127 replies to this topic

[Kuritaclan]

Roadkill, on 02 April 2015 - 04:10 PM, said:

By the time the Allies were on the offensive, we had numbers. Up until that point, Germany was winning and pressing forward. Even after the USA joined the war, it took 2 years for the Allies to build up sufficient numbers to begin to drive Germany back.

Numbers won the war, not skill or technology. The Allies won the war because the USA had an industrial base that was safe from attack and could out-produce all of the Axis powers combined.

Bullshit

@ topic:

0rionsbane, on 02 April 2015 - 05:30 PM, said:

53% overall minus the 2% auto win drops is still only 51% for a clan win precentage.
But then we the the explanation that the game modes are bugged, however we were just told in ALL game modes the clans are winning 51% of the time. with 2% less drops (ak the auto wins). So the explanation as to why we took the planets is still missing,...

this..

Edited by Kuritaclan, 03 April 2015 - 01:12 AM.

[CHH Badkarma]

Seph MacLeod, on 03 April 2015 - 12:35 AM, said:

Would of been a lot better if PGI had not driven off most of the hard core BT fans at the start.

True. However this was tempered by the then, and possibly still the belief that they could and would attract new crops of FPS gamers that did not know nor care about the expansive battletech universe. It does not seem like that has really panned out. Here they are again, surely hoping that steam will draw in the crowds. Granted that is very possible, if MWO was more than just the "rinse and repeat" drop shoot em up and drop again game

So much exists in the battletech universe. They could make this game so rich and immersive if they simply had the money, labor or desire to do it. They could literally build the whole battletech universe. It seems the will just is not there. Even the fan made vids show more passion and creativity than anything PGI has set forth. The clan invasion teaser vid comes to mind. That could have been what opened the door. Nope, didn't happen.

So here we are, years later. Hopeing for more, getting less and less each time. We get mech packs, sure. Still no real depth to the game, short of CW beta and that is really nothing more than respawn mode. "Russ: Community Warfare within 90 days of Open Beta!" (Open beta. Monday October 29th 2012)*sigh*I truly hope that something changes and more players come to the game. This game needs money to survive and they are only going to get so much more from the people that are left.

Anywho, I have rambled on enough. Lets hope these numbers grow folks.

Edited by CHH Badkarma, 03 April 2015 - 01:37 AM.

[Stealth Fox]

CHH Badkarma, on 03 April 2015 - 01:30 AM, said:

So here we are, years later. Hopeing for more, getting less and less each time. We get mech packs, sure. Still no real depth to the game, short of CW beta and that is really nothing more than respawn mode. "Russ: Community Warfare within 90 days of Open Beta!" (Open beta. Monday October 29th 2012)*sigh*I truly hope that something changes and more players come to the game. This game needs money to survive and they are only going to get so much more from the people that are left.

Anywho, I have rambled on enough. Lets hope these numbers grow folks.

Lack of destruction to Terran (in a fricken Crysis engine.. whos games Crysis are all about wrecking Terran) , lack of listening to fans on actually how to balance stuff (Mother humping CONVERGENCE!) .. lack of common sense.. Ignoring what made the other MW games so great and loved, Minimal effort to try to improve the game, No bother to try and properly scale stuff (Mechs being the size of EVA's instead of actual practical and established size.. lame excuses "this is hard" when it is not..

Disregard for what the players want or need... oh wait.. i said that already..

I have no hope for this game, I just play it because it is the only one besides occasional Mw4 games and MWLL matches that is around..

Only one I have no problems with is the lead artist.. Alex makes things look amazing in concept design.

[CHH Badkarma]

Seph MacLeod, on 03 April 2015 - 01:52 AM, said:

Lack of destruction to Terran (in a fricken Crysis engine.. whos games Crysis are all about wrecking Terran) , lack of listening to fans on actually how to balance stuff (Mother humping CONVERGENCE!) .. lack of common sense.. Ignoring what made the other MW games so great and loved, Minimal effort to try to improve the game, No bother to try and properly scale stuff (Mechs being the size of EVA's instead of actual practical and established size.. lame excuses "this is hard" when it is not..

Disregard for what the players want or need... oh wait.. i said that already..

I have no hope for this game, I just play it because it is the only one besides occasional Mw4 games and MWLL matches that is around..

Only one I have no problems with is the lead artist.. Alex makes things look amazing in concept design.

I feel ya man, I really do.

I thought after the whole transverse and reddit BS when PGI seemed to be turning over a new leaf that things might start getting better. Yeah, thats what I get for thinking. Information is posted on the forums by PGI almost as an afterthought it seems. Russ should do his posting here and less on twater. I really do not care if it fits his lifestyle or schedule. These are the forums for MWO, its where it belongs. I really really try to have hope. I still love this game. Maybe only because it is the only really Btech related game after PGI shafting LL.

As the old saying goes, and it applies perfectly to this game and to PGI. "I'm not negative, I'm an optimist with experience"

Yeah, here I am on my little island, standing on a soapbox.

Edited by CHH Badkarma, 03 April 2015 - 02:05 AM.

[Sorbic]

0rionsbane, on 02 April 2015 - 05:30 PM, said:

53% overall minus the 2% auto win drops is still only 51% for a clan win precentage.

You're assuming. Russ never said the 53% included instances in which there were no battles.

[Kristov Kerensky]

The Clans lost planets while winning the battles due to the mode of the drop, that was explained, guess people missed it? And THAT is where the bug in the system is, also explained already. It's something that was noticed by the players when Counter-Attack was put in, but no one could point to WHAT was going on to cause the issue, now PGI knows exactly what the bug is and have a fix coming.

The ONLY thing we know for certain is that a lot more people were playing CW than many have said even play MWO at any given time, so the playerbase is a lot larger than people think.

We know the Clans wons 53% of their battles against the IS, that's ALL we know. We don't know WHY they won, we don't know if it was 12 mans vs 12 mans, 12 mans vs PUGs or PUGs vs PUGs, we don't know the proportion of Trial Mechs used, we don't know the proportion of farmers, we don't even know the IS vs IS and Clan vs Clan numbers.

So no one can make any statements about Clans vs IS being equal or either side being OP/UP, we simply have NO idea as we don't have ANY data on those.

As to the whole 'superior quality vs superior quantity' thing, well, time and time again history has shown that numbers DO matter in most cases, argue specific instances all you want, that doesn't change the reality. Wounded Knee, superior training and equipment meant nothing against the superior numbers. Iraq is a bad example btw, Saddam's troops didn't FIGHT, they surrendered or ran away. The military EXPECTED heavy losses on the US side due to the superior numbers of Saddam's troops, they did NOT expect those same troops to not fight.
And as for WWII, seriously, did those of you saying it was better tech and training that allowed the Allies to win not ever study WWII? Russian troops had worse gear, when they HAD gear, and little to NO training, yet they stopped the Germans. American forces in the Pacific DID win through superior numbers, maybe you missed that as well? Same as Allied forces won in Europe through superior numbers. The Axis powers had limited troops, better trained and usually better armed, but in the end, that didn't help because they didn't have AS MANY troops or better weapons, the Allies just kept tossing more and more troops with inferior gear and often inferior training at the Axis and guess what happened?

Yes, the US learned that superior numbers IS an expensive way to win and have since changed their outlook, but when facing superior numbers on the scale of WWII or the IS vs the Clans, superior training and gear won't get you far, you will lose due to sheer attrition, especially when replacing both the humans and equipment becomes impossible due to lack of both.

[Mirumoto Izanami]

There are merits to both sides of the quality vs quantity debate, but the use of the Mitsubishi A6M as an example of quantity doesn't kind of work. There were a little over 10,000 made during the entirety of ww2. The Us made more Hellcats, introduced in 1942, iirc, and a much better plane than the Zero, and made several thousand more, of just the Hellcat, in 3 years, than the total production of all of Japan's fighter production.

Edited by Mirumoto Izanami, 03 April 2015 - 09:31 AM.

[Roadkill]

Seph MacLeod, on 02 April 2015 - 11:28 PM, said:

See..I dun know where you are getting your information..

From the internet. You should try it some time. So far you've posted nothing but heresay and opinion. I've posted hard numbers, and they show very clearly that the Allies won WWII because of overwhelming numbers, not superior skill or technology.

[Roadkill]

We may have also had superior skill and/or superior technology, but you cannot refute the fact that we had superior numbers because the info is readily available.

[Stealth Fox]

Roadkill, on 03 April 2015 - 08:09 PM, said:

From the internet. You should try it some time. So far you've posted nothing but heresay and opinion. I've posted hard numbers, and they show very clearly that the Allies won WWII because of overwhelming numbers, not superior skill or technology.

You posted wide numbers that say nothing about where it went, how it was used or who was using it.

I was actually trained by the current military in the Marine Corps. Know their current doctrine and got an extensive historical back ground from not only US but also other nationalities about what was used and worked back in previous conflicts. And said actual history about the various battles, vehicles and the like that proved Tech and training overrides numbers.

There is a thing called "Force Multiplier" Various planes and equipment are Force Multipliers and so are various kinds of training.

You can have 200 people armed with AKs who think Dying will win them virgins, but if you put them against a few hard armored vehicles with better weapons and in the hands of 30 people who are professionally trained... The 200 are gonna lose.

By the way.. that was an actual encounter in the Marine Corps, but according to you. "Lol.. 200 people will win"

Edited by Seph MacLeod, 03 April 2015 - 08:18 PM.

[Stealth Fox]

Added on.. Force Multipliers can be looked at back into BattleTech

the Clan Tech was looked at as a heavy Force Multiplier as well as the training the clans used in combat.
Clan mechs where just able to do more damage and be used properly to take out more IS mechs, range, damage and the like.
The reason they lost was because the IS started using 'dishonorable' tactics and tricked the Clans into many losing situations.. That and clan Wolf trying constantly behind the scenes to foil the invasion.

Edited by Seph MacLeod, 03 April 2015 - 08:24 PM.

[Koniks]

Tarogato, on 02 April 2015 - 08:31 AM, said:

3% is a narrow win margin for Clans

I keep seeing that said. For the record, 53%-47% is 6%. That's not particularly close. Especially when you consider the IS had the option of bringing up to 480 more tons in their dropdecks.

While this gives us reason to think Clan tech is probably still noticeably better than what the IS has available, we haven't been given the data to say how big the gap still is. We don't know what the actual tonnage difference was. We don't have any information about the distribution of players' Elo, group sizes, mech selection, and loadout selection.

0rionsbane, on 02 April 2015 - 05:30 PM, said:

53% overall minus the 2% auto win drops is still only 51% for a clan win precentage.

We also haven't been given the data to know how much of the 2.8% auto-wins went to which faction. Or if they excluded those from the raw numbers they gave us.

[A Large Infant]

Quantity is a quality of its own.

[Roadkill]

Seph, I'm not saying it's a hard rule. Put it in context with this thread. I'm saying that:

a. it's BattleTech canon. The Inner Sphere wins in the lore because numbers are able to stop the Clan advance, and then once technology is closer (still not even, but closer) those numbers are sufficient to push the Clans back. So it's not wrong for the IS to have taken back 50 planets this past weekend due to numbers. That's how it's supposed to work according to BattleTech.

b. it's also historical fact in general. It's not a hard rule, though, because sufficient technology will overcome numbers. As long as technology is reasonably similar, numbers will win out. Recent examples such as Desert Storm aren't reasonably similar technology.

But we're not talking about that case in this thread. The Clans in MWO have at best a very minor technology advantage, and that was dramatically insufficient during last weekend's CW event.

Edited by Roadkill, 03 April 2015 - 08:40 PM.

[Stealth Fox]

Roadkill, on 03 April 2015 - 08:39 PM, said:

But we're not talking about that case in this thread. The Clans in MWO have at best a very minor technology advantage, and that was dramatically insufficient during last weekend's CW event.

Back to the thread, the clan tech or skill was irrelevant because the system broke and never gave clans a chance to play a match to flip a square back.

That's not "battle tech cannon" that's "bad game design"

there is always a way and a chance to change a push and move it to an attack IRL, small sometimes ..but it is there.. here? the system locked the clans in the defense

[Roadkill]

Seph MacLeod, on 03 April 2015 - 08:43 PM, said:

Back to the thread, the clan tech or skill was irrelevant because the system broke and never gave clans a chance to play a match to flip a square back.

I've seen the explanation, or at least one of them, but I'm not sure I understand how it prevented the Clans from having a chance to capture a planet. It sounded to me like the Clans were simply under too much pressure from overwhelming numbers, so even when they tried to attack the IS was able to defend en masse (read: counter-attack) and prevent the Clan attacks from succeeding while simultaneously launch attacks that the Clans couldn't counter in the same way.

No need to spell it out for me if there's a convenient other thread somewhere.

[Stealth Fox]

Roadkill, on 03 April 2015 - 08:53 PM, said:

No need to spell it out for me if there's a convenient other thread somewhere.

Spark notes version of it.

game assigns "attack" to a group after some short time they are queuing up instead of splitting Attack and Defense 50/50

IS has way more players (as ..frankly I like) and so many queuing up that there where not enough clanners to go around so fast.

IS keeps grabbing the "well no one might drop against you.. so .. Attack" mode while Clanners always get the defense

all that is needed to split this is actually have the system share Attack and Defense 50/50 and only have attack given as default for if there is no one near the end of a wait (15 minutes) that might be a ghost drop.

[Roadkill]

So... just trying to integrate what you've said with what Russ said... shouldn't that work both ways?

It seems to me that if there are more IS units queuing up, that it should be the IS choices that are constantly getting flipped because they're less likely to have a Clan team to oppose them during that 5-second initial window.

Doesn't that mean that no planets should change hands, though? The best way to "win" a planet is to Defend and get flipped to Counter-Attack. But that can only happen on a planet that is under attack, which is yours to begin with.

When actually attacking, the Clans (lower population) should have an advantage because there's a higher chance that there will be an available IS defender within the 5 second window so the match doesn't get flipped.

I guess he did say it's a complex issue. /sigh

Anyway, in my case is mostly curiosity because I don't play CW. To me it's just a slower game mode with even less balanced games, so I prefer PUG life for now.

[Roadkill]

Oh wait, I think I just noticed the difference while re-reading Russ's post again.

It only flips after 5 seconds if that's necessary to allow an auto-win. So an Attack (Invasion) isn't going to flip after 5 seconds because you need to be invading to auto-win. But a Defense will flip because you need Counter-Attack to auto-win.

He said that 98% of the time those games still fill up normally, but they've already been flipped. So the higher population will be getting the mode it needs to take the planet because they're the ones triggering most of the matches regardless of whether they're attack or defense.

Okay, I think I get it now.

[Stealth Fox]

Roadkill, on 03 April 2015 - 09:28 PM, said:

Oh wait, I think I just noticed the difference while re-reading Russ's post again.

It only flips after 5 seconds if that's necessary to allow an auto-win. So an Attack (Invasion) isn't going to flip after 5 seconds because you need to be invading to auto-win. But a Defense will flip because you need Counter-Attack to auto-win.

He said that 98% of the time those games still fill up normally, but they've already been flipped. So the higher population will be getting the mode it needs to take the planet because they're the ones triggering most of the matches regardless of whether they're attack or defense.

Okay, I think I get it now.

Yeah.. it.. ..it was just terrible game logic..