Friday, March 25, 2011
Mellow rock?
I guess it's technically folk rock, but it's up my alley. Sun Kil Moon is amazing. And not only did I think they were amazing upon hearing the first album, then I found out they did an entire album of Modest Mouse covers. And not the shitty new stuff, all the low-fi stuff from 2005 and earlier. I'm still digesting everything, but Carry Me Ohio and Pancho Villa off their first album (Ghosts of the Great Highway) are good starting points.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
The UAV
Once upon a time I wrote the following: "[The UAV] dies in three hits, and the crazy long-distance accuracy of almost every class means you're under fire immediately upon takeoff. The hellfire missile doesn't have a big explosion radius and reloads every 25 seconds. The altfire machine gun is hard to aim on the move, which you need to do at all times because you die if a stiff breeze hits the UAV. A safe vertical distance is too far away for active spotting. Nobody ever does anything useful with the UAV."
I'd like to take this back, after some more practice and experimentation, and after the first official time I was accused of hacking because I completely dominated a Harvest Day rush (and won the Ace pin, no less, with the UAV). My major complaints about the UAV centered around the fact that there's a maximum spotting distance. Even if you see dudes, if you're 100+ meters away you can't hit Q and mark them. Similarly it was very hard to aim the hellfire outside of that range. This meant you had to bring the UAV close to enemy positions, which always resulted in instantaneous death.
Then I discovered V-OPTIC. Holyfuckingshitballs. It essentially doubles your camera zoom, which means you can spot and aim with precision while hovering over your own deployment base instead of the objective zone. It keeps you far enough away from the action that most of the time the opposing team can't even find you, and when they do it takes minimal strafing to avoid the scatterspray gunfire.
And then, on top of this, last night happened. I don't know if I was playing on a modded server or if there was a glitch or if this was normal, but on Harvest Day the UAV seemed to have extra altitude boundaries, and it was 1-shotting tanks. Undamaged tanks, one hellfire from above, BOOM. From hovering over the UAV station itself. Nothing was safe. Stationary AT, BOOM. Snipers in the 3-story building, DEAD. Creeping engineers in the hay, SPLAT. I was called cheap, cheap-ass, noob, hacker, lame, camper. First time I've ever seen someone call the UAV overpowered or cheap. (Which, incidentally, it probably was.)
Looking forward to testing again tonight on Harvest Day to see if it's just something special about that map, or if I ran into a bizarre server mod or glitch. Anyway, highly recommend the UAV for helping your team win rush matches. It eliminates stationary weaponry in one click, spots hiding flankers so your team doesn't die on approach, and eats tanks for breakfast. Use V-OPTIC.
I'd like to take this back, after some more practice and experimentation, and after the first official time I was accused of hacking because I completely dominated a Harvest Day rush (and won the Ace pin, no less, with the UAV). My major complaints about the UAV centered around the fact that there's a maximum spotting distance. Even if you see dudes, if you're 100+ meters away you can't hit Q and mark them. Similarly it was very hard to aim the hellfire outside of that range. This meant you had to bring the UAV close to enemy positions, which always resulted in instantaneous death.
Then I discovered V-OPTIC. Holyfuckingshitballs. It essentially doubles your camera zoom, which means you can spot and aim with precision while hovering over your own deployment base instead of the objective zone. It keeps you far enough away from the action that most of the time the opposing team can't even find you, and when they do it takes minimal strafing to avoid the scatterspray gunfire.
And then, on top of this, last night happened. I don't know if I was playing on a modded server or if there was a glitch or if this was normal, but on Harvest Day the UAV seemed to have extra altitude boundaries, and it was 1-shotting tanks. Undamaged tanks, one hellfire from above, BOOM. From hovering over the UAV station itself. Nothing was safe. Stationary AT, BOOM. Snipers in the 3-story building, DEAD. Creeping engineers in the hay, SPLAT. I was called cheap, cheap-ass, noob, hacker, lame, camper. First time I've ever seen someone call the UAV overpowered or cheap. (Which, incidentally, it probably was.)
Looking forward to testing again tonight on Harvest Day to see if it's just something special about that map, or if I ran into a bizarre server mod or glitch. Anyway, highly recommend the UAV for helping your team win rush matches. It eliminates stationary weaponry in one click, spots hiding flankers so your team doesn't die on approach, and eats tanks for breakfast. Use V-OPTIC.
The Fever Swamp
As both an avid and captive consumer of internet news, I like to diversify my sources of information and opinion on modern politics and socioeconomics. While I would describe myself as generally liberal in most common aspects, I still appreciate an earnest conservative of point of view. As an example, I read Andrew Sullivan daily, someone whose positions are more conservative than Republican, informed by the small-government wing of the philosophy instead of the culture war brigade. The Economist is a largely small-c conservative publication when it comes to global economics, capital/labor disputes, free trade, and regulatory policies, but it's still a good read.
But I also like to keep tabs on the "fever swamp", a term adopted by the liberal blogosphere to describe the insular atmosphere of Republican media echo chamber and the batshit crazy things it convinces itself are true. For this, aside from my digest of The Daily Show for Fox News and elected-official nonsense, I like the National Review's Corner blog, a collection of aspiring think-tankers or pundits with a paper trail far too long and wacky for professional employment in the real world. I read it for the lulz, but also to try to weakly understand what the right thinks is outrageous this week.
Currently there are two front-page posts about President Obama's upcoming trip to Rio, which is being advertised on the Corner as something being done "with his family" without really noting that this is the first leg of a South American diplomacy tour focused on promoting economic relations between our regions. The Miami Herald mentions that "Obama will begin the day Saturday with conversations with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff at her Planalto office and is scheduled to be the keynote speaker at the U.S.-Brazil Business Summit at a Brasilia hotel in the afternoon." Jonah Goldberg, however, can only be bothered to summarize it with "The president is getting away from his hectic golf schedule to go to Rio this weekend with the family. I wonder if he’ll bump into anyone there who’ll ask him “. . . And what do you do for a living?”
This kind of playground level snark is roughly 50% of the Corner's daily output. They do occasionally branch out to slightly more analytical or academic arguments, which is, I think, far more indicative of the temperature in the fever swamp. Today, Peter Kirsanow provides a summary of a Thomas Sowell editorial (also on National Review) on how it doesn't make sense that Black voters vote overwhelmingly Democratic when it's in their best financial interest to vote Republican, in a parallel to Thomas Frank's analysis in What's The Matter With Kansas. Now, yes, my first reaction to that thesis was also laughter, but it's worth picking apart the actual presented evidence to understand how a Republican polemic thinks.
First, let me emphasize that this talking point has been thoroughly debunked many times over the past twenty years. Secondly, the jobs most heavily affected by minimum wage laws are currently the ones most widely available, namely the retail, service, and food service industries. Unemployment in America today is driven largely by the construction and manufacturing sectors, jobs that weren't minimum wage and tended to offer generous benefits. Striking down minimum wage laws would just make poor people poorer. It wouldn't create a McDonalds renaissance.
I've spoken a little bit in the past about what I think the Republican goals are for public education (namely, to kill it and rape its corpse) but it's important to understand that the alternative to public schooling, and the meaning behind the terminology of "school choice". It translates to massive government handouts to private instutitions, a decidedly unconservative position. It means making every school a for-profit private business, busting unions, and then using tax revenues to pay the free-market tuition rate. It hinges on the assumption that competition between schools will drive teacher improvement, which then will translate to student improvement. Consider me unconvinced that the almighty profit motive will magically generate consumer surplus. We've already seen what happens when you give private businesses regional monopolies. Are you happy with your health insurance company?
Anyway, it goes on like this, the same up-is-down arguments that welfare means crippling dependency on the state instead of providing, you know, food or rent or other staples needed to live and maintain a job. By the time you get to "I pointed out that it wasn’t the GOP that had opposed Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation." you pretty much have the full sentiment of the self-delusion: Republicans have a sterling record on civil rights because of Dixiecrats (who became Republicans, but whatever). Ignore political and regional shifts. Hey, Republicans were liberals back in the day!
So, that. Today the fever swamp thinks black people should vote Republican because repealing the minimum wage, ending welfare entitlements, and opening the equivalent of educational fast food will help inner-city african americans, not hurt. And the Democrats want you back in chains. Good to know where everyone stands on the controversy.
But I also like to keep tabs on the "fever swamp", a term adopted by the liberal blogosphere to describe the insular atmosphere of Republican media echo chamber and the batshit crazy things it convinces itself are true. For this, aside from my digest of The Daily Show for Fox News and elected-official nonsense, I like the National Review's Corner blog, a collection of aspiring think-tankers or pundits with a paper trail far too long and wacky for professional employment in the real world. I read it for the lulz, but also to try to weakly understand what the right thinks is outrageous this week.
Currently there are two front-page posts about President Obama's upcoming trip to Rio, which is being advertised on the Corner as something being done "with his family" without really noting that this is the first leg of a South American diplomacy tour focused on promoting economic relations between our regions. The Miami Herald mentions that "Obama will begin the day Saturday with conversations with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff at her Planalto office and is scheduled to be the keynote speaker at the U.S.-Brazil Business Summit at a Brasilia hotel in the afternoon." Jonah Goldberg, however, can only be bothered to summarize it with "The president is getting away from his hectic golf schedule to go to Rio this weekend with the family. I wonder if he’ll bump into anyone there who’ll ask him “. . . And what do you do for a living?”
This kind of playground level snark is roughly 50% of the Corner's daily output. They do occasionally branch out to slightly more analytical or academic arguments, which is, I think, far more indicative of the temperature in the fever swamp. Today, Peter Kirsanow provides a summary of a Thomas Sowell editorial (also on National Review) on how it doesn't make sense that Black voters vote overwhelmingly Democratic when it's in their best financial interest to vote Republican, in a parallel to Thomas Frank's analysis in What's The Matter With Kansas. Now, yes, my first reaction to that thesis was also laughter, but it's worth picking apart the actual presented evidence to understand how a Republican polemic thinks.
- Sharp increases in the minimum wage price unskilled workers out of the labor market, a dislocation that falls most heavily on young black males. Such increases impair the ability of unskilled workers to get the entry-level jobs that are the first rungs on the ladder of upward job mobility. As someone once said, a wage, minimum or otherwise, presumes a job.
First, let me emphasize that this talking point has been thoroughly debunked many times over the past twenty years. Secondly, the jobs most heavily affected by minimum wage laws are currently the ones most widely available, namely the retail, service, and food service industries. Unemployment in America today is driven largely by the construction and manufacturing sectors, jobs that weren't minimum wage and tended to offer generous benefits. Striking down minimum wage laws would just make poor people poorer. It wouldn't create a McDonalds renaissance.
- Millions of black kids are trapped in medieval public schools that are insulated from competition and suffocated by union rules. Yet Democrats resist meaningful choice, insisting instead on that infallible remedy, “full funding.” They’re encouraged, apparently, by how well that solution has worked in places like Newark, which spends $18,000 per student — among the most of any major public school system — but where only 30 percent of 8th graders can pass the annual proficiency test in math. Or perhaps they’re brightened by the example of the D.C. public-school system, which also has among the highest per-pupil expenditures in the nation yet perennially returns among the lowest test scores.
I've spoken a little bit in the past about what I think the Republican goals are for public education (namely, to kill it and rape its corpse) but it's important to understand that the alternative to public schooling, and the meaning behind the terminology of "school choice". It translates to massive government handouts to private instutitions, a decidedly unconservative position. It means making every school a for-profit private business, busting unions, and then using tax revenues to pay the free-market tuition rate. It hinges on the assumption that competition between schools will drive teacher improvement, which then will translate to student improvement. Consider me unconvinced that the almighty profit motive will magically generate consumer surplus. We've already seen what happens when you give private businesses regional monopolies. Are you happy with your health insurance company?
- [On Affirmative Action] Studies by, for example, the Center for Equal Opportunity show that the racial preferences employed by some college admissions offices boost a black applicant’s odds of admission over a similarly-situated white comparative by a factor of 200, often much more. This results in what UCLA law professor Richard Sander calls the “mismatch effect” — i.e., black students being admitted at schools in which they’re poorly qualified to compete. Consequently, black students are more likely to perform poorly and flunk out.
Anyway, it goes on like this, the same up-is-down arguments that welfare means crippling dependency on the state instead of providing, you know, food or rent or other staples needed to live and maintain a job. By the time you get to "I pointed out that it wasn’t the GOP that had opposed Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation." you pretty much have the full sentiment of the self-delusion: Republicans have a sterling record on civil rights because of Dixiecrats (who became Republicans, but whatever). Ignore political and regional shifts. Hey, Republicans were liberals back in the day!
So, that. Today the fever swamp thinks black people should vote Republican because repealing the minimum wage, ending welfare entitlements, and opening the equivalent of educational fast food will help inner-city african americans, not hurt. And the Democrats want you back in chains. Good to know where everyone stands on the controversy.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
BC2: Laguna Presa
Laguna Presa: Rush
This is a map that's growing on me more and more, likely due to my increasing preference for recon VSS hunting, and that's more easily accomplished on maps that are very spread out (Presa's first and fourth MCOM base) with shrubbery and jungle as camo insead of dense buildings. I can't shoot through buildings. I can shoot through leaves. I also like that this rush map has five different bases, which all play slightly differently as increasing and decreasing amounts of vehicles are made available.
Attacking: My overall offensive strategy here is to promote a slow forward crawl of our entire team. The distances from attacker-spawn to the objectives are very long on this map, and you can kill a lot of time waiting on boats to respawn, or running the entire way to useful action. I spend most of the map in a support role, launching smoke grenades or taking out fixed defensive positions from a distance so my teammates can be killed less quickly, and hopefully spawn on their squadmates instead of back at the home base.
Village: They give you boats with grenade launchers, but then they give defenders three heavily camoflauged hilltop shorelines from which to snipe your stationary ass. The boats are a deathtrap and are really only good for shuttling you from the island to whichever shore you feel like sneaking up from. As a personal preference I like the western (from the attacking POV) shore because I feel it's less exposed from defenders hiding in the hills between the shore and the village. The central shore is usually well covered by infantry, and eastern has far fewer trees and buildings to mask your approach. I'll typically roll assault here with smoke grenades, slowly crawl through the jungle to the western periphery of the village, then camp in a building with a decent sightline to the nearest MCOM and lay down constant smoke until I'm either killed or someone bothers to move up and set it. Why the western MCOM?
As this image generously stolen from somewhere on the internet suggests, it's a shorter travel, involving less opportunity for death. The green arrow is basically the extent of what I've described above, whereas pushing the other MCOM involves that series of red arrows, going the long way east, crossing the barren road/parking lot, and bouncing behind many houses without any direct sightline on that MCOM, all the while trying to dodge the defenders that setup in those specific areas. The western MCOM always goes first. Then you can start pressuring the eastern one from multiple directions (for which I have no strategy because I typically die repeatedly trying to get within firing distance).
I do like the UAV in this situation, especially with my newfound gamebreaking ability called V-OPTIC, which lets you actually use the UAV from a distance long enough to dissuade bullet spam. I've gone entire matches without it dying, scoring enough points on spotting alone to rank in the upper half of the scoreboard. With all the tree camo and destructable buildings, it's very helpful to spot flankers and bust fixed positions.
Waterfall: This base has two stages: 1) Sniffing out all the hiding engineers and snipers in the hills and riverside rock formations who keep trying to AT mine/C4 your tank, and then 2) the actual base. If given a choice, I like to recon on this map, because sensor balls really do trivialize the first phase (where you can often bleed 20+ lives if the defense has smart medics keeping their forward positions alive), and there's a tremendously convenient sniping perch at the end of the central rock ridge, covered with bushes, with the perfect view of alpha and both stationary weapon terminals. Once alpha's done, you can suppress the guys who try to sneak around the western hills/shacks while your tank rolls forward, or clear out the eastern jungle so your flankers can advance.
Bridge: Back to assault+smoke here, since the entire fight is uphill and you never really get to use your scopes to full advantage. Smoke grenades are necessary to approach the eastern MCOM, which is behind a small bluff, covered by a heavy MG, AT rocket station, and the full defender base. You pretty much have to get lucky sneaking one guy through to set the MCOM, though the resulting bulletstorm from teammates camping behind the buildings closer to the other MCOM can keep it covered. That western MCOM is usually pretty easy to sneak up on, with a path leading right behind the buildings and only one sightline to worry about.
Islands: You and two friends can bum rush alpha and arm it before the defenders are in place (they have a disproportionately long run from their spawn). Class doesn't even really matter here, though for the record I like recon because eventually you have to move on bravo, and the view is obscured enough to require sensor balls. You also have a problem with flanking dudes hiding in the grassland to the west of the main road, picking off reinforcements and fucking with your tank. Sensor balls ruin their camping ambitions. Once that's clear and your team is running through the grass towards bravo, I like to run through the water around the whole plateau, setting up on a small hill on the opposite side of the MCOM to spot and hopefully kill defenders running in from that direction. For descriptive purposes, it's how you'd run from the hilltop spawn to the A flag if this were a conquest map, then turn right at the first river fork.
Last Stand: If recon, continue following the western water into the treeline, climb the hill, then circle north and then east into a flanking position. There's probably a bolt-action sniper up here, so kill him with C4 (because he's scoped and won't see you) and then continue moving either to the edge of the treeline and snipe spawning defenders, or building-hop and serve as a forward spawn point for your squad as you slowly push the northern MCOM. You'll either set that MCOM (good), draw enough defenders to let the rest of your team get the southern one (good), or die immediately and respawn as some other more useful class here (neutral).
I like medic on this base because that central island can be kind of a slaughterhouse if there are forward assault/engineer guys occupying the area (B flag on conquest), so you can rez teammates, and then once you've pushed the line of engagement back you can use the MG36 as a very effective tool to kill anything that stops at the southern MCOM, without leaving the central island. Once that one's armed, your jungle-flankers can probably move on the northern one. This base usually doesn't last long.
Defending: I'm slower on the draw than everyone else who plays this game, due to either lag or me sucking. Either way, going shotguns or close-range assault or SMGs is just going to get me killed when some dude pops out of nowhere. I therefore tend to prefer recon at all bases while defending. Sensor balls give me the warning I need to play a decent round, and the combination of C4 and mortar strikes comes in handy for tanks.
Village: The very first thing I do is run to a position on a cliff near the water line, roughly SSW of the red 1 on the above image. There's a rock cliff immediately to the left, and some bush cover. From here, I snipe boats, either pilots or grenade launchers if they're stupid enough to slow down in the bay. You can also spot anybody on the beach, and most of the western ridge. It's a great position, and is protected enough from two directions that you're not subject to counter-snipers or infantry accidentally discovering you. In fact, you can usually hear them when they pass by breaking branches, then sneak up behind for easy kills. I'll stay out here until the MCOMs start getting armed, then retreat to whatever buildings or bushes are available in the middle of the village, hiding and waiting for somebody to try to arm.
Waterfall: Upon spawn, put two bricks of C4 down on the road near the big puddle, then climb up on the rock plateau towards the east, along the mountain. Infantry tend to jump down from the ledge on their side, and you can pick them off from a relatively safe distance from that side until they give up and switch to the river. Then I fall back to the wooden shack behind the western MCOM, poking my head out every now and then towards those same cliffs looking for movement, sensor balls to the east to pick up flankers. You can cover the MCOM from here if the building's walls are blown, which they generally are. There's also a stationary AT here, if your C4 is gone.
Bridge: The perfect recon position is up the guard tower towards the back end of the base. You can squat in the shadows without much exposure and you have views of the back of the western MCOM, the eastern MCOM, the whole road leading to the bridge, and the western ledge where most infantry try to advance. With the VSS, there's no muzzle flash or sound or tracers, so you can kill anything that comes up the hill and tries to hide in the rocks, or behind the western buildings, or in the bushes along the road. Bonus points for mortaring the tank when it parks on the road and tries to lay down suppression fire.
Islands/Last Stand: I hang around the stationary weaponry at both bases, which are largely the same for my defensive purposes, since I want no part of reflex exercises and strafe-shooting at the forward positions. The back of the bases are somewhat protected from the sides (LS moreso than islands), so you only need to worry about shit in front of you while you blast away on the MG or line up a shot with the AT. The problem with this position is that you don't have a decent view of common enemy approaches, so you have to run down to MCOMS somewhat blindly.
This is a map that's growing on me more and more, likely due to my increasing preference for recon VSS hunting, and that's more easily accomplished on maps that are very spread out (Presa's first and fourth MCOM base) with shrubbery and jungle as camo insead of dense buildings. I can't shoot through buildings. I can shoot through leaves. I also like that this rush map has five different bases, which all play slightly differently as increasing and decreasing amounts of vehicles are made available.
Attacking: My overall offensive strategy here is to promote a slow forward crawl of our entire team. The distances from attacker-spawn to the objectives are very long on this map, and you can kill a lot of time waiting on boats to respawn, or running the entire way to useful action. I spend most of the map in a support role, launching smoke grenades or taking out fixed defensive positions from a distance so my teammates can be killed less quickly, and hopefully spawn on their squadmates instead of back at the home base.
Village: They give you boats with grenade launchers, but then they give defenders three heavily camoflauged hilltop shorelines from which to snipe your stationary ass. The boats are a deathtrap and are really only good for shuttling you from the island to whichever shore you feel like sneaking up from. As a personal preference I like the western (from the attacking POV) shore because I feel it's less exposed from defenders hiding in the hills between the shore and the village. The central shore is usually well covered by infantry, and eastern has far fewer trees and buildings to mask your approach. I'll typically roll assault here with smoke grenades, slowly crawl through the jungle to the western periphery of the village, then camp in a building with a decent sightline to the nearest MCOM and lay down constant smoke until I'm either killed or someone bothers to move up and set it. Why the western MCOM?
As this image generously stolen from somewhere on the internet suggests, it's a shorter travel, involving less opportunity for death. The green arrow is basically the extent of what I've described above, whereas pushing the other MCOM involves that series of red arrows, going the long way east, crossing the barren road/parking lot, and bouncing behind many houses without any direct sightline on that MCOM, all the while trying to dodge the defenders that setup in those specific areas. The western MCOM always goes first. Then you can start pressuring the eastern one from multiple directions (for which I have no strategy because I typically die repeatedly trying to get within firing distance).
I do like the UAV in this situation, especially with my newfound gamebreaking ability called V-OPTIC, which lets you actually use the UAV from a distance long enough to dissuade bullet spam. I've gone entire matches without it dying, scoring enough points on spotting alone to rank in the upper half of the scoreboard. With all the tree camo and destructable buildings, it's very helpful to spot flankers and bust fixed positions.
Waterfall: This base has two stages: 1) Sniffing out all the hiding engineers and snipers in the hills and riverside rock formations who keep trying to AT mine/C4 your tank, and then 2) the actual base. If given a choice, I like to recon on this map, because sensor balls really do trivialize the first phase (where you can often bleed 20+ lives if the defense has smart medics keeping their forward positions alive), and there's a tremendously convenient sniping perch at the end of the central rock ridge, covered with bushes, with the perfect view of alpha and both stationary weapon terminals. Once alpha's done, you can suppress the guys who try to sneak around the western hills/shacks while your tank rolls forward, or clear out the eastern jungle so your flankers can advance.
Bridge: Back to assault+smoke here, since the entire fight is uphill and you never really get to use your scopes to full advantage. Smoke grenades are necessary to approach the eastern MCOM, which is behind a small bluff, covered by a heavy MG, AT rocket station, and the full defender base. You pretty much have to get lucky sneaking one guy through to set the MCOM, though the resulting bulletstorm from teammates camping behind the buildings closer to the other MCOM can keep it covered. That western MCOM is usually pretty easy to sneak up on, with a path leading right behind the buildings and only one sightline to worry about.
Islands: You and two friends can bum rush alpha and arm it before the defenders are in place (they have a disproportionately long run from their spawn). Class doesn't even really matter here, though for the record I like recon because eventually you have to move on bravo, and the view is obscured enough to require sensor balls. You also have a problem with flanking dudes hiding in the grassland to the west of the main road, picking off reinforcements and fucking with your tank. Sensor balls ruin their camping ambitions. Once that's clear and your team is running through the grass towards bravo, I like to run through the water around the whole plateau, setting up on a small hill on the opposite side of the MCOM to spot and hopefully kill defenders running in from that direction. For descriptive purposes, it's how you'd run from the hilltop spawn to the A flag if this were a conquest map, then turn right at the first river fork.
Last Stand: If recon, continue following the western water into the treeline, climb the hill, then circle north and then east into a flanking position. There's probably a bolt-action sniper up here, so kill him with C4 (because he's scoped and won't see you) and then continue moving either to the edge of the treeline and snipe spawning defenders, or building-hop and serve as a forward spawn point for your squad as you slowly push the northern MCOM. You'll either set that MCOM (good), draw enough defenders to let the rest of your team get the southern one (good), or die immediately and respawn as some other more useful class here (neutral).
I like medic on this base because that central island can be kind of a slaughterhouse if there are forward assault/engineer guys occupying the area (B flag on conquest), so you can rez teammates, and then once you've pushed the line of engagement back you can use the MG36 as a very effective tool to kill anything that stops at the southern MCOM, without leaving the central island. Once that one's armed, your jungle-flankers can probably move on the northern one. This base usually doesn't last long.
Defending: I'm slower on the draw than everyone else who plays this game, due to either lag or me sucking. Either way, going shotguns or close-range assault or SMGs is just going to get me killed when some dude pops out of nowhere. I therefore tend to prefer recon at all bases while defending. Sensor balls give me the warning I need to play a decent round, and the combination of C4 and mortar strikes comes in handy for tanks.
Village: The very first thing I do is run to a position on a cliff near the water line, roughly SSW of the red 1 on the above image. There's a rock cliff immediately to the left, and some bush cover. From here, I snipe boats, either pilots or grenade launchers if they're stupid enough to slow down in the bay. You can also spot anybody on the beach, and most of the western ridge. It's a great position, and is protected enough from two directions that you're not subject to counter-snipers or infantry accidentally discovering you. In fact, you can usually hear them when they pass by breaking branches, then sneak up behind for easy kills. I'll stay out here until the MCOMs start getting armed, then retreat to whatever buildings or bushes are available in the middle of the village, hiding and waiting for somebody to try to arm.
Waterfall: Upon spawn, put two bricks of C4 down on the road near the big puddle, then climb up on the rock plateau towards the east, along the mountain. Infantry tend to jump down from the ledge on their side, and you can pick them off from a relatively safe distance from that side until they give up and switch to the river. Then I fall back to the wooden shack behind the western MCOM, poking my head out every now and then towards those same cliffs looking for movement, sensor balls to the east to pick up flankers. You can cover the MCOM from here if the building's walls are blown, which they generally are. There's also a stationary AT here, if your C4 is gone.
Bridge: The perfect recon position is up the guard tower towards the back end of the base. You can squat in the shadows without much exposure and you have views of the back of the western MCOM, the eastern MCOM, the whole road leading to the bridge, and the western ledge where most infantry try to advance. With the VSS, there's no muzzle flash or sound or tracers, so you can kill anything that comes up the hill and tries to hide in the rocks, or behind the western buildings, or in the bushes along the road. Bonus points for mortaring the tank when it parks on the road and tries to lay down suppression fire.
Islands/Last Stand: I hang around the stationary weaponry at both bases, which are largely the same for my defensive purposes, since I want no part of reflex exercises and strafe-shooting at the forward positions. The back of the bases are somewhat protected from the sides (LS moreso than islands), so you only need to worry about shit in front of you while you blast away on the MG or line up a shot with the AT. The problem with this position is that you don't have a decent view of common enemy approaches, so you have to run down to MCOMS somewhat blindly.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Netflix Suggestion
The Vice Guide to Travel
It's hard to describe. One part History documentary, one part E!'s Wild On, one part The Onion. Each episode is a generally tender, but entertaining, analysis of some areas of the globe that aren't well known in our American culture. The Liberia documentary is simultaneously frightening and heartbreaking. The first ep about black market arms sales might as well have been filmed by Hunter S. Thompson.
In my years of television and film consumption, I've never yearned so hard for the guy to get the girl at the end of From Poland With Love. And this is a fucking documentary about some totally unrelated party & art scene.
I recommend the whole series, but at a bare minimum watch episodes 1, 5, 7, and 8.
It's hard to describe. One part History documentary, one part E!'s Wild On, one part The Onion. Each episode is a generally tender, but entertaining, analysis of some areas of the globe that aren't well known in our American culture. The Liberia documentary is simultaneously frightening and heartbreaking. The first ep about black market arms sales might as well have been filmed by Hunter S. Thompson.
In my years of television and film consumption, I've never yearned so hard for the guy to get the girl at the end of From Poland With Love. And this is a fucking documentary about some totally unrelated party & art scene.
I recommend the whole series, but at a bare minimum watch episodes 1, 5, 7, and 8.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
LoOG: Revisiting keepers
Some owners have given me feedback on some apparently errant keeper estimations I've made, which have forced me to 1) halt my mock draft analysis yet again and 2) rethink some of my assumptions about what makes a keeper in this league. This post will make another attempt to analyze and guess at league-wide keepers, but I want to make clear that this isn't intended to second-guess anybody's choices. I may illustrate conflicts between my assumptions and owner intentions, but I'll try to use that to understand the sense of the league and maybe reflect on my own strategic formulations and/or player opinions.
Chris J: Miguel Cabrera, Chris Carpenter, Clayton Kershaw
Miggy and Kershaw are no-brainers. Kershaw's a top-10 pitcher right now (going between Lester and Greinke in both Yahoo and ESPN drafts) and he's only 23, in a weak NL West. Barring an elbow injury he'll be putting up crazy stats for years to come.
Chris informed me that Carpenter was the choice over Ian Kinsler, which at first I disagreed with, but having done some further analysis I think there's an equal argument both ways. First, it's worth noting that there seems to be an inverse-Josh-Johnson effect here, in that Yahoo's analysts have been down on Carpenter's usage and injury concerns, thus making him the 22nd starting pitcher taken in Yahoo drafts at around pick 90. Meanwhile, ESPN's talking heads love Carpenter this year, and he's the #10 pitcher there at pick 48.8 and trending up.
If you're going to count Carpenter's recent hamstring pull against his durability, then you have to consider that Kinsler has missed an average of 40 games per season due to injury across his 5-year career, including 60 last year. The guy can't stay healthy, whereas Carpenter's been pretty damn good (and healthy) the past two seasons. And while you might be getting a potential source of power and speed at a weak position in Kinsler, you might also get a top-10 pitcher in Carpenter. Both choices are correct (and it's amusing to note that Kinsler's going at 48.9 on ESPN right now compared to Carp's 48.8). And you can't really make any long term assumptions about keeping either guy because Carpenter will be 37 and Kinsler's body might as well be, so these are both current-season picks.
Stew: Joey Votto, Matt Holliday, Matt Kemp
These were my original picks, and I think they still hold. The alternative keeper is Zack Greinke, and while we know pitching is at a premium in our league, the above three guys are elite top-of-the-draft guys. Holliday's pretty much a lock for .390 OBP and .530 SLG with a mess of counting stats. Kemp's expected to have a return to 2009 form, so something like .350/.475/30/100/100. Votto needs no analysis.
Meanwhile, Greinke in the NL is still untested. Sure, he might thrive there, with more run support, in an easier league, with better pitching around him. Or he might post another 4.00+ era. I'd love the chance to make that gamble in the first round, but not with Holliday or Kemp still available.
Kyle: Adam Dunn, Ryan Zimmerman, Carlos Gonzalez
I think I've flipped on Rickie Weeks. My original analysis was that you have a 2B in a monster lineup who can give you respectable numbers in every category (.350 OBP, .460 SLG from the middle infield, 100+ runs, 80 RBI, 10-15 SB) and you need to jump on that, but the guy's not without his own injury issues. While he played 160 games last year, his prior seasons going backwards were 37-129-118. Meanwhile, Adam Dunn's average games played per season since 2004: 158. One hundred and fifty eight games per season. And now he's out of Washington, in a better lineup, in the AL, in a ballpark designed for his power. I can't check the Fangraphs projections from work, but I wouldn't be surprised by a .380/.550/100/120 season, and you need to keep that (even though I don't think the guys ahead of him need a first baseman anyway, but I bet Rickie Weeks will still be there too...but so may Uggla...but then maybe Ryan Howard will be there, and if so do you need Dunn...).
Austin: Adrian Gonzalez, Hanley Ramirez, Dan Haren
Original picks and confirmed by Austin through Ryan. Nothing more to say, other than as a Yankee fan I'm afraid of what A-Gon can do.
Owen: Joe Mauer, Jason Heyward, Tim Lincecum
I don't think there's anyone else on the roster in the same conversation as these three.
Fabian: Evan Longoria, CC Sabathia, Jon Lester
There's a case for V-Mart over Sabathia, but I think catcher is deep enough that I'd rather have my two aces.
Paul: Robinson Cano, Kevin Youkilis, Shin-Soo Choo
Youkilis will do his usual .400 OBP, .550 SLG in a lineup that looks like Pedroia-Crawford-Youkilis-Gonzalez. Choo can do a .400/.460 with twenty stolen bases. Each will give you at least 85 runs and RBI (Youk will probably do a 100/100). There are terribly few .400 OBP guys in the league, and when they come with power or speed in addition, you can't replicate that once the keepers are done. You can, however, still draft strong pitching. JoJo might be gone by Paul's pick, and maybe Greinke too, but there's still plenty of arms that can possibly deliver a sub-3.00 ERA, or a 9 K/IP, or win 15.
Shawn: Justin Morneau, Adrian Beltre, Ubaldo Jimenez
This gets harder and harder to justify with each passing day of Morneau not cleared for game duty. I guess you can gamble on picking him back up later in the draft, but does it really make sense to gamble away your (theoretically) best hitter? I'd probably roll the dice with him, and then swap out Reyes for Beltre as a power hedge. They're both injury/performance risks, but I think Beltre has a better chance of returning to something like .350/.520/80/100 in Arlington than Reyes does of .350/.450/100/60/60 for the Mets. I keep Beltre and I make a note to draft young, because I may have to replace two of my keepers next year.
Ryan: Dustin Pedroia, Felix Hernandez, A-Rod
Direct confirmation from Ryan, after a discussion about the depth at first base and the strategy of locking in an ace pitcher. I would have to think about Jose Bautista instead of A-Rod, as a younger player on the rise versus a star clearly in decline, but there's an understandable argument for going with the sure thing (.350/.500 floor with a mess of RBI) if you believe Bautista was a one-year wonder.
Chris T: Mark Teixeira, Ryan Braun, Carl Crawford
Because Posey's not at Teixeira's power numbers, and because the rest of my roster was total fucking trash.
James: Albert Pujols, Tommy Hanson, Chase Utley
I've vacillated on this more than any other team. Utley is generally regarded as the #2 2B in the league, and while his knees seem to be breaking down, he's not that old, and he's one of those guys that can do a .380/.520/100/100 when healthy for a full season. He's actually been remarkably healthy over the past six seasons, averaging about 145 games per year (with full seasons in 08 and 09...he missed a significant chunk of time last year), so this isn't like a Kinsler/Weeks situation. There may be questions about how long you can continue investing in a 32 year old middle infielder, but I've come around to accepting Utley over the pitchers. Plus, Hanson/Hamels may be available in the first round when James picks. Utley certainly won't.
The Hanson/Hamels decision was hard. I have to acknowledge that Hamels might be the better fantasy pitcher right now, provided he doesn't have another 09 implosion. He'll certainly post more strikeouts and plays behind what I feel is a better offense. Though I have concerns about his bullpen versus Atlanta's. That said, I think Cole's 2010 numbers represent his ceiling. 3.00 ERA and a WHIP somewhere in the 1.1-1.15 range, as many strikeouts as innings pitched. Don't get me wrong, that's very good, but it's also I think (based on superficial analysis and Yahoo stats, no Fangraphs here) it's a ceiling. I think Hanson still has some room to develop. He's a few years younger, and he plays for a team whose future in the next, say, 3-4 years seems a little brighter than Philly's. He may not develop Hamels's strikeout talent, but his 7.87 K/9 in the majors is still good (and I think may grow into the 8 range), and I think he has the potential for a sub-3 ERA. It's something of a gamble, but I think the costs in the short term could be worth the potential gains in the long term, especially since you no longer have Wainwright as your stud keeper.
Joe: Prince Fielder, Roy Halladay, Mat Latos
Experts seem to be down on Mat Latos. "How will he get any wins in Petco?" seems to be the leading criticism. Well, with A-Gon gone, they might have a point. And I guess you can argue that he's the product of his ballpark, and that his true talent isn't a 2.92 ERA, 1.08 WHIP, 9.2 K/9 line. Okay.
But he is still pitching in San Diego.
"You can't always trust one year's worth of numbers." Okay. But that one year was pretty damn good. Put it this way, in a stretch from May 1 to Sep 7, 22 starts, Latos gave up more than 2 earned runs only once. He stumbled a bit towards the end of the season, as most young arms do (seems to take a few years to build up the needed stamina to pitch late into September), but how can you not take a gamble on that kind of performance? If you adhere to the ADP bible, you can theoretically get Latos back in the draft pretty safely, even in the second round, and keep Cruz instead. But Cruz is, like everyone else in Texas, a constant injury risk who may only give you two thirds of a season. Latos was, according to Yahoo scoring, the tenth best starting pitcher in the league behind Cliff Lee. He's 23. He'll probably get better. You have to at least ride out his time in SD, then trade him during his free agency year before he gets traded to an AL East team.
Mike: David Wright, Troy Tulowitzki, Justin Upton
Obvious picks.
Tom: Josh Hamilton, Cliff Lee, Justin Verlander
Here too.
Chris J: Miguel Cabrera, Chris Carpenter, Clayton Kershaw
Miggy and Kershaw are no-brainers. Kershaw's a top-10 pitcher right now (going between Lester and Greinke in both Yahoo and ESPN drafts) and he's only 23, in a weak NL West. Barring an elbow injury he'll be putting up crazy stats for years to come.
Chris informed me that Carpenter was the choice over Ian Kinsler, which at first I disagreed with, but having done some further analysis I think there's an equal argument both ways. First, it's worth noting that there seems to be an inverse-Josh-Johnson effect here, in that Yahoo's analysts have been down on Carpenter's usage and injury concerns, thus making him the 22nd starting pitcher taken in Yahoo drafts at around pick 90. Meanwhile, ESPN's talking heads love Carpenter this year, and he's the #10 pitcher there at pick 48.8 and trending up.
If you're going to count Carpenter's recent hamstring pull against his durability, then you have to consider that Kinsler has missed an average of 40 games per season due to injury across his 5-year career, including 60 last year. The guy can't stay healthy, whereas Carpenter's been pretty damn good (and healthy) the past two seasons. And while you might be getting a potential source of power and speed at a weak position in Kinsler, you might also get a top-10 pitcher in Carpenter. Both choices are correct (and it's amusing to note that Kinsler's going at 48.9 on ESPN right now compared to Carp's 48.8). And you can't really make any long term assumptions about keeping either guy because Carpenter will be 37 and Kinsler's body might as well be, so these are both current-season picks.
Stew: Joey Votto, Matt Holliday, Matt Kemp
These were my original picks, and I think they still hold. The alternative keeper is Zack Greinke, and while we know pitching is at a premium in our league, the above three guys are elite top-of-the-draft guys. Holliday's pretty much a lock for .390 OBP and .530 SLG with a mess of counting stats. Kemp's expected to have a return to 2009 form, so something like .350/.475/30/100/100. Votto needs no analysis.
Meanwhile, Greinke in the NL is still untested. Sure, he might thrive there, with more run support, in an easier league, with better pitching around him. Or he might post another 4.00+ era. I'd love the chance to make that gamble in the first round, but not with Holliday or Kemp still available.
Kyle: Adam Dunn, Ryan Zimmerman, Carlos Gonzalez
I think I've flipped on Rickie Weeks. My original analysis was that you have a 2B in a monster lineup who can give you respectable numbers in every category (.350 OBP, .460 SLG from the middle infield, 100+ runs, 80 RBI, 10-15 SB) and you need to jump on that, but the guy's not without his own injury issues. While he played 160 games last year, his prior seasons going backwards were 37-129-118. Meanwhile, Adam Dunn's average games played per season since 2004: 158. One hundred and fifty eight games per season. And now he's out of Washington, in a better lineup, in the AL, in a ballpark designed for his power. I can't check the Fangraphs projections from work, but I wouldn't be surprised by a .380/.550/100/120 season, and you need to keep that (even though I don't think the guys ahead of him need a first baseman anyway, but I bet Rickie Weeks will still be there too...but so may Uggla...but then maybe Ryan Howard will be there, and if so do you need Dunn...).
Austin: Adrian Gonzalez, Hanley Ramirez, Dan Haren
Original picks and confirmed by Austin through Ryan. Nothing more to say, other than as a Yankee fan I'm afraid of what A-Gon can do.
Owen: Joe Mauer, Jason Heyward, Tim Lincecum
I don't think there's anyone else on the roster in the same conversation as these three.
Fabian: Evan Longoria, CC Sabathia, Jon Lester
There's a case for V-Mart over Sabathia, but I think catcher is deep enough that I'd rather have my two aces.
Paul: Robinson Cano, Kevin Youkilis, Shin-Soo Choo
Youkilis will do his usual .400 OBP, .550 SLG in a lineup that looks like Pedroia-Crawford-Youkilis-Gonzalez. Choo can do a .400/.460 with twenty stolen bases. Each will give you at least 85 runs and RBI (Youk will probably do a 100/100). There are terribly few .400 OBP guys in the league, and when they come with power or speed in addition, you can't replicate that once the keepers are done. You can, however, still draft strong pitching. JoJo might be gone by Paul's pick, and maybe Greinke too, but there's still plenty of arms that can possibly deliver a sub-3.00 ERA, or a 9 K/IP, or win 15.
Shawn: Justin Morneau, Adrian Beltre, Ubaldo Jimenez
This gets harder and harder to justify with each passing day of Morneau not cleared for game duty. I guess you can gamble on picking him back up later in the draft, but does it really make sense to gamble away your (theoretically) best hitter? I'd probably roll the dice with him, and then swap out Reyes for Beltre as a power hedge. They're both injury/performance risks, but I think Beltre has a better chance of returning to something like .350/.520/80/100 in Arlington than Reyes does of .350/.450/100/60/60 for the Mets. I keep Beltre and I make a note to draft young, because I may have to replace two of my keepers next year.
Ryan: Dustin Pedroia, Felix Hernandez, A-Rod
Direct confirmation from Ryan, after a discussion about the depth at first base and the strategy of locking in an ace pitcher. I would have to think about Jose Bautista instead of A-Rod, as a younger player on the rise versus a star clearly in decline, but there's an understandable argument for going with the sure thing (.350/.500 floor with a mess of RBI) if you believe Bautista was a one-year wonder.
Chris T: Mark Teixeira, Ryan Braun, Carl Crawford
Because Posey's not at Teixeira's power numbers, and because the rest of my roster was total fucking trash.
James: Albert Pujols, Tommy Hanson, Chase Utley
I've vacillated on this more than any other team. Utley is generally regarded as the #2 2B in the league, and while his knees seem to be breaking down, he's not that old, and he's one of those guys that can do a .380/.520/100/100 when healthy for a full season. He's actually been remarkably healthy over the past six seasons, averaging about 145 games per year (with full seasons in 08 and 09...he missed a significant chunk of time last year), so this isn't like a Kinsler/Weeks situation. There may be questions about how long you can continue investing in a 32 year old middle infielder, but I've come around to accepting Utley over the pitchers. Plus, Hanson/Hamels may be available in the first round when James picks. Utley certainly won't.
The Hanson/Hamels decision was hard. I have to acknowledge that Hamels might be the better fantasy pitcher right now, provided he doesn't have another 09 implosion. He'll certainly post more strikeouts and plays behind what I feel is a better offense. Though I have concerns about his bullpen versus Atlanta's. That said, I think Cole's 2010 numbers represent his ceiling. 3.00 ERA and a WHIP somewhere in the 1.1-1.15 range, as many strikeouts as innings pitched. Don't get me wrong, that's very good, but it's also I think (based on superficial analysis and Yahoo stats, no Fangraphs here) it's a ceiling. I think Hanson still has some room to develop. He's a few years younger, and he plays for a team whose future in the next, say, 3-4 years seems a little brighter than Philly's. He may not develop Hamels's strikeout talent, but his 7.87 K/9 in the majors is still good (and I think may grow into the 8 range), and I think he has the potential for a sub-3 ERA. It's something of a gamble, but I think the costs in the short term could be worth the potential gains in the long term, especially since you no longer have Wainwright as your stud keeper.
Joe: Prince Fielder, Roy Halladay, Mat Latos
Experts seem to be down on Mat Latos. "How will he get any wins in Petco?" seems to be the leading criticism. Well, with A-Gon gone, they might have a point. And I guess you can argue that he's the product of his ballpark, and that his true talent isn't a 2.92 ERA, 1.08 WHIP, 9.2 K/9 line. Okay.
But he is still pitching in San Diego.
"You can't always trust one year's worth of numbers." Okay. But that one year was pretty damn good. Put it this way, in a stretch from May 1 to Sep 7, 22 starts, Latos gave up more than 2 earned runs only once. He stumbled a bit towards the end of the season, as most young arms do (seems to take a few years to build up the needed stamina to pitch late into September), but how can you not take a gamble on that kind of performance? If you adhere to the ADP bible, you can theoretically get Latos back in the draft pretty safely, even in the second round, and keep Cruz instead. But Cruz is, like everyone else in Texas, a constant injury risk who may only give you two thirds of a season. Latos was, according to Yahoo scoring, the tenth best starting pitcher in the league behind Cliff Lee. He's 23. He'll probably get better. You have to at least ride out his time in SD, then trade him during his free agency year before he gets traded to an AL East team.
Mike: David Wright, Troy Tulowitzki, Justin Upton
Obvious picks.
Tom: Josh Hamilton, Cliff Lee, Justin Verlander
Here too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)