692 replies to this topic

[Wolfways]

I find it funny that people think the numbers PGI say actually matter

Does anyone really believe that clan mechs would not be nerfed? If the numbers had shown that IS were winning PGI would just not show the numbers and nerf clans anyway for one simple reason. People who can't play whine about clan mechs.

It's the same as LRM's. Totally underpowered but people who can't play whine about them so they get endless nerfs. Everyone with the slightest bit of sense knows ECM has been vastly OP since it was introduced, but PGI will not fix it because there are too many people who will lose their easy-mode LRM umbrella.

If PGI nerf clans until they are balanced 12 v 10 people will still whine and clans will be nerfed more. Get used to it people. PGI don't balance. they nerf.

[BoomDog]

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.

Out of 84 Clan pilots, only 26 failed to deal 200 damage. This is from my 7 matches alone. You mind getting those details from all of them?


More testing is coming on the 15th, with gimped cERLLs.

Under no stretch of the imagination can someone with a rational mind argue that a 90% loss rate was because IS pilots just stink.

They didn't do 200 damage because they were dead.

[Mystere]

BoomDog, on 08 August 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

They didn't do 200 damage because they were dead.

Alternatively:

Quote

Here is some food for thought <and put on a tin foil hat>...

What if, upon realizing that they were facing a Clan team, the IS team was unable to fight (due to psychological reasons, for example) or simply refused to? Wouldn't that skew the results? I'm pretty sure I've seen some posts to that effect.

Not that I am implying any sabotage on the IS side.

[CeeKay Boques]

Food for thought? That's Chum for sharks.

[Mcgral18]

BoomDog, on 08 August 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

Under no stretch of the imagination can someone with a rational mind argue that a 90% loss rate was because IS pilots just stink.

They didn't do 200 damage because they were dead.

So you say...why doesn't everyone have that problem?

Because they don't do incredibly silly actions.

[1453 R]

I love the base assumption in this thread by all the smug-assed "We won, you dirty P2W-ing Clan b!tches" people in this thread and others like it. And that base assumption is:

"Clans won 90% of their matches against the Inner Sphere teams in the last test. This is un-good. Therefor, Piranha needs to reduce the Clans' combat power by 90% in order to make things fair again. C-ERLL fix totally fair. 10/10 would nerf again. Can't wait for the rest of the totally fair 10/10 would nerf again fixes. GG, Clammers. Now shut up and uninstall or go back to playing IS 'Mechs like REAL MEN."

...and you guys wonder why we're p!ssed at you? You're honestly unclear as to why folks like me are calling you out for ruining things that needed adjustment, not heavy-handed, lead-footed quadruple Nerfination?

Edited by 1453 R, 08 August 2014 - 01:08 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 02:31 AM, said:

Cherry-pick cherry-pick cherry-pick. PGI doesn't provide you with "complete" numbers; just numbers that don't agree with your view of the matter. Because they do not agree with how you view things automatically means it's false? Rationalize away that you're right when PGI says you're wrong.

• What numbers do you have to support your unsubstantiated claims?
  
• What numbers do you have access to that proves PGI wrong?
  
• What evidence can you possibly provide that isn't conjecture to prove you're right?
  
• What do you have that definitively proves you're right and PGI is false?

I've love to see any evidence you have that disproves what PGI announced.

You really have no understanding of math, do you?

Thorn Hallis, on 08 August 2014 - 02:43 AM, said:

Conclusion: Clans are unbalanced in PUG play.

Which we've known literally since the test server before their launch.

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 08 August 2014 - 02:47 AM, said:

Can you prove that the numbers PGI released are false? No.

They have released literally no numbers, save for the 90% stat, and the average elo threshold, both proving absolutely nothing. Do you understand how science and statistics work?

[Roadkill]

Good god, Russ, it takes 30 seconds to look it up on Google.

A 90-point Elo rating difference isn't "at most a 60/40 win ratio" it is in fact 62.5/37.5. Of course that assumes you've implemented Elo correctly and are using it appropriately, neither of which appear to be true in your case.

The matchmaker is so screwed up, and your implementation of Elo is so borked, that this "research" you've been doing on Clan vs IS is completely pointless.

So now you're choosing to implement a multiple-angle nerf on the Clan ER Large Laser. How are you going to determine which part of the nerf was effective after this destroys the CERLL? You won't have any idea, that's how. You should only tweak one stat at a time so that you can understand each impact in isolation.

[Lefty Lucy]

1453 R, on 08 August 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

I love the base assumption in this thread by all the smug-assed "We won, you dirty P2W-ing Clan b!tches" people in this thread and others like it. And that base assumption is:

"Clans won 90% of their matches against the Inner Sphere teams in the last test. This is un-good. Therefor, Piranha needs to reduce the Clans' combat power by 90% in order to make things fair again. C-ERLL fix totally fair. 10/10 would nerf again. Can't wait for the rest of the totally fair 10/10 would nerf again fixes. GG, Clammers. Now shut up and uninstall or go back to playing IS 'Mechs like REAL MEN."

...and you guys wonder why we're p!ssed at you? You're honestly unclear as to why folks like me are calling you out for ruining things that needed adjustment, not heavy-handed, lead-footed quadruple Nerfination?

It would probably be good for your cardiovascular health if you took a break from the forums for a bit.

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

Mystere, on 08 August 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

I think many of the complaints are due to the fact that drastic-looking nerfs have already started even though tests are still going on. People were most likely expecting small steps during the testing period.

If so, the reaction is totally expected.

First of all its not drastic. it is, in the large scheme of things a small step. Second of all, nothing they nurf cant be put back or adjusted if it does not work. The fact of the matter is people are QQing be4 they even test what PGI changes.

It would help PGI and the community a lot more, faster and more productively, if people would say to themselves. "Ok so lets test this. See how it works out. If it does not work then AFTER testing it give feedback. Instead of OMG THE SKY IS FALLING AND I DID NOT EVEN TEST IT YET BUT I KNOW EVEN THOUGH I AM BUT ONE PLAYER IN A COMMUNITY OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PLAYERS". (most of whom dont even post on the forums mind you.)


FRACKING TEST IT! For the most part today I have seen in game ppl saying the changes are not bad, more fair and more balanced. Or no one is saying any thing at all, which.. walla.. the change so far is good for the COMMUNITY of the player base as a whole, not just a few who want to play the victim card.

This game has a 5+ year contract, sh** does not happen over night!

My personal experience so far, I am a light only pilot mind you. The last few weeks I was about to quit the game, now im actually enjoying the game a lot more already. Yes more clan nurfs need to come, but its a step forward.

Dont kid yourselves, no matter how hard you QQ. Clan nurfs are coming. They need to come. This is an online FPS, not a tabletop game!

[Hellcat420]

rageagainstthedyingofthelight, on 07 August 2014 - 08:41 PM, said:

The stats on the IS vs Clan queues came in with clan wining 90% of the time. 90%.

So I thought I'd start a thread where everyone who said Clan mechs weren't more powerful could apologize, you know, to keep it all in one place. You were wrong, there's no shame in that, but you were wrong.

the matchmaker makes that number completely meaningless.

[Tynan]

I still can't wait for all of the "clans are OP" people to realize that Timbie =/= Clans as a whole when they pick up Adders and Summoners. Consistent nerfing of Clan weapons is going to just end up making the quality Clan chassis average and the rest (read: most of them) utterly inferior due to being locked into no endo / slow engine, etc.

[1453 R]

Please, Mr. Funkadelic. Allow me to correct some of your misconceptions.

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 08 August 2014 - 01:20 PM, said:

First of all its not drastic. it is, in the large scheme of things a small step.

I and many others would call increasing the C-ERLL’s Ghost Heat by a factor of 8 (once again: 4x the Ghost Heat penalty, applied 2x sooner due to the C-ERLL Ghost Heat cap being cut in half) a drastic step. The Ghost Heat shenanigans alone would have been (much more than) sufficient as a rollout to see if hard-locking C-ERLL into chainfire mode curbed the weapon. The 25% increased beam duration would have been sufficient to see if the extra face time required curbed the weapon. As it stands, the stock Timber Wolf and Stormcrow Primes are now more dangerous to their pilots than to the enemy, and the stock Dire Wolf Prime is flat-out unuseable. The combination of extended face time and inability to group-fire the weapon has removed the C-ERLL from all combat ranges, as C-ERLL users are no longer able to output sufficient pressure/DPS in close quarters to offset their staring-you-in-the-mug vulnerability.

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 08 August 2014 - 01:20 PM, said:

Second of all, nothing they nurf cant be put back or adjusted if it does not work. The fact of the matter is people are QQing be4 they even test what PGI changes.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL THIS IS PIRANHA, FOO’. PIRANHA NEVER UNDOES A NERF. No matter how much that nerf needs undone! Does the Victor need to move as poorly as an Atlas anymore? No, no it does not, not even remotely. Does it still move like an Atlas? Yes it does. Is Iraqi pointed out (I believe it was Iraqi, anyways), the IS small laser is still at 200% of its closed beta/TT heat generation…because of the Slashback. A ’Mech that was rebalanced out of existence before I even started playing this game back in open beta days.

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 08 August 2014 - 01:20 PM, said:

It would help PGI and the community a lot more, faster and more productively, if people would say to themselves. "Ok so lets test this. See how it works out. If it does not work then AFTER testing it give feedback. Instead of OMG THE SKY IS FALLING AND I DID NOT EVEN TEST IT YET BUT I KNOW EVEN THOUGH I AM BUT ONE PLAYER IN A COMMUNITY OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PLAYERS".

You know what I’m doing instead?

When I get home from work, I’m going to boot up MWO. I’ma patch it, and then I’ma go into my ‘Mechlab and strip every single C-ERLL off every single one of my Clan ‘Mechs. They may or may not get replacement fits, if I can come up with ideas between then and now – but I will no longer be using the C-ERLL in any of my matches, on any of my machines. I will be boycotting the change by not using the weapon at all in this atrocious state, and that includes “testing it to see if it’s not actually that bad.”

Yes, Funkadelic, it is that bad. Bad enough that I refuse to tolerate it. So far as I am concerned, Paul has removed the C-ERLL from the game – and I’m going to raise a stink about it until that decision is reversed.

And I invite anyone else who’s completely disgusted at this oh-so-very-typical complete overreaction to join me in doing so. Matter of fact, I believe I’ll make a thread for it shortly here.

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 08 August 2014 - 01:20 PM, said:

FRACKING TEST IT!

No.

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 08 August 2014 - 01:20 PM, said:

For the most part today I have seen in game ppl saying the changes are not bad, more fair and more balanced. Or no one is saying any thing at all, which.. walla.. the change so far is good for the COMMUNITY of the player base as a whole, not just a few who want to play the victim card.

The change is ‘good for the community’ only until the Clans are available for C-bill purchase. At which point you, Lefty Lucy, RageAgainstTheOP, Rough, and all the other folks crowing in triumph about us dirty filthy moustache-twirling Clan-‘Mech-using villains Getting Our Righteous Comeuppance will realize that Paul’s removed the C-ERLL from your Clan ‘Mechs, too. You’ll realize that putting players in a situation where four tons of empty space is a better decision in the ‘Mechlab than equipping the C-ERLL that used to occupy that space is a really damn schitty thing to do, and you shouldn’t have been nearly so eager to go about doing it.

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 08 August 2014 - 01:20 PM, said:

This game has a 5+ year contract, sh** does not happen over night!

Except when Paul decides to roll out three monstrous nerfs in one patch instead of trying them, y’know…ONE AT A GODDAMN TIME, until he found out how far was far enough. Instead, we now have a fantastic example of one particular point in the territory of five or so miles beyond “far enough.”

It's kind of a crap place to be.

Edited by 1453 R, 08 August 2014 - 01:43 PM.

[Hobgoblin I]

IraqiWalker, on 08 August 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

They have released literally no numbers, save for the 90% stat, and the average elo threshold, both proving absolutely nothing. Do you understand how science and statistics work?

Do you? If you don't realize that the difference between a 60% prediction and a 90% result is statistically significant, then the answer must be No.

[TLBFestus]

The other day I was on my ISLAND, sitting on a beach chair by the ocean and admiring the view when I heard something.

I looked to my left and who did I see?

The PGI IS vs CLAN balance department all having a BBQ.

[Noth]

Hobgoblin I, on 08 August 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:

Do you? If you don't realize that the difference between a 60% prediction and a 90% result is statistically significant, then the answer must be No.

When they don't say why they had such a prediction, when they try and cover the ELO and experience difference with MM (which is known to thrown the entirety of terrible plays against good players, thus stomp occur everywhere).When all they say is the average and the observed w/l leaving out any other possible stats that would show more of the picture?

Edited by Noth, 08 August 2014 - 01:53 PM.

[WmLowFlyer]

Guys, PGI's sources and statistics are absolute and indisputable.


After all, 86% of players are solo droppers, too.

I'll be on the island watching Clan lose conquest every game (10v12 is horribad for any future objective oriented game modes)

Edited by WmLowFlyer, 08 August 2014 - 01:53 PM.

[Mystere]

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 08 August 2014 - 01:28 PM, said:

First of all its not drastic.

I think changing 4 variables instead of 1 can be considered drastic. Also, how would you know which of the 4 changed variables was most and/or least effective? I am very much interested in knowing how they intend to make such a determination. Who knows, I might even learn something new.

[IraqiWalker]

Lefty Lucy, on 08 August 2014 - 01:24 PM, said:

It would probably be good for your cardiovascular health if you took a break from the forums for a bit.

That was too funny.

1453 R, on 08 August 2014 - 01:41 PM, said:

Please, Mr. Funkadelic. Allow me to correct some of your misconceptions.



I and many others would call increasing the C-ERLL’s Ghost Heat by a factor of 8 (once again: 4x the Ghost Heat penalty, applied 2x sooner due to the C-ERLL Ghost Heat cap being cut in half) a drastic step. The Ghost Heat shenanigans alone would have been (much more than) sufficient as a rollout to see if hard-locking C-ERLL into chainfire mode curbed the weapon. The 25% increased beam duration would have been sufficient to see if the extra face time required curbed the weapon. As it stands, the stock Timber Wolf and Stormcrow Primes are now more dangerous to their pilots than to the enemy, and the stock Dire Wolf Prime is flat-out unuseable. The combination of extended face time and inability to group-fire the weapon has removed the C-ERLL from all combat ranges, as C-ERLL users are no longer able to output sufficient pressure/DPS in close quarters to offset their staring-you-in-the-mug vulnerability.



LOLOLOLOLOLOL THIS IS PIRANHA, FOO’. PIRANHA NEVER UNDOES A NERF. No matter how much that nerf needs undone! Does the Victor need to move as poorly as an Atlas anymore? No, no it does not, not even remotely. Does it still move like an Atlas? Yes it does. Is Iraqi pointed out (I believe it was Iraqi, anyways), the IS small laser is still at 200% of its closed beta/TT heat generation…because of the Slashback. A ’Mech that was rebalanced out of existence before I even started playing this game back in open beta days.

Oh yeah. Half this mess wouldn't need to happen, if the IS SL generated 1 heat instead of it's current 2 heat, making choosing it over ERSL a nearly silly decision. If the IS ML generated 3 heat instead of 4, making choosing it over the ERML a viable decision, and the Clan LL had about 9.5 heat with maybe 150 less range.

You know, the stuff we repeatedly said should be done, but nope

1453 R, on 08 August 2014 - 01:41 PM, said:

You know what I’m doing instead?

When I get home from work, I’m going to boot up MWO. I’ma patch it, and then I’ma go into my ‘Mechlab and strip every single C-ERLL off every single one of my Clan ‘Mechs. They may or may not get replacement fits, if I can come up with ideas between then and now – but I will no longer be using the C-ERLL in any of my matches, on any of my machines. I will be boycotting the change by not using the weapon at all in this atrocious state, and that includes “testing it to see if it’s not actually that bad.”

Yes, Funkadelic, it is that bad. Bad enough that I refuse to tolerate it. So far as I am concerned, Paul has removed the C-ERLL from the game – and I’m going to raise a stink about it until that decision is reversed.

And I invite anyone else who’s completely disgusted at this oh-so-very-typical complete overreaction to join me in doing so. Matter of fact, I believe I’ll make a thread for it shortly here.

Use the LPLs, sad as it may be, they are actually more viable for long range fights than LLs now. Yup. The weapon intended for medium range brawling is now more viable for long range engagements than the weapon designed solely for long range engagements.




Actually I want to comment on the never undo a nerf thing.

We are actually seeing an event equivalent to a double eclipse here. You see way back in CB they slapped the PPC with a projectile speed of around 700. Then they jumped it back up to 1500, so that happened. What we're seeing now, is the revival of a nerf long though stupid, and dead.

Usually I can defend some of PGI's decisions, I even thought Paul was getting perhaps too much hate from the community. However, right now, I find little to support that theory.


Who on earth changes a weapon so forcefully that no one will use it, and end up with no data to see if the changes actually work. Unless the purpose of the changes was to make the weapon completely useless.

Mystere, on 08 August 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

I think changing 4 variables instead of 1 can be considered drastic. Also, how would you know which of the 4 changed variables was most and/or least effective? I am very much interested in knowing how they intend to make such a determination. Who knows, I might even learn something new.

Repeated for common sense.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 08 August 2014 - 01:58 PM.

[Mystere]

1453 R, on 08 August 2014 - 01:41 PM, said:

LOLOLOLOLOLOL THIS IS PIRANHA, FOO’. PIRANHA NEVER UNDOES A NERF. No matter how much that nerf needs undone!

Well, truth be told, the (ER)PPC has now gone full circle. And frankly, this ends up looking like a whole waste of time and effort on everybody's part. And I do not like my precious time wasted. You'd be shocked what I charge per hour.