263 replies to this topic

[Mcgral18]

Valcoer, on 09 November 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

I did my own test. it consisted of me using my centurion with weapons that take advantage of the buffs and the stormcrow that has no buffs.
Using your latest contest
out of nine matches with my centurion zero qualified.
out of nine matches with my stormcrow five qualified.
It quickly became apparent that if I waned to complete any challenges in a medium mech I would have to use my storm crow and not my centurion. because I wanted to complete the final challenge I no longer am using my centurion for the duration of the challenge.

This is a better indication of the superiority of the clan mechs. I firmly believe that I could not complete any of these challenges in a centurion no matter how many games I played in it.

Post Script: I only own one stormcrow. I own three centurions, two of which were free. due to limited number of mechbays I do no keep excess mechs after mastering. both mechs were mastered mechs.

Well, that's less an issue of the mech, and more of the pilot; and the team as an extension.

[Valcoer]

the point is that the skill of the pilot is no longer an issue in my test. because the pilots skill is the same in fact I have had more time to practice in my centurion than I have in the stormcrow as it s a recent acquisition. so it is strictly the mech that is being tested.
I played with the same team for both mechs as well so they are not the issue either the only thing that changed was my mech and five tons ofweight.

but I can understand why you would want un even playing field going into community warfare. Especially if you know you will not have to face clan mecs when fighting inner sphere units.

Edited by Valcoer, 09 November 2014 - 07:11 PM.

[IceSerpent]

Aresye, on 09 November 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:

So using the probability formula posted on that thread and plugging in a 100 Elo difference, the probability of the lower Elo beating the higher Elo comes out to 29%. Or a 71% chance of the higher Elo beating the lower Elo.

MischiefSC, on 09 November 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

A 100 pt difference is a 25/75 prediction. A 36/64 would be about a 71 pt variation in Elo.

Where do you guys get this stuff from (what equation do you use)? 100 pts of Elo difference is 36/64 expected win chance if normal Elo calculations are used.

[Valcoer]

easy solution don't restrict either side from using what mechs they want in community warfare then you can make the tech difference as great as you want and still have a level playing field.

[Metus regem]

Valcoer, on 09 November 2014 - 07:06 PM, said:

the point is that the skill of the pilot is no longer an issue in my test. because the pilots skill is the same in fact I have had more time to practice in my centurion than I have in the stormcrow as it s a recent acquisition. so it is strictly the mech that is being tested.
I played with the same team for both mechs as well so they are not the issue either the only thing that changed was my mech and five tons ofweight.

but I can understand why you would want un even playing field going into community warfare. Especially if you know you will not have to face clan mecs when fighting inner sphere units.

Pilot skill is a big issue, some people just do not do well with some mechs. I'm good in a locust, crap in a Kit Fox and good with an Adder, all three are light mechs, so the difference is less skill and more the ability to mesh with how the mech wants to work. I'm better with my Nova than I am with my Storm Crows too. My Summoners and I have issues... But I'm good with my Mad Dog.... Better with my War Hawks than I am with my AS7-S atlas or Dire Wolves...

Every mech speaks to yoy , 'cept for my Storm Crows, and tries to help you pilot it the way it wants you to pilot it. On top of that each chassis is different, I aware my Timber Wolf C chassis is cursed, as it has the lowest stats out of all of my Timber Wolves, despite them all being out fitted the same.

[Valcoer]

I still say the only way to have an even playing field is not to limit the mechs that the pilot may take based on his faction.

In addition there is no way to gauge the better mech by your reasoning it also calls into question the validity of elo as the elo does not change based on which mech you are in.

the timber wolf c is not cursed you can buy omnipods to make it exactly like your prime.

Edited by Valcoer, 09 November 2014 - 07:37 PM.

[Scratx]

Okay, listen up...

http://mwomercs.com/...65#entry1626065 <- ELO, as posted earlier.

Now, let's use a USEFUL SITE : http://www.wolframalpha.com/

Input : 1 / ( 1 + 10 ^ ( R / 400))

Now look at the resulting plot. Quite symmetrical, no?

( For the lazies, follow this link : http://www.wolframal...8427e7d0h130huu )

Input : 1 / ( 1 + 10 ^ ( 100 / 400))

This is for 100 ELO difference. Result? 0.3599350001971149192417820053916420695220828686737727

So let's round it to 0.36.

The higher ELO player, on a 100 ELO diff, has a probability of ~64% to win.

Hey, that sounds a lot like what we got from the latest ISvClan mini-test.....


TL;DR : POWER OF MATH SUMMONED, ELO DIFF 100 MEANS 64% HIGH ELO TEAM WIN CHANCE, GGCLOSE

Edited by Scratx, 09 November 2014 - 09:13 PM.

[MischiefSC]

IceSerpent, on 09 November 2014 - 07:23 PM, said:

Where do you guys get this stuff from (what equation do you use)? 100 pts of Elo difference is 36/64 expected win chance if normal Elo calculations are used.

Here is the Elo equation as used by MW:O specifically.

Which, if that were correct, would make 100 pts equal about 28. Why?

Look at the equation.

P0 = 1/1+10(100/400) in that instance. The example they use is a 60 pt difference being 41%.

That differs from the standard Elo equation, which is what Scratx referred to above.

So if standard Elo is used then 100 pts is 36/64. If the equation listed on the Elo forum post is used, 100 pts is more like 25/75, or 28/72 to be more precise.

It's the diference between P0 = 1/1+10(100/400)

and P0 = 1 / ( 1 + 10 ^ ( 100 / 400))

Entertainingly both present a 60pt difference as about 41%.

Props to Scratx for taking the time to do the mathz online instead of eyeballing it. My bad.

All of which is irrelevant to the original issue;

36/64 isn't going to support CW in the long term.

Edited by MischiefSC, 09 November 2014 - 09:41 PM.

[Glythe]

Russ Bullock, on 06 November 2014 - 02:49 PM, said:

I ran a quick Clan vs IS test to gather some data without the risk of changing player behavior ( solo queue only )

Small sample size with Clan victories at 64%

Again with this in mind I think 64% is something I am fairly pleased with.

Russ have you let anyone with a scientific background review your findings? No offense.

I think what you are looking for is something like a 2% difference in win rates.

I'd really like to question the parameters of your experiment.



Could you do an experiment for me?

Have 100 players randomly assorted with Elo scores reset to baseline.

Have two teams of 6 players fight against each other.

Set one side to be clan with 3 Timberwolves and 3 Direwolves against any combination of equal tonnage (or just slightly less) IS mechs using assaults and heavies only.

See which side wins and record the results.

[KraftySOT]

Actually theres some issues with the 'collect token' aspect that youre ignoring.

Smaller factions have an advantage in that theyre going to field less players and those players fielded will probably be better/in larger groups. So while say, Steiner has a bazillion players, theyll all be in Queue waiting on the few Laio players to play their matches which have a higher likelihood of being won, since the "goon squads" will get to play more often. Larger factions are bogged down with more players in queue and more solo players and noobs shoved in with the larger groups.

This is really a more IS vs IS issue, but it does effect the clans in the smaller clans, and once the eat up the Dracs and Steiner. Im pretty sure the map wll hardly move in Rasalhauge for the afformentioned reason. The clan players will be stacked with huge wait times waiting for the 30 or so Rasalhague players in 3 different groups to get done with their matches, that are probably all wins. Dracs, and Steiner, loaded with noobs and solos and small groups, will get beat down by the superior clan tech.

But for goon squads. The IS mechs are still, besides the Timby, the kings of the Meta. Not laden with noobs and people grinding elites...youre stuck with nothing but Wubshees, Jagerbombs, Cataphracts, Ravens and Jenners. With the occassional DDC and Victor. All more than a match for the clan stable.

All these matchs are happening under the worst conditions for their tests. Even though ive left the ELO of trial mechs long ago, I see them pop up everytime they do these clan tests, because theres not as many IS players to completely fill out ELOs wthout throwing in trials (and some clanners have pretty low elos for some reason it seems)

You get stomped generally, but its because youre absent your jagerbombs jenners splathawks etc, and are instead filled to the brim with trial Victors and Firestarters running stock, and some guy in a Wolverine who hasnt figured out its terrible yet.

Look over at that "end game" thread about what that guy considers an end game drop deck. Its all gooserifles. If thats the meta, then the IS and clan are going to pretty much be on par. The gooserifle meta is in the IS favor.

[KraftySOT]

And every clan CT is enormous. If CW is just "who has the Goose" then its really up to the gods which way the map moves.

The system itself is designed to not move much. Even with a 60% win rate, if you dont have enough total matches to get 10 MORE tokens than the other side...nothing changes hands.

Most things wont change hands.

If you have 100 matches, to get 10 tokens, you need to win 61% of the games. If actual clan vs is, taking out the noobs, isnt higher than that. The map never moves.

Probably wont move much anyways.

And how many matches can you have in the few hours its open?

Especially against factions with a small player base. How do you get Rasalhague to have 100 matches. If they have only 40...to get 10 tokens to flip one of their planets, you need to win 75% of the games.

...


...

...

Let that sink in for a while Clanners.

And since thats the way it works, if you have 300 Clan Wolf, and 300 Steiner, they can easily knock up a heck of alot of matches in a few hours.

If they have 800 matches. You only need to win 51% of the games to flip a planet. Less than that actually.

This is why im Laio

<---

Edited by KraftySOT, 09 November 2014 - 10:07 PM.

[KraftySOT]

And please dont anyone tell PGI this. I really shouldnt have said anything either.

But yeah.

[Mystere]

Valcoer, on 09 November 2014 - 07:23 PM, said:

easy solution don't restrict either side from using what mechs they want in community warfare then you can make the tech difference as great as you want and still have a level playing field.

I am assuming you've been around these neck of the woods for quite a while now (i.e. Member Since 13 February 2012). So I am assuming you already know what I am about to say ...

Community Warfare is supposed to be the "meat" of this currently glorified arena-based game known as Mechwarrior Online. It is what so many players have been (im)patiently waiting for all this time. It is where the lore is supposed to kick in. It is what is supposed to make this unique from all other games. It is also the thing that will make or break this game.

Given the above, I fear that if PGI does exactly what you suggest, the amount of people finally quitting this game for good will make Alexander Kerensky's Operation Exodus pale in comparison. At least for the latter, the Inner Sphere still survived. I doubt MWO will.

[F4T 4L]

Assuming that clan/IS is reasonably well balanced, and that the elo advantage towards clan players persists into cw (maybe for some reason it won't, but I don't see why), it seems to me that clans will roll over the IS, contrary to lore.

Is there a plan to correct that scenario, to align the game universe with lore?

[LordKnightFandragon]

Metus regem, on 09 November 2014 - 10:21 PM, said:

That maybe so, yet in something being passed off as "A thinking mans shooter" I cannot help but wish for a slightly higher caliber of player intelligence. I know I should expect otherwise, but I am trying to be optimistic...

LOL, MWO? A thinking mans shooter? When has there been one of those? Ever? Not even ArmA is a thinking mans shooter, ArmA is a stand up and get sniped by a super AI from 550m with a single shot from some random AK.....

Red Orchestra? Maybe? But MWO? LOL...its Battlefield/CoD with mechs....Had it gone it's original direction then maybe, but not now.

[KuroNyra]

LordKnightFandragon, on 10 November 2014 - 03:18 AM, said:

Red Orchestra? Maybe? But MWO? LOL...its Battlefield/CoD with mechs....Had it gone it's original direction then maybe, but not now.

Aren't you talking about Hawken? Looks much more like a COD with Mecha.

[LordKnightFandragon]

KuroNyra, on 10 November 2014 - 03:26 AM, said:

Aren't you talking about Hawken? Looks much more like a COD with Mecha.

No, MWO.....This game has exactly that much depth to it. Its 2 teams sent out on a TDM to blow each other up. No mission objectives, nothing, just TDM....oh, yeah, there is the stand in a circle for 30 seconds and bam we win.....if thats even possible and not being blown to bits...

Naw, MWO, its WoT, BF2, CoD with mechs....Hawken is CoD with mechs and bad art...cuz wow are thier robots absolutely hideous.....who is their design team? I would love to be Amaris and them the Matar design team....

[KuroNyra]

LordKnightFandragon, on 10 November 2014 - 03:51 AM, said:

No, MWO.....This game has exactly that much depth to it. Its 2 teams sent out on a TDM to blow each other up. No mission objectives, nothing, just TDM....oh, yeah, there is the stand in a circle for 30 seconds and bam we win.....if thats even possible and not being blown to bits...

Naw, MWO, its WoT, BF2, CoD with mechs....Hawken is CoD with mechs and bad art...cuz wow are thier robots absolutely hideous.....who is their design team? I would love to be Amaris and them the Matar design team....

I see... But...
Tell me, wasn't the original tabletop game just 2 team facing eachother?
Wasn't the point of the game were you had to 90% of the time destroy the ennemy on the area?


Your are litteraly blaming MWO for what it is supposed to be, a game with combat against 2 teams.


And no, it's in no way has brainless has CoD or BF. Here, your shoot count, you can't get instant-shoot nor respaw during the battle, you have to know where you want to shoot depending on the situation. That guy looks like e got an XL? Side torso.
That one is almost legged? Destroy the leg. Etc etc... That alone make it completly differrent from the Point'Shoot that is CoD.



You just sound line you are getting mad and lost your nerve. Maybe you should take a break Quiaff?

[Metus regem]

LordKnightFandragon, on 10 November 2014 - 03:18 AM, said:

LOL, MWO? A thinking mans shooter? When has there been one of those? Ever? Not even ArmA is a thinking mans shooter, ArmA is a stand up and get sniped by a super AI from 550m with a single shot from some random AK.....

Red Orchestra? Maybe? But MWO? LOL...its Battlefield/CoD with mechs....Had it gone it's original direction then maybe, but not now.

That's my point, I got into it based on the original premise of the game... And I'm choosing to hope the DEV team can turn it back that way, now that IGP is out of the way.

[LordKnightFandragon]

KuroNyra, on 10 November 2014 - 04:06 AM, said:

I see... But...
Tell me, wasn't the original tabletop game just 2 team facing eachother?
Wasn't the point of the game were you had to 90% of the time destroy the ennemy on the area?


Your are litteraly blaming MWO for what it is supposed to be, a game with combat against 2 teams.


And no, it's in no way has brainless has CoD or BF. Here, your shoot count, you can't get instant-shoot nor respaw during the battle, you have to know where you want to shoot depending on the situation. That guy looks like e got an XL? Side torso.
That one is almost legged? Destroy the leg. Etc etc... That alone make it completly differrent from the Point'Shoot that is CoD.



You just sound line you are getting mad and lost your nerve. Maybe you should take a break Quiaff?

Sure, that was TT, but you could be playing a massive, on going campaign where loss of forces actually meant something. Where winning abattle progressed you through a campaign. There was repair time and all that fun logistical nightmarish stuff. Sure, if you just wanted to sit down and play a quick TDM in TT, you could, but it could also be so much more. Unlike MWO, which is, no matter what you do, a Cod/BF TDM....

TT had many campaign modules......it was a billion times more indepth then MWO.....

I know, your going to say CW will be the ongoing campaign bit, but yeah, we will wait and see....

And sure, we have locations to shoot off a mech, but the general premise and gameplay is no different then CoD/BF...

Metus regem, on 10 November 2014 - 05:11 AM, said:

That's my point, I got into it based on the original premise of the game... And I'm choosing to hope the DEV team can turn it back that way, now that IGP is out of the way.

I do to, through the addition of a PVE Coop Campaign....PVE is alot more thinking mans then the current TDm....Of course, evne PVE eventually becomes just wash rinse repeat...but yeah.....