692 replies to this topic

[Noth]

I will say this about the average ELO of teams. You can have very high elo players end up with low elo player to average out a decent elo. However, due to the nature of this game, high skill players can only carry so hard. So, not saying this is the case, it is entirely possible to have similar average group ELO with more bad players on one side. You can add in issues such as ELO inflation of new players, and that due to being a team game players can get carried to higher ELO than they should be in, or be stuck in a lower ELO than they should be in (ELO hell).

More testing is needed, and will have to be revisited again when the clan mechs are available to, and in the hands of more of the playerbase.

Edited by Noth, 07 August 2014 - 10:03 PM.

[Mcgral18]

El Bandito, on 07 August 2014 - 09:56 PM, said:

Your method is certainly more effective and I am sure in the test of August 15th, the IS will bring overall better mechs to face the Clans, since the matches will be private. However, should the Clans stomp IS again...PGI will be more than justified to call in the Nerfinator.

We most certainly will see.


Should I bring the WubShee? I'm not sure the Clans are ready for that monster...1/3 of their cERLL burn time.

Edited by Mcgral18, 07 August 2014 - 09:59 PM.

[BOWMANGR]

FINALLY!!! Finally some number. So that we can stop hearing ridiculous arguments about the Clans being balanced, the IS pilots being bad, "its not the mech, its the pilot", "learn to play" comments, "I see IS teams doing nothing", "I pilot Clans and lose all the time" and all the other crapload of impossible arguments to deny the totally obvious.

So yeah, I thread like this needs to exist. Start apologizing please. Even my cat asks for it because she couldn't stand the tons of bullcrap excuses of the last week's pro-Clanners arguments.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

Noth, on 07 August 2014 - 09:59 PM, said:

I will say this about the average ELO of teams. You can have very high elo players end up with low elo player to average out a decent elo. However, due to the nature of this game, high skill players can only carry so hard. So, not saying this is the case, it is entirely possible to have similar average group ElO with more bod players on one side. You can add in issues such as ELO inflation of new players, and that due to being a team game players can get carried to higher ELO than they should be in, or be stuck in a lower ELO than they should be in (ELO hell).

More testing is needed, and will have to be revisited again when the clan mechs are available to and in the hands of more of the playerbase.

Soooo... Now that the numbers contradict your belief, you're going to question the numbers? You're willing to entertain the idea that 90% of the matches were lost because the IS Mechs had "noobs"? Wouldn't it be safe to assume that PGI would be interested in getting appreciable numbers to extrapolate from? That they would try to get the most experienced players possible involved during their testing periods? That maybe the second test was because they couldn't believe the disparity in percentages the first time they did their test?

Let's consider the percentage itself - 90%. That's not even in the range of "close". The Devs even commented on how far apart IS Tech and Clan Tech is. This is a polarizing issue and I doubt they would release a hard percentage for the public to discuss without appreciable data.

[NonCedo]

Old stats and new stats, I have logged over 8000 matches, and am all IS player atm. From many many matches in the vs. drops, IS got mechanically outclassed, that is it. For those who disagree (clan), I know you dont want your smooth victory streak to end and would like to give all the credit to your super elite skills, but get over it. You got your feel good stomping in, say thank you to those who supplied it. Its been a hell of a fight for victories from the IS side, well done those who have fought the good fight.
The clan mechs are superior mechs atm, but im still not going to buy any.
Now can we move on to the annoying mouse over sound in the mech lab, Russ, you need to fix that before karma seeks you out. I bet yours is able to be toggled off, come on...admit it.

[Jeb]

El Bandito, on 07 August 2014 - 09:56 PM, said:

Your method is certainly more effective and I am sure in the test of August 15th, the IS will bring overall better mechs to face the Clans, since the matches will be private. However, should the Clans stomp IS again...PGI will be more than justified to call in the Nerfinator.

I still think the Clans will have an advantage due to their laser ranges and no counter to them on the IS side... and I still think a few other tweaks are needed to balance things up... but I think if the IS mechs are more controlled we will see either a closer w:l ratio, or at least closer matches that are not huge stomps...

Those tests may be much better for figuring out what is needed

Edited by Jeb, 07 August 2014 - 10:08 PM.

[Mcgral18]

BOWMANGR, on 07 August 2014 - 10:05 PM, said:

FINALLY!!! Finally some number. So that we can stop hearing ridiculous arguments about the Clans being balanced, the IS pilots being bad, "its not the mech, its the pilot", "learn to play" comments, "I see IS teams doing nothing", "I pilot Clans and lose all the time" and all the other crapload of impossible arguments to deny the totally obvious.

So yeah, I thread like this needs to exist. Start apologizing please. Even my cat asks for it because she couldn't stand the tons of bullcrap excuses of the last week's pro-Clanners arguments.

One number, actually.

I want to see the breakdown. But I guess there really isn't a difference between the IS vs Clan matches and PUGs. Half the team fails to get 200 damage anyways.

[Hobgoblin I]

Mcgral18, on 07 August 2014 - 09:59 PM, said:

We most certainly will see.

You will see, but will probably continue to deny...

[Noth]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 07 August 2014 - 10:07 PM, said:

Soooo... Now that the numbers contradict your belief, you're going to question the numbers? You're willing to entertain the idea that 90% of the matches were lost because the IS Mechs had "noobs"? Wouldn't it be safe to assume that PGI would be interested in getting appreciable numbers to extrapolate from? That they would try to get the most experienced players possible involved during their testing periods? That maybe the second test was because they couldn't believe the disparity in percentages the first time they did their test?

Let's consider the percentage itself - 90%. That's not even in the range of "close". The Devs even commented on how far apart IS Tech and Clan Tech is. This is a polarizing issue and I doubt they would release a hard percentage for the public to discuss without appreciable data.

Actually I've wanted to see all the numbers, not just averages. I would really like to see a break down similar to McGral has done with his screen shots, but throw in the ELO of the players (blur out the names of course). So a damage and ELO break down, not just of the average, but of the individual players each match.

The thing with stastistic is you can twist them many different ways to show different things purposefully and on accident.

Edited by Noth, 07 August 2014 - 10:13 PM.

[Jeb]

It would be nice to see the weight differences on the teams as well... I suspect the clans had distinct weight advantages due to the Timberwoves and Direwolves being the top of their weight classes and generally considered better then the Summoner and Warhawk, so much more common to see.

[El Bandito]

Jeb, on 07 August 2014 - 10:16 PM, said:

It would be nice to see the weight differences on the teams as well... I suspect the clans had distinct weight advantages due to the Timberwoves and Direwolves being the top of their weight classes and generally considered better then the Summoner and Warhawk, so much more common to see.

IS mechs such as the Phract and the Victors are not the top of their respective weight class. Weight is not primary cause of effectiveness, per class. I'd even argue that a Banshee is much much better than an Atlas. Hardpoint numbers and locations + hitboxes are the most vital.

Edited by El Bandito, 07 August 2014 - 10:21 PM.

[Jman5]

Noth, on 07 August 2014 - 10:12 PM, said:

Actually I've wanted to see all the numbers, not just averages. I would really like to see a break down similar to McGral has done with his screen shots, but throw in the ELO of the players (blur out the names of course). So a damage and ELO break down, not just of the average, but of the individual players each match.

The thing with stastistic is you can twist them many different ways to show different things purposefully and on accident.

They did an Elo breakdown and the stats didn't line up even close to where they should have if Clans and IS were balanced.

You guys need to just accept that there is a major imbalance here and move on. Because you're starting to sound like Birthers demanding more and more elaborate proofs that Obama was born in the US.

[ShinVector]

Lol... Any Clanner that claims they lose all the time are going to put themselves into that 10% group.

[Suko]

Mcgral18, on 07 August 2014 - 10:09 PM, said:

One number, actually.

I want to see the breakdown. But I guess there really isn't a difference between the IS vs Clan matches and PUGs. Half the team fails to get 200 damage anyways.

Why do you keep saying this? Have you never been on a stomped team before prior to this month? Low damage is common, even for great players. It's not easy to rack up 600+ dmg when you're being blasted by 4 mechs. Seriously, why do you keep saying things like this? It's a terrible argument.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3620375

Edited by ShadowVFX, 07 August 2014 - 10:27 PM.

[Sarlic]

Mcgral18, on 07 August 2014 - 08:55 PM, said:

Well, 62% of the players did fail to get the pathetic damage of 200...

I'll be trying again the 15th. Private matches and gimped cERLLs should make it much easier.

I get your frustation, i really do but:

What about the desyncing or client problems? What about if your unlucky and get isolated because teammates left you behind, what about poor communication of scouts or teammembers within the team. And last: damagenumbers does not add up per mech.

Why should a scout need to do 600 damage like a Assault. Or why should a medium do more then 400 damage?

In my opinion there are too many factors to decide and burn all players off who does not do enough damage. There is no red line, there are too many things to say. The high number is just how a veteran like you and me see. I had difficulties aswell. Most desyncing problems.

I have noticed the lot of trial mechs. That's the only thing i know. Trial mechs are already hard enough. To begin with: split them up to trial vs trial to know the game better. After you have customized your first mech and gaines a few kills you get in another pool.

The main and really the mean problem with this game is that there is a VAQUE line what specific roles are.

Edited by Sarlic, 07 August 2014 - 10:33 PM.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

Noth, on 07 August 2014 - 10:12 PM, said:

Actually I've wanted to see all the numbers, not just averages. I would really like to see a break down similar to McGral has done with his screen shots, but throw in the ELO of the players (blur out the names of course). So a damage and ELO break down, not just of the average, but of the individual players each match.

The thing with stastistic is you can twist them many different ways to show different things purposefully and on accident.

Your entire argument is demolished with the information included in that tweet.

You want more numbers because you can't argue your point when Clan Tech wins 90% of the time.

They give you an overall win percentage of 90%.
You respond with "Noobs are piloting IS Mechs."

They explain the MM/Elo variances and expected win margins,
You respond with "There are still a higher number of noobs playing IS Mechs than Clan so the Elo score is invalidated"

They flatly state that it's "Not even close". "Changes are absolutely necessary."

Yet even with all that you persist that what you believe is correct. You who have no numbers while PGI has everything.

[Mcgral18]

ShadowVFX, on 07 August 2014 - 10:26 PM, said:

Why do you keep saying this? Have you never been on a stomped team before prior to this month? Low damage is common, even for great players. It's not easy to rack up 600+ dmg when you're being blasted by 4 mechs. Seriously, why do you keep saying things like this? It's a terrible argument.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3620375

I guess I forgot how many terribads were in the Solo queue.

Consistently less than half the team gets more than 200 damage this evening...goddamned terrible.

[Johnny Reb]

Well, if its only solo que, no IS help from me! I only play in groups since the MM change, due to the.. terrible.. match maker!

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

Mcgral18, on 07 August 2014 - 10:33 PM, said:

I guess I forgot how many terribads were in the Solo queue.

Consistently less than half the team gets more than 200 damage this evening...goddamned terrible.

Your belief that "bad" players only exist in IS Mechs is laughable. Yes, it's totally probable that 90% of the IS Mech pilots are "bad".

/facepalm

[Johnny Reb]

Mcgral18, on 07 August 2014 - 10:33 PM, said:

I guess I forgot how many terribads were in the Solo queue.

Consistently less than half the team gets more than 200 damage this evening...goddamned terrible.

Johnny Reb didn't forget now he only does groups!