Jump to content
Solono

Decision Processing by TheMarine0341

Recommended Posts

Section 3, end of Zone 3, White: section:

"Now, why not anything North for the south area spawn? Well, because Wargaming has made this one area, the Hill, the dominate feature on the map. You do NOT need a heavy tank presence on the north side, you only need an acceptable vision presence there to keep them honest. Same goes if you’re in the north spawn."

 

Question: When should I decide to participate in the vision presence instead of the fight for the hill?  Also, I want to be sure I'm asking this question for the right reason.  Since you say that a vision team in this area is necessary, there must be circumstances when it is the correct choice for me in particular (or, you know, any other potential reader) to do this job.  Is that a correct deduction?

 

I typed up my question before reading the whole article for understanding, but I had scrolled through it giving it a cursory glance.  My initial impression on the scroll-through was that I wished you had included the mini-map in your screenshots going through the play-by-play.  After reading through to the end, I found I was able to "follow the action" as you described it well enough to understand the explanation.  Now that I'm writing about it, the last part of the write up would be more informative with mini-map shots.  More again with some discussion of how the decisions you made on the flank were affected by what you saw on the mini-map at the time.

 

Overall 10/10.  Will try to learn from again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent, excellent, excellent. Very difficult concept to put into words, and you've done it phenomenally. Well done.

 

That's because the Marine Corps taught him the OODA Loop process.  I tought it to my students as a tank instructor as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got him into Relic, that's what did it.

 

Any questions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Was good article, as stated. A tough concept to grasp, unless properly conveyed through useful phrases.

 

I get a few reviewers to help edit my articles to help with the understanding. If they cant grasp it, then it needs heavier revision. And, thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great article and examples, I also have been guilty of going to my spot no matter what my team was doing. I have been working on trying to read team composition and decoding that into a good plan, sometimes it actually works, so that gives me hope I may not be a scrub someday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an awesome article (yes, I'm biased).  It is not completely 100% applicable in a PvP game, but stil an awesome, must read for every human being.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without realizing it most people are using the OODA loop process on a daily if not hourly basis ... if you stop and analyze your daily actions and decision making processes you will see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Most of their heavies were yellow players, meaning to me they would predictably go to the typical brawling area on the 1/2 lines. This happens 95% of the time, why should this time be any different?"

This statement is so bad that it alone damages the entire article simply because it shows a reliance on opponent mistakes.

If you are making a move based on the fact that you are relying opponent to make a poor decision, YOU ARE NOT EXHIBITING BEST PLAY.

WZ goes down ice road because the WZ is strong there; you do NOT send the WZ down ice road because you bet on your opponent being shit.

If you had said "WZ is strong on ice road because X and Y and Z, PLUS it's not likely to face much opposition", that'd have been OK, instead what happened was a case of "Well the enemy team is bad" and retroactively justifying the risk.

You make the best move for your tank, assume your opponent will too, then devour him if he doesn't.

 

"Im sure if we had gone the other flank, we would have still won but not as decisively nor quickly. Bold but educated choice, dominate and win."

But odds are you would have won with a lot more certainty.

A player who wins 15-0 60% of the time and loses 14-15 40% of the time is a worse player one who wins 15-14 70% of the time and loses 0-15 30% of the time. Neither the decisiveness of the win nor the speed of the win matter, the goal is to do what wins.

A 90% chance of a slow but assured win is far, far better than a 70% chance of a fast, dominating win and a 30% chance of getting fucked so badly it makes others wonder how you got your 70% to begin with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This statement is so bad that it alone damages the entire article simply because it shows a reliance on opponent mistakes.

If you are making a move based on the fact that you are relying opponent to make a poor decision, YOU ARE NOT EXHIBITING BEST PLAY.

WZ goes down ice road because the WZ is strong there; you do NOT send the WZ down ice road because you bet on your opponent being shit.

If you had said "WZ is strong on ice road because X and Y and Z, PLUS it's not likely to face much opposition", that'd have been OK, instead what happened was a case of "Well the enemy team is bad" and retroactively justifying the risk.

You make the best move for your tank, assume your opponent will too, then devour him if he doesn't.

 

But odds are you would have won with a lot more certainty.

A player who wins 15-0 60% of the time and loses 14-15 40% of the time is a worse player one who wins 15-14 70% of the time and loses 0-15 30% of the time. Neither the decisiveness of the win nor the speed of the win matter, the goal is to do what wins.

A 90% chance of a slow but assured win is far, far better than a 70% chance of a fast, dominating win and a 30% chance of getting fucked so badly it makes others wonder how you got your 70% to begin with.

 

It does not rely on opponents mistakes. It relies instead on making an educated guess as to their teams initial deployment and is used as an example of such. This happens all the time in platoons: We read enemy line-up. We make an educated guess as to where their heavies forces will go, and how we can either 1) Counter 2) Surprise 3) Take initiative. We, in the situation described, took a chance to surprise the enemy and take away their initiative. Plain, simple.

 

I dont believe Derps or I have Win % enabled, either. XVM is simply to judge their teams talent levels on our own so I have no clue what the win chance is.

 

And, I did say the WZ is strong in that position in the article. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does not rely on opponents mistakes. It relies instead on making an educated guess as to their teams initial deployment and is used as an example of such. This happens all the time in platoons: We read enemy line-up. We make an educated guess as to where their heavies forces will go, and how we can either 1) Counter 2) Surprise 3) Take initiative. We, in the situation described, took a chance to surprise the enemy and take away their initiative. Plain, simple.

 

An educated guess relying on the fact that your opponent is yellow is a guess relying on your opponent making a mistake. You can make a decision based on objective tank composition, or based on the map, but you should NEVER make a decision based on opponent strength until your opponent has actually shown he's a retard.

 

Tell me now: Would you have done the same if, say, that IS6 and 2x T34 were a top tier platoon of 2 purples and a blue? I highly doubt so, the first line of justification for your "educated guess" for where the tanks would go was literally "(Because) most of their heavies (are) yellow players"

 

If your play against purples changes against yellows, that just shows that you were counting on mistakes made by yellows.

 

Would you charge your 140 at a 35% JPE player betting on a miss? Then why would you make a map call based on yellows going to a suboptimal location or not knowing how to flex or not knowing how to take mid or bridge or whatever?

 

I dont believe Derps or I have Win % enabled, either. XVM is simply to judge their teams talent levels on our own so I have no clue what the win chance is.

No, I mean you do what wins. If your best chance to win is 8/9, you go 8/9, if your best chance to win is 1/2, you go 1/2.

 

And, I did say the WZ is strong in that position in the article.

 

Why was the fact that the opponent was mostly yellow the number-one item on your list of reasons for your decision then? Hell, why was it even a factor?

 

If the WZ is strong there with the team compositions, it would have gone there regardless of whether the opposition was yellow or purple, XVM be fucked.

You gave these reasons:

  • Most of their heavies being yellow
  • Many of their lower tier tanks were yellow/shades of red

When you should have given this reason for going ice road:

  • The 111 fucking owns shit there (it's fucking terrible there, but at least it's based on an evaluation instead of an assumption)
Link to post
Share on other sites

An educated guess relying on the fact that your opponent is yellow is a guess relying on your opponent making a mistake. You can make a decision based on objective tank composition, or based on the map, but you should NEVER make a decision based on opponent strength until your opponent has actually shown he's a retard.

 

*shrug* I sort of disagree.  When I'm grinding up tank lines and end up in matches where I'm bottom tier, I make similar decisions based on tank comp and player skill and it works out pretty reliably.  This isn't a normal board game where you can make statements like that-- you can't wait and watch your opponent and see his first couple moves and then make a decision on when and how to commit-- it's a double blind tactics game and at some level you need to make a decision on deployment based on the information you have.

 

My version of this, though, tends to rely on guessing where the good players are going to go (because that is FAR more predictable) than guessing where bad players are going to go-- because that's a complete crapshoot.  I've pushed ice road on Mountain Pass in situations where I'm a low tier tank and their good players are all in high tiers precisely because I *know* no good player will be there.  Ditto 8 line road on Abbey and a host of other places on maps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My version of this, though, tends to rely on guessing where the good players are going to go (because that is FAR more predictable) than guessing where bad players are going to go-- because that's a complete crapshoot.

Which basically agrees with my point of "play as if your opponent is a purple".

 

I've pushed ice road on Mountain Pass in situations where I'm a low tier tank and their good players are all in high tiers precisely because I *know* no good player will be there.  Ditto 8 line road on Abbey and a host of other places on maps.

 

How can you say that other good players will not go there when you are a good player and yet clearly are there?

 

More importantly, if you think that way, surely it'd be a reasonable assumption for other good players to account for that in their play (e.g. having a plan to flex).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will probably address this in my Flank Selection Guide (I posted that I would do the topic before this article, so I am not changing my series over a possibly slight overlap).

 

In short, you can go to where you can best help your team. You can't assume where the enemy team will go or what they will do - you need to go somewhere where you can flatten whatever shows up or hold your own against bad odds, not try and pick a spot based on where you expect their best players to go. 

 

Pushing ice road from north spawn in 111s is quite simply stupid. You got incredibly lucky that they did not take bridge, did not take J3 so they could snipe you from middle, did not camp their base ridge with anything over 200 pen, did not roll the other side, AND in generally played badly. You basically pushed into a spot where you can get wrecked from 3 directions and got lucky.

 

Also, WZ is NOT strong on ice road. Everything is shooting down at you negating your UFP slope, you have exactly 2 corners (at best) which are not designed to let you hull down properly and there is enough micro-terrain to let a taller tank hull down while it blocks your gun. 

 

Finally, you can't predict where yellow players will go. I can usually predict what blue/purples will do - I know they will go to one of the 2 or 3 good spots for their tank and can position to counter their good spots and also counter the bad ones. You were trying to counter a good spot (the flanking positions I said earlier) by assuming that they would be too stupid to go there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will probably address this in my Flank Selection Guide (I posted that I would do the topic before this article, so I am not changing my series over a possibly slight overlap).

 

In short, you can go to where you can best help your team. You can't assume where the enemy team will go or what they will do - you need to go somewhere where you can flatten whatever shows up or hold your own against bad odds, not try and pick a spot based on where you expect their best players to go. 

 

Pushing ice road from north spawn in 111s is quite simply stupid. You got incredibly lucky that they did not take bridge, did not take J3 so they could snipe you from middle, did not camp their base ridge with anything over 200 pen, did not roll the other side, AND in generally played badly. You basically pushed into a spot where you can get wrecked from 3 directions and got lucky.

 

Also, WZ is NOT strong on ice road. Everything is shooting down at you negating your UFP slope, you have exactly 2 corners (at best) which are not designed to let you hull down properly and there is enough micro-terrain to let a taller tank hull down while it blocks your gun. 

 

Finally, you can't predict where yellow players will go. I can usually predict what blue/purples will do - I know they will go to one of the 2 or 3 good spots for their tank and can position to counter their good spots and also counter the bad ones. You were trying to counter a good spot (the flanking positions I said earlier) by assuming that they would be too stupid to go there. 

 

I didn't address any of that because this is a guide about decision processing and not flank selection; to me WZ not actually being strong on ice road's is irrelevant, it's more the fact that his decision to go there was based on "Let's pray the enemy team is retarded" instead of  "WZ is good on ice road".

 

Going ice road because you believe the WZ is strong there: Terrible play but based on good reasoning

 

Going ice road because you believe yellows don't know how to fuck you over for poor play: Retarded reasoning, Retarded play

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is fine - if you write an article which is published with a mistake like that on it you deserve it. I expect no less from people reading my articles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is fine - if you write an article which is published with a mistake like that on it you deserve it. I expect no less from people reading my articles.

If I were as good, I would say the exact same. Regardless of the way it's conveyed, knowledge is knowledge and opinions are opinions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Echelon.

 

When will you learn how to converse on a civil level, instead of coming across as an arrogant know it all?

 

Seriously, you often do have a good point, but you always manage to bring it across like an ass. 

 

When I see a good article I praise it. (e.g. Max's and Kewei's guides on the M18)

When I see a bad article I bash it. (e.g. See also: Sturgeon's Law)

 

When I write good articles I get praised. (e.g. 36 Rules of TF2, the ELC guide)

When I write bad articles I get bashed. (e.g. the dozen or so that I decide not to release)

 

I treat other articles the exact same way I treat my own, it's only fair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some feedback on the flow of the article Marine, I had a little cognitive dissonance for some reason in the switch from the more theory based talking about Karelia to the play example being on Mountain Pass. I probably skim read the text that mentioned Mountain Pass initially because I assumed the next part would continue talking about Karelia. Not sure if sticking with the same map would make the article better or worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...