692 replies to this topic

[Sephlock]

Rather than participating in a fruitless debate, just open up a txt file and record the names of all the people who are gloating the most.

Then when they finally get their shiny new (ultra nerfed) Timbies and Storm Crows, crack that file open and use ctrl+F to see how many names match up.

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

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.



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.



No.



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.



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.

in other words.... "QQ"... "victim card" and "eff you i want mine"... K got it. See how much PGI pays attention to people like you. LOL.

[Hellcat420]

Roadkill, on 08 August 2014 - 01:22 PM, said:

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.

how much do you want to bet that they didnt take into account the fact that they artifically inflate new players elos to be in the middle of the elo range?

[Mystere]

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.

Well, there could be compelling factors that might account for the difference. But until people see the details on how the test and analysis was actually done, there will always be doubt ... especially with PGI involved.

[Hobgoblin I]

Mystere, on 08 August 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:

Well, there could be compelling factors that might account for the difference. But until people see the details on how the test and analysis was actually done, there will always be doubt ... especially with PGI involved.

We all have doubts about PGI's ability to balance correctly.

The odd thing is that there is one big variable between the 90% winners and the 10% losers...clan tech. Clan defenders are making complete guesses to explain the results and ascertaining that clan tech is not responsible because...it just isn't. The data indicates otherwise.

[Doctor Proctor]

Hellcat420, on 08 August 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:

how much do you want to bet that they didnt take into account the fact that they artifically inflate new players elos to be in the middle of the elo range?

Yes, SURELY that's it right there. That accounts for why 90% of the matches were won by Clans, was because they had a few newer players in there whose ELO might have been 100 points higher than it would've otherwise been. It's just sad seeing you guys grasping so hard at straws here...

Oh, and don't know if it was stated earlier or not, but the whole bit about Clan teams probably being higher tonnage is garbage. The last matchmaker changes implemented tonnage matching, which would mean that the teams were balanced both by tonnage as well as ELO. So if there's a Direwolf on the Clan side, there would be an Atlas on the other, not an Awesome. So the whole "Maybe they were all running Locusts and Quickdraws" BS can be ignored.

Fact is, even if those things were true, which they're not, they're still not going to swing the data that far out of whack. We're talking going from a norm of 50/50 to a worst case expected value of 60/40 only to see a 90/10 split, and you guys keep trying to chalk it up to these frankly STUPID arguments that would sway it a couple percentage points at best. It's just sad...

Edited by Doctor Proctor, 08 August 2014 - 02:12 PM.

[Noth]

Hobgoblin I, on 08 August 2014 - 02:09 PM, said:

We all have doubts about PGI's ability to balance correctly.

The odd thing is that there is one big variable between the 90% winners and the 10% losers...clan tech. Clan defenders are making complete guesses to explain the results and ascertaining that clan tech is not responsible because...it just isn't. The data indicates otherwise.

Most of us are not saying that clan tech was not a factor. We want to see exactly how much of a factor, you know, more information that would just give more proof to you. Saying 90/10 w/l and an average does not tell us that. No reason at all anyone should be hostile to having more of the data available.

Edited by Noth, 08 August 2014 - 02:16 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

Mystere, on 08 August 2014 - 02:00 PM, said:

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.

I don't know about your hourly rates, but you are getting a 100% agreement from me on that.

Sephlock, on 08 August 2014 - 02:00 PM, said:

Rather than participating in a fruitless debate, just open up a txt file and record the names of all the people who are gloating the most.

Then when they finally get their shiny new (ultra nerfed) Timbies and Storm Crows, crack that file open and use ctrl+F to see how many names match up.

Genius

Hellcat420, on 08 August 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:

how much do you want to bet that they didnt take into account the fact that they artifically inflate new players elos to be in the middle of the elo range?

I'm willing to bet some serious cashy monies on that. In fact, as soon as I saw those stats, that thought jumped into my head. The other problem is that they are downplaying the impact of new players on a match's outcome. If you have a (c) mech on your team, it's combat effectiveness is decreased by 60%, no do that with 2 on the same, team, and you are actually outnumbered, even when it's 12v12.

Hobgoblin I, on 08 August 2014 - 02:09 PM, said:

We all have doubts about PGI's ability to balance correctly.

The odd thing is that there is one big variable between the 90% winners and the 10% losers...clan tech. Clan defenders are making complete guesses to explain the results and ascertaining that clan tech is not responsible because...it just isn't. The data indicates otherwise.

This is not going to change how I play the game either way. I'm a hardcore Davion pilot. However, from a common sense perspective, we've all known that in PuG matches, clan mechs offer an edge.

We've literally (and I mean literally) known that since the days of the public test server. It was usually the first thing that is brought up when talking about balance in my battalion. However, this is a team game, where organized play should be encouraged. In 12 v 12s with Clan vs IS, the results were nowhere near 90%, in fact, it was actually around 60% for clans.

Before you go screaming "Ah HA! they ARE OP", no, they're not. The IS equipment that has been nerfed needs to be brought back to it's original levels. Like the heat rates on some of the lasers, and the ghost heat mechanic needed some tweaking. Pretty much what needed to be done was not nerfing the clans, so much un-nerfing the IS weapons that were gimped for no real reason anymore.

[Tynan]

Hobgoblin I, on 08 August 2014 - 02:09 PM, said:

We all have doubts about PGI's ability to balance correctly.

The odd thing is that there is one big variable between the 90% winners and the 10% losers...clan tech. Clan defenders are making complete guesses to explain the results and ascertaining that clan tech is not responsible because...it just isn't. The data indicates otherwise.

Even if you accept this on its face and don't account for issues with Elo discussed above, lumping all of the Clan mechs into the "problem area" and nerfing their weapon systems (instead of the mechs themselves) is going to leave already bad clan mechs in Locust territory.

Adder and Summoner are the most obvious, but seriously, give this some thought. If you just nerf weapon systems so the Timbie isn't grotesque, what are these already hamstrung mechs going to look like?

[Lefty Lucy]

Sephlock, on 08 August 2014 - 02:00 PM, said:

Rather than participating in a fruitless debate, just open up a txt file and record the names of all the people who are gloating the most.

Then when they finally get their shiny new (ultra nerfed) Timbies and Storm Crows, crack that file open and use ctrl+F to see how many names match up.

Who is gloating?

[IraqiWalker]

Lefty Lucy, on 08 August 2014 - 02:21 PM, said:

Who is gloating?

That would be violating name and shame possibly.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Lefty Lucy, on 08 August 2014 - 02:21 PM, said:

Who is gloating?

Lots of people?

All the stupid people who made nerf clan threads?

All the stupid people who think this test had any merit at all?

All the stupid people who can't afford a $55 mech package and declared P2W?

Lots of people.

[Hellcat420]

Doctor Proctor, on 08 August 2014 - 02:11 PM, said:

Yes, SURELY that's it right there. That accounts for why 90% of the matches were won by Clans, was because they had a few newer players in there whose ELO might have been 100 points higher than it would've otherwise been. It's just sad seeing you guys grasping so hard at straws here...

Oh, and don't know if it was stated earlier or not, but the whole bit about Clan teams probably being higher tonnage is garbage. The last matchmaker changes implemented tonnage matching, which would mean that the teams were balanced both by tonnage as well as ELO. So if there's a Direwolf on the Clan side, there would be an Atlas on the other, not an Awesome. So the whole "Maybe they were all running Locusts and Quickdraws" BS can be ignored.

Fact is, even if those things were true, which they're not, they're still not going to swing the data that far out of whack. We're talking going from a norm of 50/50 to a worst case expected value of 60/40 only to see a 90/10 split, and you guys keep trying to chalk it up to these frankly STUPID arguments that would sway it a couple percentage points at best. It's just sad...

new players can absoutly swing the data that far out of wack. going down 1 mech early in the match can easily be the difference between winning and getting stomped. what if that noob is in a heavy or assault? then your team is really screwed because it just lost a big chunk of its firepower right away. in a game with respawns, it wouldnt be a big deal, but this is a game without respawns, so its a huge deal.

Edited by Hellcat420, 08 August 2014 - 02:47 PM.

[Lefty Lucy]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 08 August 2014 - 02:39 PM, said:

Lots of people?

All the stupid people who made nerf clan threads?

All the stupid people who think this test had any merit at all?

All the stupid people who can't afford a $55 mech package and declared P2W?

Lots of people.

You have any quotes? Just because someone points out that a lot of aspects of Clan tech are more powerful than IS tech doesn't mean they're gloating.. I think you and Sephlock are attributing an attitude to people without actually seeing the attitude.

[Suko]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 08 August 2014 - 02:39 PM, said:

Lots of people?

All the stupid people who made nerf clan threads?

All the stupid people who think this test had any merit at all?

All the stupid people who can't afford a $55 mech package and declared P2W?

Lots of people.

You insular ignorance makes you sound like the worst person to know in the world. I'm glad I'm not your coworker, or God forbid, a relative. This forum is the closest I ever have to dealing with you and I'm thankful for that.

P.S. Does anyone else remember the terrible days when ECM was debuted? This feels like deja vu.

Edited by ShadowVFX, 08 August 2014 - 02:48 PM.

[Noesis]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 08 August 2014 - 02:39 PM, said:

Lots of people?

All the stupid people who made nerf clan threads?

All the stupid people who think this test had any merit at all?

All the stupid people who can't afford a $55 mech package and declared P2W?

Lots of people.

I'm none of the above and think the balance changes are needed for the overall good of MWO.

I think the "Clan issue" is more about people labeling others as "stupid" since they don't apparently conform to a way of thinking that are the real problem.

The objective was stated that Clans will be balanced with IS. Either by tech or volume it seems, this was announced prior to the sale of Clan Tech. But I guess even when presented with the numbers, you will simply have to deny that relevancy as it works against you. But insulting others as you go also it seems?

Forum warrior denial is the stupid thing here. Shame really as I would have thought that "honourable" Clan pilots would like to win matches based on their skill, not tech dominance? (This isnt neccesarily a lore reference, where the numbers of fielded clan mechs where less vs IS).

Anyhow, this is the interwebs so you have to make allowances I guess ......

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Here is why many IS v Clan games went completely sideways for the IS, based on my solo queue experiences:

Nobody on the IS side played as a team.

In not one single game did more than half the players follow orders, and not one of those other players bothered to use team chat for anything but QQing about Clans after death (and in many cases they preferred all chat and they started the QQ before the match even launched).

There were plenty of times where the group that was playing as a team would get local superiority and kill several Clanners, only to wind up getting cut off since the other half of the team refused to support, or they got local superiority only to turn and find that the other half of the team had gotten murdered in the mean time.

I assume two things were the primary contributors:

1 - Generaly assumptions about Clan superiority leading to people deciding not to bother playing the game. I guess they were happy simply letting the Clanners own the maneuver war and dominate the initiative.

2 - Habits developed during the last half a year of poptart dominance kept them in a spot of hard cover, refusing to shift position no matter what. Note, those same habits did poorly against poptarts, but if you don't ever bother to learn how to move with terrain then it might well seem like moving at all is suicide. One way or another, the sheer amount of hiding that people were doing was mind boggling, and not just keeping to cover, but cowering behind the same piece of cover even when the enemy was clearly moving to get a dominant fire position on it.

Throw in the usual lack of communication by many players and you get the resultant massacre reported by PGI (and experienced by most IS players).

Note that those portions of a team that did bother to communicate, that did follow the team chat orders, and that did play as a team, usually got several kills and achieved tactical objectives prior to being overwhelmed for one of the two reasons stated above (either being unsupported or having their laggards murdered when they didn't move).

[Aresye]

Be Rough With Me Plz, on 07 August 2014 - 09:40 PM, said:

• Maybe their aim is being thrown off due to the constant impulse shake from CAC's

Complaining about the fix to something everybody was complaining about, eh?

The whole reason for burst fire CUACs was to address the pinpoint issue. Now you're complaining about the screen shake because 5 pellets are hitting you instead of 1?

Very well.

"You hear that devs, these guys want the CUACs to be front-loaded instead of burst fire!"
PGI: "What? I thought we gave them burst fire because they didn't like front-loaded weapons?"
"Yeah, they don't like the screen shake!"
PGI: "That's weird. Could have sworn the IS impulse values were....yup, they're higher."
"I don't know man, but you probably should listen to their whining and make the Clan's UACs all front-loaded."
PGI: "Well, since it seems that's what they want..."

2 days later:

"PGI, you know that whole changing the CUAC thing?"
PGI: "Yeah?"
"People are complaining CUACs are overpowered because it's all front-loaded. They want them changed so they do more spread damage, like burst fire."
PGI: "SON OF A B*****!!"

[Tynan]

Aresye, on 08 August 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

[/list]Complaining about the fix to something everybody was complaining about, eh?

The whole reason for burst fire CUACs was to address the pinpoint issue. Now you're complaining about the screen shake because 5 pellets are hitting you instead of 1?

Very well.

"You hear that devs, these guys want the CUACs to be front-loaded instead of burst fire!"
PGI: "What? I thought we gave them burst fire because they didn't like front-loaded weapons?"
"Yeah, they don't like the screen shake!"
PGI: "That's weird. Could have sworn the IS impulse values were....yup, they're higher."
"I don't know man, but you probably should listen to their whining and make the Clan's UACs all front-loaded."
PGI: "Well, since it seems that's what they want..."

2 days later:

"PGI, you know that whole changing the CUAC thing?"
PGI: "Yeah?"
"People are complaining CUACs are overpowered because it's all front-loaded. They want them changed so they do more spread damage, like burst fire."
PGI: "SON OF A B*****!!"

I'm not saying I care about the impulse, but, um, you realize those could both be problems, right? As in, there are other option besides either pin-point damage or weapon blinds you.

[Noth]

Tynan, on 08 August 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

I'm not saying I care about the impulse, but, um, you realize those could both be problems, right? As in, there are other option besides either pin-point damage or weapon blinds you.

Yes they could. We;ve been saying there are more factors involved and want to see more data to see more of those factors. We don't just want the data that goes against clans being strong. We simply want all the data.