| --- Log opened Sun Sep 02 00:00:01 2012 |
| 00:19 | | Ced23Ric [me@Nightstar-21fdbc39.adsl.alicedsl.de] has quit [[NS] Quit: ] |
| 02:37 | | locas [locas@Nightstar-42c41d95.res.rr.com] has joined #mf0 |
| 02:38 | | locas is now known as afny |
| 06:32 | | AnCarver [NSwebIRC@Nightstar-8d9f9e3d.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #mf0 |
| 06:32 | < AnCarver> | Greetings |
| 06:33 | < AnCarver> | Are there any active people here? |
| 06:33 | < afny> | o/ |
| 06:33 | < AnCarver> | I am seeking help with a forum issue |
| 06:33 | < afny> | Probably only me currently |
| 06:33 | < neoaez> | Hey |
| 06:33 | < afny> | AHA! |
| 06:33 | < afny> | someone else liiiives. |
| 06:33 | < neoaez> | Barely. |
| 06:33 | < afny> | What's the rub AnCarver, not receiving a registration email? |
| 06:33 | < AnCarver> | I have attempted several times to sign up for the forum, and I can't get it to send me the activation email |
| 06:33 | < AnCarver> | basicly |
| 06:33 | < afny> | apparently it's a common problem |
| 06:33 | < afny> | do you have a reddit account? |
| 06:34 | < AnCarver> | Nope, sorry |
| 06:34 | < afny> | a Flikr account? |
| 06:34 | < AnCarver> | nopw |
| 06:34 | < afny> | hm |
| 06:34 | < AnCarver> | *nope |
| 06:34 | < afny> | well, we recently got some new forum admins that can help you |
| 06:34 | < afny> | but none of them are here |
| 06:34 | < afny> | what forum name did you try to register with? |
| 06:34 | < AnCarver> | AnCarver |
| 06:34 | < AnCarver> | ^^ |
| 06:34 | < afny> | I'll post about it and hopefully someone will take care of it as soon as possible |
| 06:34 | < AnCarver> | I appriciate it |
| 06:35 | < AnCarver> | my big issue was to contact the admins, you need an activated account |
| 06:35 | < afny> | yeah |
| 06:35 | < AnCarver> | I don't know if it's possible, but adding some way for people to contact admins w/o an account would be nice |
| 06:35 | < afny> | up until recently our forum only had one admin :\ |
| 06:35 | < afny> | and he was totally MIA cause he had a kid |
| 06:35 | < AnCarver> | I've been lurking |
| 06:36 | < AnCarver> | I understand why it is the way it is |
| 06:37 | < afny> | Welp, posted, hopefully someone sees it by tomorrow |
| 06:37 | < afny> | if not, just come in here again, one of our admins (ferret) is in here sometimes |
| 06:37 | < afny> | and even if he isn't, we can just spam them |
| 06:38 | < AnCarver> | Thanks a lot |
| 06:38 | < AnCarver> | I've been wanting to comment and ask questions for a while now |
| 06:38 | < afny> | Yeah, that must be extremely frustrating :P |
| 06:39 | < afny> | I'll see about getting a sticky thread somewhere |
| 06:39 | < afny> | with instructions about contacting the admins |
| 06:39 | < AnCarver> | That would be amazing for everyone in my position |
| 06:39 | < AnCarver> | I'm actually going to get to play the game next week |
| 06:39 | < AnCarver> | super excited |
| 06:40 | < AnCarver> | So, question |
| 06:41 | < AnCarver> | I've played a couple of 3-player games before where the winning stratagy was to be the second person to almost win. |
| 06:41 | < AnCarver> | Would you say that applies here? |
| 06:41 | < afny> | the what? |
| 06:41 | < afny> | I'm confused |
| 06:41 | < AnCarver> | (meaning letting someone take the lead, and then crushing them with the person in last place) |
| 06:41 | < afny> | ah, yeah, that's a good strategy |
| 06:41 | < afny> | although I've found that the first few games tend to fall that way |
| 06:42 | < afny> | once people become aware of that trend in the metagame, things can go quite differently |
| 06:42 | < afny> | when people first start playing, the defender (the one with the highest asset value at the start) tends to hold on to their stations for dear life |
| 06:42 | < afny> | at the cost of their units |
| 06:42 | < afny> | but after a few games, they realize they can give up their stations and take them back later, keeping their frames alive to utilize their higher asset value in the mid and endgame |
| 06:42 | < afny> | when people are learning these things, though, being the secondary attacker is easy street |
| 06:43 | < AnCarver> | So I might be better off building an army that tries to be the middle guy, at least at first |
| 06:44 | < afny> | if everyone is on the same page, that might be harder than it sounds |
| 06:44 | < AnCarver> | Pitty, I've been wanting to try out some melee ambush builds, and those seem better suited to defenders |
| 06:44 | < afny> | there's a bluffing element to get that position in some cases |
| 06:44 | < afny> | I dunno, I'm really awful at melee |
| 06:44 | < afny> | i've heard people say that it's usually better to be the primary attacker if you're going melee heavy |
| 06:44 | < AnCarver> | just for the number advantage.... |
| 06:45 | < afny> | I'm not entirely sure of the reasoning, though; maybe because you can sacrifice more of your frames with a lower asset value |
| 06:45 | < AnCarver> | plus, they can't stop you rushing forward |
| 06:45 | < afny> | (and more assets) |
| 06:45 | < afny> | true enough, yeah |
| 06:45 | < afny> | Most of my companies so far have been direct fire focused with some mobile double artillery or split range artillery as support |
| 06:45 | < AnCarver> | You have to make up for the time you spend running into melee somehow |
| 06:45 | < AnCarver> | How is split range working out for you? |
| 06:45 | < AnCarver> | I've heard mixed things about it |
| 06:45 | < afny> | Hm, I can't say that I've found any reason to use it over straight up artillery |
| 06:46 | < afny> | but that may be because I just wasn't applying it right |
| 06:46 | < afny> | I was using AAADDDB |
| 06:46 | < afny> | but i've mostly switched to AAAAGB |
| 06:46 | < afny> | I really like the movement system on my artillery, I've found |
| 06:46 | < afny> | especially if you're playing on maps with elevation |
| 06:47 | < afny> | I always put my spotting systems, especially my YY, on a direct fire frame |
| 06:47 | < AnCarver> | Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me |
| 06:47 | < AnCarver> | You dont want it on melee because everyone shoots those down |
| 06:47 | < afny> | If Soren were here he'd tell you about his MYYB scouts |
| 06:47 | < AnCarver> | and not on art, because then it can take advantaged of the spots it produces |
| 06:48 | < AnCarver> | Those sounded cool |
| 06:48 | < afny> | the idea is you spot as you're closing in, then you melee them to death while your direct fire follows up |
| 06:48 | < AnCarver> | fit em with a couple SSRs? |
| 06:48 | < afny> | yeah |
| 06:48 | < afny> | that's the idea |
| 06:48 | < AnCarver> | Seems like a great underbid unit, too |
| 06:48 | < AnCarver> | really easy to strip down to a YYB |
| 06:49 | < afny> | I'd caution against it actually |
| 06:49 | < afny> | not having two dedicated green dice on a frame like that will really hurt its ability to close reliably |
| 06:49 | < afny> | I'd rather underbid with a direct fire frame, so DYB |
| 06:49 | < afny> | er, DDYB* |
| 06:49 | < AnCarver> | Yeah. |
| 06:49 | < AnCarver> | I can see that |
| 06:50 | < AnCarver> | How valuable do you find frames with only one Y? |
| 06:50 | < afny> | very |
| 06:50 | < afny> | but it depends on what you're doing with the frame |
| 06:50 | < afny> | I mean, I only use one YY frame in a company, usually |
| 06:51 | < afny> | I primarily use single spotting systems and chain the spots for my direct fire units |
| 06:51 | < AnCarver> | Company being the 5-8 range or the 3-6 range? |
| 06:51 | < afny> | either |
| 06:51 | < afny> | 3-8 |
| 06:51 | < AnCarver> | Coordinated fire teams |
| 06:51 | < afny> | In an 8 frame company, I'd THINK about using two YY frames for redundancy, but it would depend on my strategy |
| 06:52 | < afny> | since my artillery never has spotting systems and usually has better guns than my direct fire |
| 06:52 | < afny> | I prioritize them in using high spot rolls regardless of the location of the spotter |
| 06:52 | < afny> | otherwise, yeah, I'm trying to chain spots in localized fireteams |
| 06:53 | < afny> | the one problem I run into with my playstyle is getting frames off stations in a timely manner |
| 06:53 | < AnCarver> | So, something I was wondering about |
| 06:53 | < AnCarver> | hills |
| 06:53 | < afny> | which is why most people incorporate a melee frame |
| 06:53 | < AnCarver> | are they generally destructable? |
| 06:53 | < afny> | dunno, I've never played with hills :p |
| 06:53 | < AnCarver> | Elevation in general is a confusing rule for me |
| 06:53 | < afny> | how so? |
| 06:54 | < afny> | here, these are the bit sof elevation I've used |
| 06:54 | < afny> | or stuff like this |
| 06:54 | < afny> | http://www.flickr.com/photos/kyanosmoros/7471050276/in/photostream |
| 06:54 | < AnCarver> | So an elevated unit has cover, even if its not in cover |
| 06:54 | < afny> | http://www.flickr.com/photos/kyanosmoros/7471059046/in/photostream |
| 06:54 | < afny> | correct, but only to units below it |
| 06:54 | < AnCarver> | yeah |
| 06:54 | < AnCarver> | so if you shoot it |
| 06:54 | < AnCarver> | and roll a 456 combo |
| 06:54 | < AnCarver> | what do the 4/5 hit? |
| 06:55 | < AnCarver> | the unit isnt behind cover |
| 06:55 | < afny> | the ground beneath the frame |
| 06:55 | < afny> | you read the bit about falling damage, right? |
| 06:55 | < AnCarver> | right, right |
| 06:55 | < afny> | if you can do enough damage directly below the frame to make it fall x distance (I think six bricks?), it takes x ammount of damage |
| 06:55 | < afny> | can't remember |
| 06:55 | < AnCarver> | but that should mean elevation only takes 1 hit to drop you |
| 06:55 | < afny> | only if you're standing on a perfect tower of just six bricks |
| 06:56 | < afny> | take a look at the cover I linked; the four elevated rock things take about sixteen hits to break |
| 06:56 | < AnCarver> | b/c elevation like yours has a single flat panel that keeps the model up |
| 06:56 | < afny> | and the garage takes way more |
| 06:56 | < afny> | well it has to be 4x4 studs to be considered elevation |
| 06:56 | < AnCarver> | if I take out the panel first, the unit isn't standing on anything anymore |
| 06:56 | < afny> | each of those things in the "tar" set have at least one backup panel, and enough bricks on the first layer to prevent that being removed straight away |
| 06:57 | < afny> | although two hits of damage is enough to drop a frame on the smallest one |
| 06:57 | < afny> | I don't have them built exactly the same way anymore, but I build them similarly each time |
| 06:57 | < AnCarver> | Ah, I see |
| 06:57 | < afny> | just like with normal cover, you can only remove a brick if its on top |
| 06:57 | < AnCarver> | I was a little confused about that. |
| 06:57 | < afny> | you can't selectively remove something if you'd have to rebuild it afterwards |
| 06:58 | < AnCarver> | I'm used to thinking like how I used to build legos when I was 6 |
| 06:58 | < AnCarver> | so you know |
| 06:58 | < AnCarver> | flat roof with nothing on it |
| 06:58 | < AnCarver> | I cant believe that didnt occur to me |
| 06:58 | < afny> | heh |
| 06:58 | < afny> | the other thing about elevation is, like |
| 06:58 | < afny> | you can have cover ON elevation |
| 06:58 | < afny> | so we can both be on rooftops, but I can hide behind a wall on the rooftop |
| 06:58 | < afny> | and be in cover to you even though you are on my elevation |
| 06:59 | < afny> | so you can get pretty intricate if you have the bricks for it |
| 06:59 | < AnCarver> | and then the cover is removed first, b/c it is higher up than the elevation |
| 06:59 | < afny> | not necessarily, only if it's built that way |
| 06:59 | < afny> | it's not like you can only remove the tallest brick, but you have to remove them in a way that makes sense |
| 06:59 | < afny> | like, if that wall is on TOP of the bricks you want gone, you have to destroy it first |
| 07:00 | < afny> | but if you're shooting at something totally different in the construction and can remove those bricks without touching the wall |
| 07:00 | < afny> | you can do that too. |
| 07:00 | < afny> | think of it as a physics engine completely governed by the lego connections |
| 07:00 | < AnCarver> | crazy |
| 07:00 | < AnCarver> | so what is your experience with BB builds? |
| 07:00 | < afny> | it doesn't usually get that nuts, because people only have so many bricks and so much energy to build stuff that they KNOW will get totally demolished |
| 07:01 | < afny> | I've never used one personally, and most people consider it to be "suboptimal" |
| 07:01 | < AnCarver> | One of my friends keeps going on about it, and I'm wondering how worried I should be |
| 07:01 | < afny> | I've seen some interesting stuff about companies using it for the added benefit of cover |
| 07:01 | < afny> | but I haven't attempted it myself |
| 07:01 | < AnCarver> | as in, claiming he can make super-scary artillery teams from it |
| 07:01 | < afny> | hm |
| 07:02 | < afny> | I think Joshua likes an AAAABB |
| 07:02 | < afny> | on maps with very little cover, I imagine it becomes much more valuable than AAAABG |
| 07:02 | < AnCarver> | Something like an AAA8BB + AAA8YY or something |
| 07:03 | < AnCarver> | First one covers the second, second spots for the first |
| 07:03 | < afny> | potentially scary, but close in on a duo like that |
| 07:03 | < afny> | and it can't do much |
| 07:03 | < afny> | it can't run or attack at direct range, so it's potentially vulnerable |
| 07:04 | < AnCarver> | Mobility, then. makes sense. |
| 07:04 | < afny> | that's why I almost universally prefer a green on my artillery |
| 07:04 | < afny> | though if you start playing with SSRS on a combo like that |
| 07:04 | < afny> | it could get ugly |
| 07:04 | < AnCarver> | Give the defender two and the spotter 1 or something |
| 07:05 | < AnCarver> | design the rest of the company to provide DF support |
| 07:05 | < afny> | still, you have to wonder what you're hoping to accomplish with that kind of play |
| 07:05 | < AnCarver> | DDYGB soldiers or something similar |
| 07:05 | < afny> | two stationary frames are two frames that won't be taking stations for you |
| 07:05 | < afny> | and that won't be making a tactical retreat |
| 07:05 | < afny> | it's sort of an all-in style no matter what the rest of your company is doing |
| 07:05 | < AnCarver> | It's counting a lot on not getting ambushed, yeah |
| 07:05 | < afny> | unless you have 7 or 8 frames |
| 07:05 | < afny> | yeah, that's the other thing |
| 07:05 | < afny> | if you aren't the defender |
| 07:06 | < afny> | the defender can easly place melee or DF outside their perimeter and crush you straight away |
| 07:06 | < afny> | or at least distract the rest of your frames heavily |
| 07:06 | < afny> | by placing your artillery at risk |
| 07:06 | < AnCarver> | I've really wanted to do that ever since I figured out it was possible |
| 07:06 | < AnCarver> | just place a melee rusher in cover next to an art unit |
| 07:06 | < afny> | it's incredibly annoying depending on the placement of cover |
| 07:06 | < AnCarver> | and 1st turn crush them |
| 07:07 | < afny> | it's one of the biggest reasons I make sure everyone understands placement and collaboratively sets up the map |
| 07:07 | < afny> | alternating placing pieces with full veto power for every player |
| 07:07 | < afny> | because an unbalanced map makes ambushing an instant win |
| 07:07 | < AnCarver> | And that is done before everyone knows who the defender is |
| 07:07 | < AnCarver> | right? |
| 07:07 | < afny> | nah, not usually |
| 07:08 | < afny> | I think the convention is that everyone knows how many frames are on the table before you even sit down to play |
| 07:08 | < afny> | although that can obviously change from group to group |
| 07:08 | < afny> | it doesn't really matter, though, because if everyone is placing terrain with their own role in mind |
| 07:08 | < afny> | they can make sure it isn't advantageous to start in any one corner of the map |
| 07:08 | < afny> | regardless of who actually gets to start where |
| 07:08 | < afny> | I mean, too a point; things won't ever be ENTIRELY balanced |
| 07:09 | < afny> | to* |
| 07:10 | < AnCarver> | I get you |
| 07:47 | | CalaveraJoe [CalaveraJoe@Nightstar-3804829e.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has joined #mf0 |
| 07:52 | | CalaveraJoe [CalaveraJoe@Nightstar-3804829e.irvnca.sbcglobal.net] has quit [[NS] Quit: FOOM!] |
| 08:26 | | AnCarver [NSwebIRC@Nightstar-8d9f9e3d.sntcca.sbcglobal.net] has left #mf0 [""] |
| 08:39 | | MoF0-2458 [gurddeilakq@Nightstar-407ca949.range86-130.btcentralplus.com] has joined #mf0 |
| 08:39 | | MoF0-2458 is now known as Malcolm |
| 08:47 | | Malcolm [gurddeilakq@Nightstar-407ca949.range86-130.btcentralplus.com] has quit [Client closed the connection] |
| 08:48 | | MoF0-3539 [gurddeilakq@Nightstar-407ca949.range86-130.btcentralplus.com] has joined #mf0 |
| 08:48 | | MoF0-3539 is now known as Malcolm |
| 10:46 | | Malcolm [gurddeilakq@Nightstar-407ca949.range86-130.btcentralplus.com] has quit [Client closed the connection] |
| 19:06 | | mchnzr [NSwebIRC@4CA975.D980A3.5ED85C.287BFC] has joined #mf0 |
| 19:07 | < mchnzr> | Gentlemen |
| 19:35 | | mchnzr [NSwebIRC@4CA975.D980A3.5ED85C.287BFC] has quit [Ping timeout: 121 seconds] |
| 19:35 | | afny [locas@Nightstar-42c41d95.res.rr.com] has left #mf0 [""] |
| 20:25 | | mchnzr [NSwebIRC@4CA975.D980A3.5ED85C.287BFC] has joined #mf0 |
| 20:51 | < mchnzr> | I've drafted a set of rules for Rooftop racing. I'm going to play a game against myself before I post them to see how they work |
| 20:52 | < mchnzr> | first...must design frames to race each other! |
| 20:52 | | mchnzr [NSwebIRC@4CA975.D980A3.5ED85C.287BFC] has quit [[NS] Quit: Page closed] |
| 23:17 | | addking [ak@Nightstar-0ac86db8.mi.comcast.net] has joined #mf0 |
| 23:17 | < addking> | afternoon! |
| 23:34 | < neoaez> | Hey |
| --- Log closed Mon Sep 03 00:00:16 2012 |