60 replies to this topic

[Jman5]

For anyone who missed it make sure to read Russ' command chair post. It reinforces why this is such a crippling issue for community warfare. Clans beat IS this week 53-47 and yet lost 53 planets.

[Deathlike]

Jman5, on 01 April 2015 - 01:23 PM, said:

For anyone who missed it make sure to read Russ' command chair post. It reinforces why this is such a crippling issue for community warfare. Clans beat IS this week 53-47 and yet lost 53 planets.

Well, the planet overwhelming thing is understandable.

The "IS is OP" cries... not so much.

[Revis Volek]

Deathlike, on 01 April 2015 - 12:29 AM, said:

Just saying this now... I haven't thought this through, but I think this may will cause factions to abuse the new mechanics based on some of the existing behavior of the game.

If the slowing-down force attackers to ghost drop mechanics happen, people won't be so keen to bother ghost dropping on the same planet in CW... which may worsen the situation overall.

Edit: The alternating algo works better when you start @ 50% or "closer to the middle". It works terribly if you start @ the extremes.

THIS! ^^

If we started at ZERO for both sides once the conflict begins on said world and just tally the wins and losses at the end would that not use this system better?

I see what you are saying and kinda had similar thoughts, there are still ways to break this system early in the Attack Phase. But having each side start at ZERO and just add tallies for wins or losses would be better IMO. That way at the end if you had 42 wins and they had 8 you still keep/ get the planet. Doesn't matter if they held the 8 squares that mattered or not because you won more then they did.

Damn Canadian math....

Edited by DarthRevis, 01 April 2015 - 01:50 PM.

[Chemie]

same thing happens with defense. If defenders have the +1 12man, then after a few pips are turned (say 3 attacking 12-man teams), then every game is counter. This means defenses can lose 100% of matches, but since all matches are counter, the attackers never gain ground.

Outside of this weekend, typically you see 3-5 teams on each side so the planet is locked by the side with one more 12-man. Of course, this weekend, you could have 8+ teams running, so I was amazed the thing was so broken that IS won 100% of planets. I suppose this means that IS had the numbers on defense planets and attack planets and players just sufferred through long queue times (I would see 5 teams queued to defense with no pips available meaning they could sit there for ages....boring but winning.

[ArchSight]

Clan 53-47 Inner Sphere, Clan lost 53 planets

That number doesn't show:
How many full 12 premade coordinated groups were there on each side.
How many solo dropper's on each side.
How many small groups on each side.
Performance of weapons used.
Performance and what types of mechs were used in each category of 12 premade, small group, and solos on each side.
etc

My guess is that IS had more uncoordinated player's not in a group causing more losses for the Inner sphere which boosted the clan wins. As this was going on though inner sphere coordinated groups kept securing the 8 tiles needed to take the planet.

If it was a number that only included 12 v 12 premades fighting each other it would be able to be deemed as statistic that is apart of weapon/mech balance because usually premades take the highest advantage they can get.

[Grynos]

Jman5, on 01 April 2015 - 01:23 PM, said:

For anyone who missed it make sure to read Russ' command chair post. It reinforces why this is such a crippling issue for community warfare. Clans beat IS this week 53-47 and yet lost 53 planets.

This isn't something new it has been happening for months now, yet now it is a crippling issue all of a sudden? I made many posts on this related subject months ago ( before the whole counter attack mode was even in place ) because I saw what was happening. The counter attack mode really didn't change how the system performed in relation to the people who are in queue first always got the attack/counter attack. I am glad that PGI finally realized this, but in reality it shouldn't have taken 2 months plus to do so.

So the clans lost 53 planets, not that it means anything other than pixels, but with a reset the clans will lose more than that I believe.

Ideally this is only one of the major issues with CW in its current state, and while you may conceive it to be crippling, hosting an event luring in lambs to the lions den might have caused an even more long term crippling issue for the state of CW.

Edited by Grynos, 01 April 2015 - 02:24 PM.

[Texas Merc]

I saw the tweet while taking a break from yard work and perusing twitter on my phone. ( the mosquitoes have awoken FYI )

The numbers I am interested in is what % of games did the attacking force win no matter group size and what % of games did the defenders successfully defend. The issue may be more with how the CW matches/ objectives/ maps are setup.

There is a reason people race to the ready button.

[Telmasa]

This is all over the head of a lone-wolf player like me - as in, it doesn't matter to me personally much one way or another, I fight for the c-bills and goodies mostly - but, I am glad for the explanation Jman5 gave, cause I admit I wasn't really understanding what the big deal was.

Ultimately though...I think there needs to be a "reason" to hold a planet for it to really matter. Even with this change coming up, what is it going to really mean aside from changing how the IS map looks?

There's no tangible advantage to having or losing a planet. There needs to be one - or more likely, to have more than a few good reasons to hold onto a planet.

Edited by Telmasa, 01 April 2015 - 02:57 PM.

[Odins Fist]

2 + 2 = POPCORN

[xWiredx]

This seems like it's only a big deal if you can't play equally well in any mode (ie you're using base defenses as a crutch when defending against an invasion).

We keep going around in circles with people saying "this is why we're losing" but at the end of the day the only actual fact I've ever seen regarding who wins and who loses is which team was better. Losing teams don't communicate and cooperate as well as winning teams, they have more new people or people that don't necessarily try their hardest (or they just aren't as good as others, it happens), and they don't bring favorable loadouts/aren't good at building mechs to suit the mode or play style. The rest of the team's job is to attempt to shore up where the weak links are. That is what we call teamwork.

Play harder. Play smarter. Die less. Win more.

[slide]

In high population time zones this solution may have merit.

In low population time zones (Oceanic) it will be an utter fail driving what few players are left out of CW because it will just become a grind with no possible chance of winning a planet.

For the invading team to win a planet they need 8 sectors. Not only does an invading team now have to win every match (as they should) they also have to win 8 coin tosses in a row (statistically unlikely) just to get to 53%. The more likely scenario is that once you get to 3-5 sectors the rng generator will lock you into and endless cycle of attack/counter attack with sheer luck being the deciding factor not the relative worth of either team. You just took a difficult task for a lone team and made it impossible. This will further discourage people from even bothering to play because there is no real chance of doing anything but grinding cbills.

If you have a 12 man with infinite patience (or lots of replacements):
It takes 2 hours minimum to ghost drop a planet to 8 sectors
It takes 4-5 hours vs an opponent depending on how quickly you queue up assuming you win every time
With this plan it will take longer than the last scenario, most likely longer than the time allowed for any given ceasefire period.

Result: Nearly impossible to affect the map so why play.

For those factions or units organised enough, you drop enough teams on a planet to get enough sectors to take the planet in the initial stages, through either ghost drops or by winning enough initial drops and then leave enough units behind to tie up the few defending teams in the perpetual grind of the rng thus precluding the defending teams from regaining sectors.

I understand the problem but I don't see this as a practical solution.

[Jman5]

xWiredx, on 01 April 2015 - 03:38 PM, said:

This seems like it's only a big deal if you can't play equally well in any mode (ie you're using base defenses as a crutch when defending against an invasion).

We keep going around in circles with people saying "this is why we're losing" but at the end of the day the only actual fact I've ever seen regarding who wins and who loses is which team was better. Losing teams don't communicate and cooperate as well as winning teams, they have more new people or people that don't necessarily try their hardest (or they just aren't as good as others, it happens), and they don't bring favorable loadouts/aren't good at building mechs to suit the mode or play style. The rest of the team's job is to attempt to shore up where the weak links are. That is what we call teamwork.

Play harder. Play smarter. Die less. Win more.

This is a rather technical flaw so I understand why a lot of people have trouble understanding what the issue is.

It's not about winning and losing. It's about game mode selection bias preventing the defenders from getting counter-attack games. If you don't get any counter-attack games on a defending planet, you can't change pips back to your side. If you can't change pips back you inevitably will lose a planet unless your faction never loses more than 7 matches the entire night. So your faction could be 100-8 and still lose that planet at 53%.

Ok, so the game has two game modes right? "Invasion" and "counter-attack". Lets say Steiner attacks one of your planets at 33%. You queue up in response and because they were there first in queue they automatically get "invasion" game mode. This means you are on defense. IF YOU WIN NOTHING CHANGES. Your planet stays at 33%. If Steiner wins, they gain a new pip. Do you see the problem now? If the only thing your wins earn is stalemate, then it's just a matter of time before enough losses slip through the crack no matter how good you are.

This is why clans lost 53 planets despite winning more games than IS.

Edited by Jman5, 01 April 2015 - 04:23 PM.

[Verkhne]

Hmm that is such a close score. I wonder how much newer players taking their 1-2 chassis into the games (most likely IS ) skewed the results. Yet PGI is considering further Clan ST nerfs and IS drop tonnage increases?? Are those even still on the table?

[xWiredx]

Jman5, on 01 April 2015 - 04:22 PM, said:

This is a rather technical flaw so I understand why a lot of people have trouble understanding what the issue is.

It's not about winning and losing. It's about game mode selection bias preventing the defenders from getting counter-attack games. If you don't get any counter-attack games on a defending planet, you can't change pips back to your side. If you can't change pips back you inevitably will lose a planet unless your faction never loses more than 7 matches the entire night. So your faction could be 100-8 and still lose that planet at 53%.

Ok, so the game has two game modes right? "Invasion" and "counter-attack". Lets say Steiner attacks one of your planets at 33%. You queue up in response and because they were there first in queue they automatically get "invasion" game mode. This means you are on defense. IF YOU WIN NOTHING CHANGES. Your planet stays at 33%. If Steiner wins, they gain a new pip. Do you see the problem now? If the only thing your wins earn is stalemate, then it's just a matter of time before enough losses slip through the crack no matter how good you are.

This is why clans lost 53 planets despite winning more games than IS.

That does indeed seem like a horribly flawed system and I didn't realize that it actually worked this way (partially because I haven't really participated in CW much until this weekend).

[Grynos]

Jman5, on 01 April 2015 - 04:22 PM, said:

Ok, so the game has two game modes right? "Invasion" and "counter-attack". Lets say Steiner attacks one of your planets at 33%. You queue up in response and because they were there first in queue they automatically get "invasion" game mode. This means you are on defense. IF YOU WIN NOTHING CHANGES. Your planet stays at 33%. If Steiner wins, they gain a new pip. Do you see the problem now? If the only thing your wins earn is stalemate, then it's just a matter of time before enough losses slip through the crack no matter how good you are.

This is why clans lost 53 planets despite winning more games than IS.

There is a way to fix CW in relation to this matter, but it would be complicated now instead of at the beginning. A strict +1, -1 system. Your team wins they get a piece of the planet, they lose, they lose a piece of the planet. A planet would not be able to go below 0% or above 100%. At that point the attack/counterattack or defense would be used as it currently is, they would not have to change it because defense would have a chance to gain territory on a win. So the faction that queues up first sets which mode they will play in.

With the system I suggested, it would mean that every match is significant , and in the end the faction that had the most wins, will usually win the planet.

[Revis Volek]

Texas Merc, on 01 April 2015 - 02:28 PM, said:

I saw the tweet while taking a break from yard work and perusing twitter on my phone. ( the mosquitoes have awoken FYI )

The numbers I am interested in is what % of games did the attacking force win no matter group size and what % of games did the defenders successfully defend. The issue may be more with how the CW matches/ objectives/ maps are setup.

There is a reason people race to the ready button.

I have seen Russ post a chart similar to what you are asking on Twitter as well! I wonder if he will post something like that for us here to examine????

Please?

Edited by DarthRevis, 01 April 2015 - 05:20 PM.

[Deathlike]

Grynos, on 01 April 2015 - 02:21 PM, said:

This isn't something new it has been happening for months now, yet now it is a crippling issue all of a sudden? I made many posts on this related subject months ago ( before the whole counter attack mode was even in place ) because I saw what was happening. The counter attack mode really didn't change how the system performed in relation to the people who are in queue first always got the attack/counter attack. I am glad that PGI finally realized this, but in reality it shouldn't have taken 2 months plus to do so.

Like the Thunderbolt-9S ERPPC nerf, it takes PGI a while to realize the obvious.

Once the visual queue improvements were added, it became really obvious what was going on. Nothing was random, so the outcome was predictable. So, exposing the predictability only required numbers, a bit of muscle, but mostly initiative.

I don't think the new behavior would change things properly either... queue theory isn't my thing, but it's not that complicated to do with actual simulations with worst case scenarios (finding abuses in the system/behavior).

[Mystere]

Grynos, on 01 April 2015 - 04:58 PM, said:

There is a way to fix CW in relation to this matter, but it would be complicated now instead of at the beginning. A strict +1, -1 system. Your team wins they get a piece of the planet, they lose, they lose a piece of the planet. A planet would not be able to go below 0% or above 100%. At that point the attack/counterattack or defense would be used as it currently is, they would not have to change it because defense would have a chance to gain territory on a win. So the faction that queues up first sets which mode they will play in.

With the system I suggested, it would mean that every match is significant , and in the end the faction that had the most wins, will usually win the planet.

That's an even higher level of abstraction than the "take 8 out of 15 territories" scheme we have now.

I, on the other hand, would like the level of abstraction reduced by turning each planetary invasion into a campaign of actions and counter-actions (represented as a directed graph and using different game modes) by the two sides.

[Telmasa]

Mystere, on 01 April 2015 - 05:27 PM, said:

That's an even higher level of abstraction than the "take 8 out of 15 territories" scheme we have now. I, on the other hand, would like the level of abstraction reduced by turning each planetary invasion into a campaign of actions and counter-actions (represented as a directed graph and using different game modes) by the two sides.

How would you manage this with an automated system that can handle the scale of MW:O as an MMO?

Plus, on the surface this sounds startlingly like what we already have now: planetary ticker => a graph of 'actions and counter-actions' (invade vs. defend); different game modes => invasion & counter-attack (which, both need work, and there's room for more variety, I'm just sayin' the intent is already there).

[Grynos]

Mystere, on 01 April 2015 - 05:27 PM, said:

That's an even higher level of abstraction than the "take 8 out of 15 territories" scheme we have now.

I, on the other hand, would like the level of abstraction reduced by turning each planetary invasion into a campaign of actions and counter-actions (represented as a directed graph and using different game modes) by the two sides.

How so, seems pretty simple to me. You win , you get a territory. You lose, you lose a territory. Defending/Attacking/Counterattacking would basically be the same as it is currently ( The first group of players in queue determine what game mode it is ) the difference would be a successful defense or an unsuccessful counter attack would actually change the state of the battle on which it was fought. Which currently it does not.

So here is the current way it is done with the first group in queue is always either attacking/Counterattacking.

Attack/Counterattack wins = 1 section of planet changes
Defense wins = 0 section of planet changes

Now PGI's new way ( speculation on how they would handle this ) of basically making every other drop a Counter Attack. First group in defense queue for planet would get defense, second group in defense queue would get counter attack if there is a territory owned by attacking group.

Attack/Counterattack wins = 1 section of planet changes
Defense wins = 0 section of planet changes

Finally my solution..the first group who queues up always gets attack/counterattack ( same as it currently is ).

Attack/Counterattack wins = 1 section of planet changes
Defense wins = 1 section of planet changes

Edited by Grynos, 02 April 2015 - 12:50 AM.