and much with most of your reasoning and examples being emotionally charged generalizations and venomous accusations.

Quote

For the last time if it wasn't clear enough, my arguments was that of players sitting idly by during the AA phase when it's required for your team to outnumber the enemy team on the AA player count. This is based off how the AA mechanic currently works and there is no other alternative that provides as much benefit as controlling the AA. You can also culminate this from your own experiences of playing siege, in other words your own experiences act as a credibility for my arguments. Unless your of course you tell me you have played a siege game where your team won despite not having control of the AA the whole game, which is not possible under the current siege mechanics.

I'd agree that AA control is necessary.
But you also make statements that are clearly not true.
For instance, you really only need one person on the AA. If one person is, it doesn't actually matter where anyone else is as long as they're keeping the enemies off it.
But, from what I can tell by your posts, you disagree with that.

Quote

I am getting a sense of biasness and double standards here as all my reasonings and examples to back up my arguments are falling on deaf ears and are being deemed not credible enough despite being detailed in exactly the same way that other people have been doing to the point where even my player skill is being called into question as being credible to my arguments. I don't believe I've seen this happen to anyone else.

My bias against you is your emotional reactions, rational and general bad attitude.
When someone creates a thread to vent and then spends the better part of 4 pages posting sarcastic, venomous replies and essentially calling people stupid, I tend to question whether or not their reasoning is sound.
Most of the time, your reasoning or examples have been laced with sarcasm or condescension which makes me think they're more based in emotion than reason.

It's one thing to be passionate about a subject, but another when you continuously lash out at people in rude manner.

[noten]

Talesin, on November 01 2012 - 01:10 AM, said:

Simple numbers on the point only works if people are just trying to sit on the point. It's equally as important to remove THEIR players from THEIR point. I know that for some, it's an incredibly advanced game concept when it goes past 'stand here and look pretty'. But there are other methods of playing the game than simply standing around.

No. DEMANDING that someone play in a style other than the one where they can contribute most effectively is the selfish standpoint. Just because it gets your personal panties in a bunch when people play the game in a manner other than the only way you know how, does not make it a valid point. Once you make a valid point though, I'll be happy to respond to it.

AND in order to remove the players from the point you need to be able to shoot them, if they are behind cover and you are sniping well I'm sure you can draw your own conclusion.

I only demand people move when we need the numbers to win the AA or they do not have a shot on the enemy and are just standing idly by, I believe this is a valid point.

AsianJoyKiller, on November 01 2012 - 02:13 AM, said:

The lack of credibility I perceive has little to do with player skill and much with most of your reasoning and examples being emotionally charged generalizations and venomous accusations.

I'd agree that AA control is necessary.
But you also make statements that are clearly not true.
For instance, you really only need one person on the AA. If one person is, it doesn't actually matter where anyone else is as long as they're keeping the enemies off it.
But, from what I can tell by your posts, you disagree with that.

My bias against you is your emotional reactions, rational and general bad attitude.
When someone creates a thread to vent and then spends the better part of 4 pages posting sarcastic, venomous replies and essentially calling people stupid, I tend to question whether or not their reasoning is sound.
Most of the time, your reasoning or examples have been laced with sarcasm or condescension which makes me think they're more based in emotion than reason.

It's one thing to be passionate about a subject, but another when you continuously lash out at people in rude manner.

Yes, I'd agree my first post was emotional but as you can read from my second post, I explained that I was just venting and only annoyed at players who are required at an objective but refuse to move. Emotional charged generalizations and venomous accusations_ That's quite a stretch from what I posted.

If there is more than 1 person on the AA, it fires faster, thus ending the battleship phase faster, thus speeding up the game, and from what I've read, you prefer not to play a long drawn out game in siege_

You make it sound as though you have not been condescending and defamatory, I just responded in kind. Maybe you should judge yourself first before passing judgement on others.

[Talesin]

noten, on November 01 2012 - 02:36 AM, said:

AND in order to remove the players from the point you need to be able to shoot them, if they are behind cover and you are sniping well I'm sure you can draw your own conclusion.

I only demand people move when we need the numbers to win the AA or they do not have a shot on the enemy and are just standing idly by, I believe this is a valid point.

Yep. But generally you can do so, if you have others on your team doing something useful... unlike just sitting on a point, hiding in cover and complaining about people who actually want to play the game. It's pretty hard for the enemy to stay in cover while also maneuvering in CQC when they are being pressured by 2-3 Assaults who are flanking their position, rather than simply standing on a point like a lump.

Active versus passive role in gameplay. Standing on a point and whining_ Pretty passive, not to mention annoying for your teammates who likely could use your support in killing off the enemy team.

[noten]

I never said anything about being passive when standing on point. You misunderstand standing on point. By standing on point I don't mean doing nothing. The AA circle while small, is still big enough to CQC in while still remaining inside the circle. You can also cqc while knowingly putting cover between you and the sniper and because you have lesser people at the AA because of your snipers in the back, the other team will easily steamroll your 2-3 assaults. Again simple numbers.

The scenario you're probably imaging sounds very warped from what I'm describing, perhaps you're too used to that passive style of play_

[AsianJoyKiller]

It actually sounds like you two are assuming each other are playing as poorly as possible within a given playstyle.

By the way, I'm okay with a match being drawn out when you're doing things like defending an objective. If the match takes a little longer because not everyone stands on the AA since they're doing things like keeping the enemy from reaching it in the first place, that's just fine by me.
What I'm not okay with is cheesy tactics like shooting down the battleships from spawn (which is pointless considering you'll have to use the AA eventually assuming your team isn't terribad and gets rolled immediately) and turtling around EU nodes while avoiding conflict as much as possible.

noten, on November 01 2012 - 02:36 AM, said:

Emotional charged generalizations and venomous accusations_ That's quite a stretch from what I posted.

Quite a stretch_
Do you need me to point out every angry outburst, implication of lack of intelligence or outright insult you've posted in this thread_
Because there are a ton of them.

[noten]

I can see this is going nowhere, if you think I came across hostile, it wasn't my intention to, perhaps you read too much into it. I'll just leave it at that.

[DarkPulse]

This thread, in a nutshell.

[Conquistador]

killerjv, on November 01 2012 - 01:41 AM, said:

noten, on October 30 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

Don't play a team game if all you want to do is sit behind like an fuzzy bunny thinking you're being a credit to the team when you're not.

The game needs votekick to boot the non-team players. I'm getting tired of wasting my time trying to do everything by myself in siege and missile.

I defiantly agree with you. But I think adding vote-kick option during Beta is not a good call because you have limited amt. of players in a closed beta and vote-kicking a bunch of assh***s won't help the game devs track bugs fast.

I could easily see vote kicking being abused. Particularly by large clans that set up homesteads in supposedly-public servers to remove unwanted pubbers from interfering in clan "training".