692 replies to this topic

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

Mickey Knoxx, on 08 August 2014 - 07:07 AM, said:

. 90% of the matches were a derpfest by the IS players. just not so good players in old mechs with terrible builds

There is no way your QQ can convince any rational person 90-10% win ratio is balance because "IS give up early" or "IS dont stick together" "all IS have bad builds". Or what ever other excuses people like you are using.

Edited by Funkadelic Mayhem, 08 August 2014 - 07:10 AM.

[Noth]

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 08 August 2014 - 07:07 AM, said:

and you will get it, as future tests happen between now and this fall
In the mean time, stop QQing the sky is falling and demanding information that we need to test first. If you can make a better game over night, please do so, otherwise sit down and shut up and take part in the upcoming tests be4 you start QQing.

We will likely get just more averages and bits and pieces. When I say more data, i'm talking about numbers of experienced versus non experienced on team (not averaged), ELO of those players compared to their scores in the matches, was their mech a trial mech, a stock mech, or a custom mech and others.

Of course there will be more tests, these test will be fundamentally different though as they will be private match only which will not directly apply to solo pug only tests.

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

Noth, on 08 August 2014 - 07:12 AM, said:

We will likely get just more averages and bits and pieces. When I say more data, i'm talking about numbers of experienced versus non experienced on team (not averaged), ELO of those players compared to their scores in the matches, was their mech a trial mech, a stock mech, or a custom mech and others.

Of course there will be more tests, these test will be fundamentally different though as they will be private match only which will not directly apply to solo pug only tests.

LOL, your hopeless.

[-Natural Selection-]

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 08 August 2014 - 07:09 AM, said:

There is no way your QQ can convince any rational person 90-10% win ratio is balance because "IS give up early" or "IS dont stick together" "all IS have bad builds". Or what ever other excuses people like you are using.

Lets me see...

A couple of matches they went to corner of map and didn't fight.

One map a guy was telling his team to not do over 100 damage, and said it worked the last couple.

I round corner by myself in an lrm stormcrow and 4 IS mechs (one being a stalker) turn around a run. Killing 3 while they run in their backs.


ONLY one match out of 20 did they stick together, focus, and not run. You know what happened? They won 10/12. EVERY match besides that one was a total dinkfest. Terrible builds, running around in groups of 3 or 4 wayyy of from team, or just standing dead stop in open eating arty after arty and lrms.

Put people in legit groups, with legit builds and then see what the difference is. And I am not saying one is not better than the other. Only the skill difference was very apparent.

[PitchBlackYeti]

Clanfans, how HARD is it to realize that those were 90% matches won by clans, 90%, 90!! Not 60, 65 or 70% for which you could blame IS trial mechs, lower pilot skill and other crap. IT'S 90% WHICH IS WAY BEYOND ANY COINCIDENCE THRESHOLD...

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 08 August 2014 - 07:09 AM, said:

There is no way your QQ can convince any rational person 90-10% win ratio is balance because "IS give up early" or "IS dont stick together" "all IS have bad builds". Or what ever other excuses people like you are using.

Just curious, did you see the private match tests that were posted in a more controlled environment?

That is the stuff decisions should be based on.

Not this totally unscientific bullcrap. It's not even about whether Clan is OP or not. It may be.

But it's about the TESTING being stupid and posting that OBVIOUSLY fubar 90/10 number in public before getting real tests done.

It's stupid, and you are stupid if you don't see that.

[Jman5]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 08 August 2014 - 07:30 AM, said:

Just curious, did you see the private match tests that were posted in a more controlled environment?

That is the stuff decisions should be based on.

Not this totally unscientific bullcrap. It's not even about whether Clan is OP or not. It may be.

But it's about the TESTING being stupid and posting that OBVIOUSLY fubar 90/10 number in public before getting real tests done.

It's stupid, and you are stupid if you don't see that.

You mean the test where the best team in the game were in their IS meta mechs against people who had unbasic'd barely played clan mechs put together at the last minute? And it was still close?

[WM Wraith]

Mcgral18, on 07 August 2014 - 08:43 PM, said:

Can I try again with competent teammates? Still managed 2 victories, and 5 losses.

Out of 84 IS pilots, 52 failed to deal 200 damage. Only 7 (C) mechs from all 7 matches.

Many of my matches the IS pilots openly taunted not playing, standing still and being killed to skew the Clan vs IS outcomes so that PGI would nerf the clans. This along in my opinion negates the crap out of the outcome being useful data.

I also saw game after game where IS pilots tried to use ranged tactics, same they would use against the other IS mechs, and lost that range battle.

Had several matches though where the IS team really tried, used good tactics of in close fighting, pinpoint damage, and most of those the IS won.

IS pilots charging one on one with Clan mechs will most often as not. Better tactics, and the implementation of 10 Clan (two stars) v 12 IS (3 lances) would make things pretty even in my opinion and make for some very interesting tactical battles.

[-Natural Selection-]

Jman5, on 08 August 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

You mean the test where the best team in the game were in their IS meta mechs against people who had unbasic'd barely played clan mechs put together at the last minute? And it was still close?

So the IS won? You rounded up guys to play clan mechs that don't know how to build a mech? Was a crap team who ran in small groups with no coordination, or you just saying they are crap players and shouldn't be "close"?

I am confused. So the "best" team having a close match confirms the 90%?

[PitchBlackYeti]

WM Wraith, on 08 August 2014 - 07:47 AM, said:

I also saw game after game where IS pilots tried to use ranged tactics, same they would use against the other IS mechs, and lost that range battle.

Had several matches though where the IS team really tried, used good tactics of in close fighting, pinpoint damage, and most of those the IS won.

Are you trying to imply that clan weapons suddenly suck at short range? That there are no CSRM Madcats running circles around your medium IS mech? That Clan mechs magically power down when there is an IS mech 100m from them? Hell, at this range even a burst from Clan AC hits more or less the same spot with all shots. And then theres the Clan XL which gives you brawling ability with the survivability of an STD.

Edited by PitchBlackYeti, 08 August 2014 - 08:00 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Jman5, on 08 August 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

You mean the test where the best team in the game were in their IS meta mechs against people who had unbasic'd barely played clan mechs put together at the last minute? And it was still close?

Did I say the Clans weren't OP? HMM? Did I? Get your head out of your Hunchback's rear tailpipe for a second. You are just like everyone else on this board, too blinded by your own agenda.

I'm saying that the way this testing was done was stupid and wrong. And now people are basing opinions on a terribly run test, and stupidly released numbers.

It's yet another PGI fubar, their public relations is still terrible. And even I got fooled into thinking they have turned things around.

They are the same stupid company as before.

The Private matches were a controlled environment. I'm not arguing whether the Clans should or shouldn't be nerfed.

I'm arguing that the WHOLE basis of the argument is flawed based off of PGI's stupid testing methods.

Pay attention kids.

[ztac]

well a flawed test is a flawed test !

PGI have no idea how to test such things and no I'm not biased as I don't play the game anymore! But the way they conducted this 'test' was a joke (the way the matchmaker works alone would make any such test impossible).

To make a proper test you need to set up very similar skilled teams , then play a series of matches with each team alternating between IS and CLAN ... then you have vastly better data. And win/loss alone is no indicator , but it is the scale of the win or loss.

Not to mention you would need data on shots fired , weapon types, number of hits and misses , the ability to know that players were actually performing to the best of their ability , not to mention team tactics!

And prior to this test I may add that many matches were played where there were more clan mech's on one team than the other, and the clan heavy team lost!

Remember that the MM does not take loadouts or player skill into account! (player skill (elo) is kind of a joke how they do it anyway incidentally ).

Edited by ztac, 08 August 2014 - 08:04 AM.

[Jman5]

Mickey Knoxx, on 08 August 2014 - 07:57 AM, said:

So the IS won? You rounded up guys to play clan mechs that don't know how to build a mech? Was a crap team who ran in small groups with no coordination, or you just saying they are crap players and shouldn't be "close"?

I am confused. So the "best" team having a close match confirms the 90%?

What I'm saying is in his example of a "controlled environment" they stacked the deck in the IS's favor so heavily that they managed to eek out a win.

90% is already confirmed by PGI.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

Mickey Knoxx, on 08 August 2014 - 07:57 AM, said:

So the IS won? You rounded up guys to play clan mechs that don't know how to build a mech? Was a crap team who ran in small groups with no coordination, or you just saying they are crap players and shouldn't be "close"?

I am confused. So the "best" team having a close match confirms the 90%?

You're missing the point. He's pointing out that the best players in the game in their best IS Mechs barely beat a pickup team of players piloting brand new Clan Mechs that didn't even have Basic efficiencies unlocked.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Jman5, on 08 August 2014 - 08:01 AM, said:

What I'm saying is in his example of a "controlled environment" they stacked the deck in the IS's favor so heavily that they managed to eek out a win.

90% is already confirmed by PGI.

And you TOTALLY missed my point. I wasn't arguing about whether the Clans or OP or not. I was arguing about the testing environment numbskull.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

It's amazing how many people can't grasp why this is a flawed test.

It's testing basics .....
Is the American education system that bad or are people just playing dumb for their own bias.

[Jman5]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 08 August 2014 - 07:59 AM, said:

Did I say the Clans weren't OP? HMM? Did I? Get your head out of your Hunchback's rear tailpipe for a second. You are just like everyone else on this board, too blinded by your own agenda.

I'm saying that the way this testing was done was stupid and wrong. And now people are basing opinions on a terribly run test, and stupidly released numbers.

It's yet another PGI fubar, their public relations is still terrible. And even I got fooled into thinking they have turned things around.

They are the same stupid company as before.

The Private matches were a controlled environment. I'm not arguing whether the Clans should or shouldn't be nerfed.

I'm arguing that the WHOLE basis of the argument is flawed based off of PGI's stupid testing methods.

Pay attention kids.

Ok buddy, why don't you organize a Clan vs IS show-match series with your friends to show us how its done. Do two Bo5 with the same players where each side does a series in IS and then Clans on the same series of maps/gamemode.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 08 August 2014 - 08:01 AM, said:

And you TOTALLY missed my point. I wasn't arguing about whether the Clans or OP or not. I was arguing about the testing environment numbskull.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe the majority of matches being played are in the Group Queue or Solo Queue?

If the majority of the matches being played happen in the Solo Queue, then the way PGI implemented their tests is accurate because it captured the randomness from PUG matches. If you were to hold a test in a controlled environment, not simulating actual conditions of how the majority of the game is actually being played, then you would have sampling bias because you're leaving out the Trial Mechs and the Cadet Bonus people who would normally be in those matches.

If the majority of the matches being played happen in the Group Queue where there is actual organization and communication then your controlled environment tests would be representative of how the majority of matches are being played.

Either way, you can't just disregard the 90% win rate of Clan Mechs.

Edited by Be Rough With Me Plz, 08 August 2014 - 08:16 AM.

[-Natural Selection-]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 08 August 2014 - 08:01 AM, said:

And you TOTALLY missed my point. I wasn't arguing about whether the Clans or OP or not. I was arguing about the testing environment numbskull.

Yea, I think they are hung up on the fact that they barely won. I also assume they came out the gate knowing exactly how to effectively combat them.

[pulupulu]

Wow, you guys are still at it.

Reading around, the same argument is being made over and over again.

Clearly, this is a faith issue. You trust PGI number or you don't.