692 replies to this topic

[Noth]

El Bandito, on 08 August 2014 - 05:22 AM, said:

But the difference will be subtle enough to keep the population balance in check. Otherwise, once Clan mechs are all available in C-Bills, most players will jump onto Clan tech, and 10 v 12 will become a stupid idea.

Until they realize that they are not as powerful as they originally thought/or realize how much they were nerfed. Just from the nature of some of the clan weapons, some will be flat out superior until they are nerfed into the ground. Serioulsy, some of them are close to balanced and some clan mechs actually need a buff. Seriously, for the clan LRMs to come inline with the IS LRMs they need to be nerfed so hard, no one but the most diehard LRM users would carry them. ther are similar ones as well. Mechs like the Adder and summoner would become even worse than they are now due to the weapon nerfs. They'd have to drop the entire omni-mech idea to prevent that and we both know that is not happening.

Edited by Noth, 08 August 2014 - 05:30 AM.

[El Bandito]

Willard Phule, on 08 August 2014 - 05:23 AM, said:

I don't need access to it. The simple fact that there were no Clan on Clan matches the FIRST test and there were on the SECOND tells you that the results will be different. So, that means that this round of nerfs is either a ) based on two completely different sets of data or b ) just this last test, which has questionable results all by itself. I simply CANNOT emphasize this enough. The fact that there were a LOT of Clan on Clan matches means that of course the Clans are going to have a higher win percentage. It's kind of hard NOT to. It's not like the Clan loss for one side cancels out the Clan win on the other. And,no, I don't have access to the data or the analysis. I don't think it's a far throw to simply assume that Paul didn't bother to take the Clan on Clan results out of his data. It would be very much like the Nerfinator to use information like that to support his position.

You think that PGI is dumb enough not to discount the Clan vs Clan matches? Even elementary kid understands it. Accusing PGI of incompetence is fine--I do it too--but this is taking it too far.

Noth, on 08 August 2014 - 05:25 AM, said:

Until they realize that they are not as powerful as they originally thought/or realize how much they were nerfed. Just from the nature of some of the clan weapons, some will be flat out superior until they are nerfed into the ground. Serioulsy, some of them are close to balanced and some clan mechs actually need a buff. So the entire idea that every clan needs nerfed or equal but different is flawed.

Your thought is flawed.

1. There is no Clan weapon that can be flat out superior to the IS counterparts until nerfed to the ground. None. Name it, and I'll immediately offer a nerf that will keep it in line yet will not nerf it to the ground.

2. Not all clan tech is superior. I am not suggesting blanket nerfs. Individual cases such as Clan Lights can be brought into relevance by sets of quirk buffs, for example.

Edited by El Bandito, 08 August 2014 - 05:35 AM.

[Dawnstealer]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 August 2014 - 08:46 PM, said:

At least I don't have to apologize. I said they aren't powerful enough! At this point in Canon, Clans were winning 100% of the battles. Ergo I am right.

This.

[Charons Little Helper]

Technoviking, on 08 August 2014 - 05:07 AM, said:

Why is 12 v 10 dumb?

It isn't.

I still vote for creeps though. Clans get better mechs - IS gets tanks/choppers etc.

And it'd finally give a good reason to have the command console. When you have it - you can order said creeps around the battlefield instead of having them move around with mediocre AI.

And frankly - I understand that AI running around with mechs would be hard to program.

But when they're in tanks/choppers they don't have to be smart.

And it'd be easy to balance. Just do like they've done for the recent Clan vs IS. Give IS X # of creeps. If they're still only winning 35% of the matches give them X+2 creeps and wait for new stats. If with X creeps the IS starts winning 75% of the matches, drop it to X-3 creeps. Rinse & repeat.

[Devilsfury]

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.

I literally play 30+ matches a day and change mechs frequently. Typical high damage scored are DW, TW, DW, DW, DW, TW, 3D, TW, TW, DW, DW, 733C, TW, DW, BM, TW...sprinkle in a few other mechs but you see the trend. Its like anything in a game, people want their OP classes to stay OP. Just like the 733c, DS, invincible lights, Spiders, Embers and now the Clan Mechs. More nerfs to come. Just think...this will help with the Pay to win thing people ***** about!

Edited by Devilsfury, 08 August 2014 - 05:31 AM.

[Willard Phule]

El Bandito, on 08 August 2014 - 05:26 AM, said:

You think that PGI is dumb enough not to discount the Clan vs Clan matches? Even elementary kid understands it. Accusing PGI of incompetence fine--I do it too--but this is taking it too far.

Well, actually, I do think they are that ignorant. But that's beside the point.

Why didn't the first Clan/IS test end up in a 90/10 ratio? What was different between the two? There's OBVIOUSLY some variable that was introduced into the second test that changed the results. If a result cannot be replicated, then the method used is suspect.

Paul needs hard data to justify him going to town with the nerf bat. Using skewed data seems to be his favored method. Look at the whole Elo/Matchmaker thing. We all know that's borked.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

Noth, on 08 August 2014 - 05:10 AM, said:

Again, I'm not arguing to prove the clan mechs are not more powerful, I'm arguing for more data to see exactly how much more powerful they are.

Your arguments in the thread "To everyone complaining about Clan v. Is Stomps" shows you're purposefully downplaying the superiority in Clan Tech implying that Clan teams win because they contain a high number of experienced players. Now with PGI's announcement, you're admitting that Clan Tech is superior and that it's really about the variables on the IS team. You want an irrelevant comparison? You're like the Catholic Church in their attempts to redefine the "soul" every time science proves them wrong.

You're changing what you say when faced with reality. That's fine, but don't act like you've been saying the same thing all along.

Edited by Be Rough With Me Plz, 08 August 2014 - 05:33 AM.

[Desdain]

Jman5, on 07 August 2014 - 10:21 PM, said:

You guys need to just accept that there is a major imbalance here and move on.

There should be an imbalance. If a clan mech == an IS mech during the invasion, it isn't BT. 10v12 is a better answer than making everything the same.

[Noth]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 05:31 AM, said:

Your arguments in the thread "To everyone complaining about Clan v. Is Stomps" shows you're purposefully downplaying the superiority in Clan Tech implying that Clan teams win because they contain a high number of experienced players. Now with PGI's announcement, you're admitting that Clan Tech is superior and that it's really about the variables on the IS team.

You're changing what you say when faced with reality. That's fine, but don't act like you've been saying the same thing all along.

Yes I originally started that way, but again for most of this thread (for all but maybe 2-3 posts), I've simply been wanting more information and trying to point out that clan mechs are not the only factor. and you've been acting like I'm trying to prove something I'm no longer trying to prove. I'm asking for something showing accuracy of the clan problem and you act like I just want to prove you wrong.

So I say this again, you should have no issue with more information being given, but you fight it every single time it is even mentioned.

Edited by Noth, 08 August 2014 - 05:35 AM.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

Willard Phule, on 08 August 2014 - 05:23 AM, said:

And,no, I don't have access to the data or the analysis. I don't think it's a far throw to simply assume that Paul didn't bother to take the Clan on Clan results out of his data. It would be very much like the Nerfinator to use information like that to support his position.

Considering the entire purpose of the 2 tests was to see how each Tech type fared against each other, that's a pretty preposterous statement to make.

[Voidcrafter]

Devilsfury, on 08 August 2014 - 05:29 AM, said:

I literally play 30+ matches a day and change mechs frequently. Typical high damage scored are DW, TW, DW, DW, DW, TW, 3D, TW, TW, DW, DW, 733C, TW, DW, BM, TW...sprinkle in a few other mechs but you see the trend. Its like anything in a game, people want their OP classes to stay OP. Just like the 733c, DS, invincible lights, Spiders, Embers and now the Clan Mechs. More nerfs to come. Just think...this will help with the Pay to win thing people ***** about!

Looking forward to kick your ass as anyone who believe all this boolsheet when they nerf the hell of the PPCs/ERLL and make it 10v12, 8v12, whatever numbers you'll be satisfied.
A good pilot is a good pilot
A bad one is bad until he doesn't accept the reasons for his own defeat and submit to change and adaptation.
I will really be happy to play with 7 fellow clanners against 12 people like you - no matter the outcome.
Hell - I would gladly do that in IS mechs.
And after all this silly topic becomes a bad memory I'll gladly await for the next thing you(and I don't mean personally "you" of course) would complain about.


As you noted about op classes wanting to stay op - I can say the same about the people who can't accept something is worse in their playstyle, that someone is better than them and whine about it constantly here.

[Willard Phule]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 05:35 AM, said:

Considering the entire purpose of the 2 tests was to see how each Tech type fared against each other, that's a pretty preposterous statement to make.

What were the results of the first test...you know the one that DIDN'T have Clan on Clan matches? I can guarantee you it wasn't 90/10. If it was, we would have already heard about it and felt the nerf bat.

So, and again I ask this question, WHY WERE THE RESULTS BETWEEN THE TWO TESTS SO DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT?

Tell me. I'd love to hear your theory besides "because PGI is perfect and they said so." That's not a reason.

Whatever. It's not worth arguing. I can't wait for the nerf bat to hit us because.....the IS is next. As soon as we muster a group of people to go over to Twitter and whine about how OP the IS mechs are, they'll get hit. Paul doesn't believe in balance...he believes in appeasing whoever promises to give him the most cash.

[Hardac]

El Bandito, on 08 August 2014 - 04:52 AM, said:

No it won't. Many Clan mechs have additional hard wired heatsinks in them so the loss of mere 3 heatsinks will not affect them much. We need to let the Clanners suffer serious side effects when an XL blows. Half will get their attention, so I personally think that's where PGI should start.

If they lost a side torso they also lost the hard wired heatsink in the side torso as well as that 1/3 and any other heatsinks they placed in the side torso. It's fair. You sound like someone with a grudge.

[CeeKay Boques]

Willard Phule, on 08 August 2014 - 05:42 AM, said:

Paul doesn't believe in balance...he believes in appeasing whoever promises to give him the most cash.

This is mustache twirling hyperbole that we use to make up for the reality that we have inexperienced people whinging it, and failing as often as they succeed.

Despite the fact that the roadmap of "the way MW was done before" is right in front of them, and they could have just bounced off that and just grew it from there, instead of being so "inventive".

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

Noth, on 08 August 2014 - 05:33 AM, said:

Yes I originally started that way, but again for most of this thread (for all but maybe 2-3 posts), I've simply been wanting more information and trying to point out that clan mechs are not the only factor. and you've been acting like I'm trying to prove something I'm no longer trying to prove. I'm asking for something showing accuracy of the clan problem and you act like I just want to prove you wrong.

So I say this again, you should have no issue with more information being given, but you fight it every single time it is even mentioned.

Really?

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 07 August 2014 - 10:58 PM, said:

...
Keep asking for more specific numbers though. I'm sure you'll find an outlier that you can cling to.
...

If I was so against further numbers from being released, why would I encourage the attempt? I'm fairly certain that it would disprove your notion that Clan Tech didn't play a significant role in the 90% win rate. Oh, now you're saying Clan Tech is superior, but that's not the reason why Clan teams won 90% of the time. That leads back to:

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 07 August 2014 - 11:20 PM, said:

Here it is, people. We have now witnessed the shift of focus heading towards "Elo is no longer valid" now that we have a clear indication that Clan Tech gives you a 90% chance to win.

It's not the Tech, it's the people!

[El Bandito]

Hardac, on 08 August 2014 - 05:45 AM, said:

If they lost a side torso they also lost the hard wired heatsink in the side torso as well as that 1/3 and any other heatsinks they placed in the side torso. It's fair. You sound like someone with a grudge.

No, I am just being fair. XL IS mechs die when ST is blown. Logic dictates, there needs to be significant drawbacks to blown ST for XL Clanners, as well, without using death.

[Be Rough With Me Plz]

Willard Phule, on 08 August 2014 - 05:42 AM, said:

What were the results of the first test...you know the one that DIDN'T have Clan on Clan matches? I can guarantee you it wasn't 90/10. If it was, we would have already heard about it and felt the nerf bat.

More assumptions. How can you guarantee something when you don't even know what the results were after the first test.

Willard Phule, on 08 August 2014 - 05:42 AM, said:

So, and again I ask this question, WHY WERE THE RESULTS BETWEEN THE TWO TESTS SO DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT?

Tell me. I'd love to hear your theory besides "because PGI is perfect and they said so." That's not a reason.

Can you provide the results of the first test and second? If you have access to the numbers, I'm sure everyone would love to see them. Oh, you don't. All we have are the numbers PGI released as a cumulative result from the first and second attempt. Keep going with your blanket assumptions/statements though.

Willard Phule, on 08 August 2014 - 05:42 AM, said:

Whatever. It's not worth arguing. I can't wait for the nerf bat to hit us because.....the IS is next. As soon as we muster a group of people to go over to Twitter and whine about how OP the IS mechs are, they'll get hit. Paul doesn't believe in balance...he believes in appeasing whoever promises to give him the most cash.

If that were true then why would Clan Tech even be on the table for nerfs? Clearly the people who spent $Real Money$ on Clan Packs are the ones who give him the most cash. You contradict yourself all the time.

[Noth]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 05:47 AM, said:

Really?


If I was so against further numbers from being released, why would I encourage the attempt? I'm fairly certain that it would disprove your notion that Clan Tech didn't play a significant role in the 90% win rate. Oh, now you're saying Clan Tech is superior, but that's not the reason why Clan teams won 90% of the time. That leads back to:

Actually, I've always thought clan tech was superior, just not to the point that it would play such a huge role. My issues are with people who blindly think it is so OP it needs nerfed into the ground.

I've also always thought that ELO was fishy to use in a team game and that if using it you need to look at the individual player ELOs rather than the teams overall ELO. However, it is one of the few stats we have, no matter how flawed, we have for player skill. Seeing the individual ELOs can help judge a couple things on whether the poor performance was simply a bad match (or a good performance because the player had a good match). Basically something that could show how important (or not) the player is. Seeing the mech builds can show whether it was a good/bad/joke/troll build, and etc.

You have a strange way of encouraging getting more numbers when pretty much every time we mentioned wanting more data to see exactly how much effect things had, and you pretty much respond with you don't need it or that the average is all that is needed. Further saying we'd just look for and cling to an outlier is not encouraging more data.

[Noth]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 06:00 AM, said:

Yes, it's accurate to dismiss posted results based off the hypothesis that said posted results are skewed without any proof or evidence that support the hypothesis.

Hello, Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Many of us are not dismissing the posted result, but are asking for more data to get a more accurate picture.

Edited by Noth, 08 August 2014 - 06:01 AM.

[Willard Phule]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 05:54 AM, said:

More assumptions. How can you guarantee something when you don't even know what the results were after the first test.

I can speculate. Since we're facing the nerf bat now, based on a result stated to be 90/10, it's safe to conjecture that if the first test was 90/10, we'd have already been hit with it.

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 05:54 AM, said:

Can you provide the results of the first test and second? If you have access to the numbers, I'm sure everyone would love to see them. Oh, you don't. All we have are the numbers PGI released as a cumulative result from the first and second attempt. Keep going with your blanket assumptions/statements though.

I can provide the results of the second. 90/10. The rest is all explained by yourself (I bolded that part for you). All we have are numbers PGI released. And again, the data collection method that they used can be proven scientifically to be inaccurate. What part of "if you can't replicate the results of the test, then it is just theory" do you not understand?

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 05:54 AM, said:

If that were true then why would Clan Tech even be on the table for nerfs? Clearly the people who spent $Real Money$ on Clan Packs are the ones who give him the most cash. You contradict yourself all the time.

Income is based on what you will be receiving, not what you've already received. PGI doesn't operate off of savings, it operates off of income that comes in on a daily basis. Those that spend $Real Moeny$ on Clan Packs have already spent it. They're not likely to spend any more once they're nerfed into oblivion. Economics 101. When you finally get to the 100 level classes, you'll understand that.

Noth, on 08 August 2014 - 06:01 AM, said:

Many of us are not dismissing the posted result, but are asking for more data to get a more accurate picture.

Which brings up what I've been saying this whole time.

If they do another test and the results are anywhere close to 90/10, then obviously they've been able to replicate the data and something needs to be done.

Nerfing things like they're about to based on one test (and I say one test because there are obviously discrepancies between both tests) is reactionary and not well thought out.