78 replies to this topic

[Lily from animove]

Wow, Liao is having a unit listes that doesn't even made 4k points as score. This house is so underpiloted by units it's scary.

generally kinda spooky to see how many >10 man units exist in these lists.

also I miss this 95% ratio FRR awesomeone unit as some of their forum warriors claimed. Guess they were just a bunch of loud mouths

also, my one man participating unit is placed 99 with 12 wins. this means I am on the same place or above with MANY of those 339 Wolf units. So theres a large number of solo-member-units out there. with 15 games and somwhat at around 4200 matchscore I made ther eis a large number of these units contianign members that haven't even made muchs core or played many games.

Sereglach, on 14 December 2015 - 08:36 PM, said:

Now, what I'm actually personally interested in, stat wise, is what group distribution looked like in individual matches. Some points of relation:

- How often did 12 man vs. 12 man happen?

- How often were 12 man teams all of the same unit?

- How often did 12 man teams of one unit go up against 12 man teams of varying units?

- How often did a 12 man team of one unit go up against another 12 man team of one unit?

Now the reason I ask about these points isn't to gripe about balance or what-have-you. Teamwork truly is OP and it should remain as such . . . it's after all, a team game (coming from a unitless PUG, no less). The reason I ask is because when you look at the number of participating units, yes there are some big units out there (some too big, but that's personal opinion), but there were a lot of tiny units out there. At a glance there is decent unit distribution, but when looking at unit sizes, it really does make you wonder what the truly organized population distribution looks like.

For instance, Kell's Commandos is extremely small, but that's one of the most hardcore of hardcore MWO units out there that put absolutely obscene amounts of time into the game . . . and they have every right to do it. That's what makes them good. After all, 39 total participating members only makes 3 consistent 12-man teams . . . but those teams had a near flawless win rate. That's a truly organized and competitive unit.

On the other hand, Mercstar wins by sheer volume. With 212 active participants that's upwards of 17 12-man teams, but only an ~88% win ratio. On the same token the just as massive Star Wolves only had 133 active participants (just over 11 12-man teams) but a paltry 50% win ratio. However, with their total populations you'd have thought these units would be pumping out almost 100 12-man teams, combined. Sadly, though, even with these large numbers, the sheer volume of players in these units is even more massive . . . so why be a member of a unit when you're not even going to participate in the truly unit based game mode? Unless, of course, those people just want to ride coat-tails when there's a reason for controlling a planet.

Then we have all these units that are so tiny one couldn't even really consider them a unit, so much as a couple of friends that decided to tack a unit tag to their names. Most of these units also had relatively abysmal win/loss ratios. After all, how are units that can't even field a full 12 man team going to be truly competitive in a game that requires a 12 man team on the field?

So, what makes a truly competitive populace? Personally, I'd argue smaller units that can become tight cohesive groups (thusly why I personally argue for size restrictions). That creates tight, well-organized units that can create the best per-match experience and thusly the most competitiveness (I'm sure those units that already fit this mold will do well in the first international MWO tournament). However, in events like this one can see that factions which were able to have sheer volume of players win the day. Kell's Commandos impeccable win rate meant next to nothing compared to the sheer volume of match output by Mercstar. Which begs the question, is it truly competitive or is it just gaming the numbers?

You issue is within comparing apples and oranges. Who said those members of MS didn't wanted to participate? What if they couldn't due to RL and stuff? You mess up KCOm like "no Life hardcoregamers playstyles" with MS more casual gamers that may nto play serveral hours daily.

however int he race for tukayyid, only the last matches per area palyed do count.

And you know what? KCOm would only be able to claim 3 of those areas due to lack of numbers, even with 100% winratio. But to get tukayyid 32 are needed.

MS could alone conqur the entire planet due to possibly having a team on EACH field at once. So even with only 60% win rate they would be able to conquer tukayyid. Yet any low member high W/L unit would not be able to conquer anything. It just shows that Units and faction wide organsied gamplay matters more in the CW setup as it is meant to be for a community wide mode.

So yes, it is competitive within the conditions of CW, because normal CW mode has what? 13??? areas to battle for, therefore a unit to conquer it needs to have a size of 7*12*it's W/L to field in the last deciding battles to conquer a planet "alone" if you bring only 3 full teams and there is no other unit with you, you would lose the planet of the other faction would drop on all the other areas.

Competitiveness in CW means being able to secure more than 50% areas on a planet at the end of a cycle. Anything else, W/L k/d Scores are totally irrelevant for the CW mode. Quality cannot trump quantity, because CW is a quantity based mode, as any RVR game does and is. Ql > Qt is for the group queue. it's an illusiona nd wish by many "Qality units" that CW gets twisted to their needs, but in fact CW is about social skills to gather people around you and manage these people to stick together drop and work towards a common goal.

Edited by Lily from animove, 15 December 2015 - 01:59 AM.

[Pat Kell]

I think the fault in your argument lily becomes apparent when you look at the fact that at one point KCom had it's name on ~50 planets during the last phase. Granted, we didn't win all those planets alone, but we were still able to have the most victories on those 50 planets at the end of the day, often times fielding less then a full 12 man team. It is, after all, community warfare, not unit warfare. MS can ruing people's day and I have to admit that an 88% win rate is impressive but KCom doesn't need a lot of members to be able to secure a planet, we just need people to play. Even if these others only have a 50% win ratio, it makes it possible due to time constraints for us to eat up the needed slots to take a planet. We did it at least 50 times and probably more when you factor in all the planets that we lost due to other units in our factions defending a planet that had our tag on it and it switched to their tags for the defensive action.

Also, one thing to consider is that while the event was going on, whenever we had more then 12 people in a room, we would split into 2 even groups so that everyone could play. Talk all you want about big groups having a variety of skill levels, which is certainly true but at least these units could field 12 mans on comms relatively often (or have the ability to do so). We achieved a 98.4% win rate often times with 3-6 pugs in the group...sometimes more. We very rarely fielded a full 12man team, on comms, the entire event. I would be willing to bet that less then 10% of our matches were done with full 12 man teams.

I am really impressed with BMMU too by the way, another small unit that put up big numbers with a high win rate. Not many units out there make me worried, BMMU is one of them. Well done guys.

Edited by Pat Kell, 15 December 2015 - 02:35 AM.

[Rushin Roulette]

Any chances of adding the kill statistics of the MVP (aka Dropships)?

[S C A R]

I agree with Pay. Most of the games won by KCom were done with 6-8 people on a team. Anyone who wanted to participate did so. That's why the result is so impressive. We were able to achieve wins with a handful of people.

I congratulare MS on their 88% win rate but having to play with full 12 men teams is a bit easier. You don't have pugs who do 25 damage in 4 mechs. From personal experience I've noticed that it was enough to have 4 guys to defeat pugs and 6-7 to win against organised units.

Anyway, congrats to all units which did well. It was a nice event. Much better and closer than the 1st one).

[Lily from animove]

Pat Kell, on 15 December 2015 - 02:16 AM, said:

I think the fault in your argument lily becomes apparent when you look at the fact that at one point KCom had it's name on 50 planets during the last phase. Granted, we didn't win all those planets alone, but we were still able to have the most victories on those 50 planets at the end of the day, often times fielding less then a full 12 man team. Also, one thing to consider is that while the event was going on, whenever we had more then 12 people in a room, we would split into 2 even groups so that everyone could play. Talk all you want about big groups having a variety of skill levels, which is certainly true but at least you field 12 mans on comms relatively often. We achieved a 98.4% win rate often times with 3-6 pugs in the group...sometimes more...

yes but thats the next issue, your total wins on the planet is what defines the owner of a planet. While in fact true faction ownership is decided only in the last 13 matches. That is another rather nonsense issue. Tbh, all matches done between ceasefires should count to the faction ownership %. It would give every match a meaning not only the last 13 ones. And the reason why you tagged these planets is also, because you had by quantity more matches than others.

it does not matter if a unit has 20 members dropping 5x each making it 100 wins or a 100member unit eahc dropping once and get 100 wins.

During tuk 2 you had the second most amounts of drops in your faction even more than CWI. So as you see your ql is paired with quantity as well. It was therefore if this tuk activity reflects usual CW activity just your quantity of drops deciding this.

it's dangerous when people demand unit limits and "skill" as a emasurement, because this will cause two things: small no life elite units domating anything because they can bring ql and qt. In the end CW would die because anyone else not no-lifing enough to get the qt will just leave. And anyone not skilled enough would kicked out of units, which soon makes everyone not at high skills leave the mode. And then entire CW will be just about 1-3 elite units in each faction complaining about how CW is dead and PGI failed.

I don't get how people say large units are not good because they rack up quantity, while small units racking up quantity seems to be fine.
It's quantity in both cases. It seems to be often just a biased opinion by some members that are just on the side wanting the mode to be in their favour. But focusing CW on "skill" only would kill the mode because we know the majority of players would not fit into the new conditions.

If CW would be focussed on Commnity, it should offer a system where even smaller not so successful units can get a few planets. While skillful ad larger units can claim more and kep more. So some kind of performance based upkeep would help to give anyone a piece of the cake, yet distributing a bigger one to the more succesfull units. If like 3 units per faction dominate the CW map within their faction no matter by quality or quantity it would just destroy the community aspect of the community war.

[The Basilisk]

Does nowbody else found it to be totaly hillarious that all top Clan Units where Mercs ?

[Svarn Lornon]

Well, I put everything into an Excel-Sheet

Tukayyid STATS Excel Sheet

Edited by Svarn Lornon, 15 December 2015 - 03:41 AM.

[S C A R]

Lily from animove, on 15 December 2015 - 03:00 AM, said:

yes but thats the next issue, your total wins on the planet is what defines the owner of a planet. While in fact true faction ownership is decided only in the last 13 matches. That is another rather nonsense issue. Tbh, all matches done between ceasefires should count to the faction ownership %. It would give every match a meaning not only the last 13 ones. And the reason why you tagged these planets is also, because you had by quantity more matches than others.

it does not matter if a unit has 20 members dropping 5x each making it 100 wins or a 100member unit eahc dropping once and get 100 wins.

During tuk 2 you had the second most amounts of drops in your faction even more than CWI. So as you see your ql is paired with quantity as well. It was therefore if this tuk activity reflects usual CW activity just your quantity of drops deciding this.

it's dangerous when people demand unit limits and "skill" as a emasurement, because this will cause two things: small no life elite units domating anything because they can bring ql and qt. In the end CW would die because anyone else not no-lifing enough to get the qt will just leave. And anyone not skilled enough would kicked out of units, which soon makes everyone not at high skills leave the mode. And then entire CW will be just about 1-3 elite units in each faction complaining about how CW is dead and PGI failed.

I don't get how people say large units are not good because they rack up quantity, while small units racking up quantity seems to be fine.
It's quantity in both cases. It seems to be often just a biased opinion by some members that are just on the side wanting the mode to be in their favour. But focusing CW on "skill" only would kill the mode because we know the majority of players would not fit into the new conditions.

If CW would be focussed on Commnity, it should offer a system where even smaller not so successful units can get a few planets. While skillful ad larger units can claim more and kep more. So some kind of performance based upkeep would help to give anyone a piece of the cake, yet distributing a bigger one to the more succesfull units. If like 3 units per faction dominate the CW map within their faction no matter by quality or quantity it would just destroy the community aspect of the community war.

I strongly disagree with you. There should be big units, big enough to make a difference but not too big to decide the outcome of the whole event. 100 - 120 people is ok. Anymore is just another way of abusing the system. If you want things to go your way, make alliance with other units. Monopoly breaks the system.

[Widowmaker1981]

Lily from animove, on 15 December 2015 - 03:00 AM, said:

yes but thats the next issue, your total wins on the planet is what defines the owner of a planet. While in fact true faction ownership is decided only in the last 13 matches. That is another rather nonsense issue. Tbh, all matches done between ceasefires should count to the faction ownership %. It would give every match a meaning not only the last 13 ones. And the reason why you tagged these planets is also, because you had by quantity more matches than others.

it does not matter if a unit has 20 members dropping 5x each making it 100 wins or a 100member unit eahc dropping once and get 100 wins.

During tuk 2 you had the second most amounts of drops in your faction even more than CWI. So as you see your ql is paired with quantity as well. It was therefore if this tuk activity reflects usual CW activity just your quantity of drops deciding this.

it's dangerous when people demand unit limits and "skill" as a emasurement, because this will cause two things: small no life elite units domating anything because they can bring ql and qt. In the end CW would die because anyone else not no-lifing enough to get the qt will just leave. And anyone not skilled enough would kicked out of units, which soon makes everyone not at high skills leave the mode. And then entire CW will be just about 1-3 elite units in each faction complaining about how CW is dead and PGI failed.

I don't get how people say large units are not good because they rack up quantity, while small units racking up quantity seems to be fine.
It's quantity in both cases. It seems to be often just a biased opinion by some members that are just on the side wanting the mode to be in their favour. But focusing CW on "skill" only would kill the mode because we know the majority of players would not fit into the new conditions.

If CW would be focussed on Commnity, it should offer a system where even smaller not so successful units can get a few planets. While skillful ad larger units can claim more and kep more. So some kind of performance based upkeep would help to give anyone a piece of the cake, yet distributing a bigger one to the more succesfull units. If like 3 units per faction dominate the CW map within their faction no matter by quality or quantity it would just destroy the community aspect of the community war.

To be honest Lily, i utterly disagree with you when you say 'skill shouldnt be a measurement' - this is a Multiplayer online PvP game, by its very nature it is a competitive environment. Saying high skill shouldn't be a factor because not everyone has it is in my mind like entering a marathon and then saying its not fair because some people couldn't be arsed to get off the sofa and train for it, and everyone should get a scooter to ride to even the field.

And before you start trying to make claims about no life etc, i have a full time job, a girlfriend and an active social life (i play MWO maybe ~25% of weekends, tops), and yet manage to compete just fine... this isnt an MMORPG which needs every hour in the day if you want to compete (i know the difference, i had to quit MMOs for good a few years back because i was in danger of losing all my friends due to being an ******* and ignoring them)

Pat Kell, on 15 December 2015 - 02:16 AM, said:

I am really impressed with BMMU too by the way, another small unit that put up big numbers with a high win rate. Not many units out there make me worried, BMMU is one of them. Well done guys.

Thanks

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 15 December 2015 - 03:52 AM.

[Lily from animove]

S C A R, on 15 December 2015 - 03:41 AM, said:

I strongly disagree with you. There should be big units, big enough to make a difference but not too big to decide the outcome of the whole event. 100 - 120 people is ok. Anymore is just another way of abusing the system. If you want things to go your way, make alliance with other units. Monopoly breaks the system.

KCM had more deciding factor than SWOL. they dropped in 300 less matches yet won a lot more. And this still with only half the amount of players participating. So how and why is anthign wrong with SWOL having those 503 members?

you guys claim skill was not involved, yet just size matters? NO its wrong, 12DG had a lot more active players, yet not even more drops. The argument is just nto reflectign the truth. It is people who have better skills and a just higher amount of time to spent for MWO getting a bit salty for their uneven higher amount for personal time spent in CW not getting their epeen stroked as much as they wish.

Widowmaker1981, on 15 December 2015 - 03:43 AM, said:

To be honest Lily, i utterly disagree with you when you say 'skill shouldnt be a measurement' - this is a Multiplayer online PvP game, by its very nature it is a competitive environment. Saying high skill shouldn't be a factor because not everyone has it is in my mind like entering a marathon and then saying its not fair because some people couldn't be arsed to get off the sofa and train for it, and everyone should get a scooter to ride to even the field.

And before you start trying to make claims about no life etc, i have a full time job, a girlfriend and an active social life (i play MWO maybe ~25% of weekends, tops), and yet manage to compete just fine... this isnt an MMORPG which needs every hour in the day if you want to compete (i know the difference, i had to quit MMOs for good a few years back because i was in danger of losing all my friends due to being an ******* and ignoring them)

its a community goal, its not PVP its RVR setting and no matter what your skill is if the other faction outnoumbered you you will have issues regardless of skill. CW is not PVP, its RVR. And you are not right, in CW you need "every hour" because every win counts and when you play 15 games daily its a difference compared to only 2 games daily. Yes youc an as you said "compete" but only in the one battle you dropped, but not in the whole CW setup where just numbers of drops matter. AND!!!! behind those numbers no one asks if 1700 drops were done by 100 members or just 50. All that matters is racking up as much wins as possible in time X. And when you limit the membercound of units, all you can influence is win ratio and "drop count" which then does lead to maximum no-lifing high skill units = winning cw. This is nto much more fair, its just differently unfair.
Even if you win 100% in your 100 man unit, if you drop only once a day you will never get something comapred to a 20 man unit making 20 games each day having 70% win ratio. Unit size is NOT related to drop quantity as these statistics have shown. Just take these stats and calcuate the drops/active members the unit had in CW. Unit size only matters if the dropquality AND and dropquantity is equal amongst the units. But this is not the case as the statistics show.

why is it even wrong that a unit has 53 members as the SWOL's when actually only 103 participated? Why should they not allow to exist this way compared to a unit having 110 members where 103 participated? What is the reason to spilit such a units community?

This is a community faction based war mode, if you do not build a mode involving everyone you will play it woth your 1% of competitive palyer distributed to those 10 factions. GL with your emptymode then.
I see all those competitive gamers obviously catering their very own needs, and for this they would be willing to sacrifice an entire game mode for the community? You can't be seriously that egoistic.

Edited by Lily from animove, 15 December 2015 - 04:14 AM.

[NGxT]

The Basilisk, on 15 December 2015 - 03:24 AM, said:

Does nowbody else found it to be totaly hillarious that all top Clan Units where Mercs ?

You say that, but KCom is always CJF for every major CW event. I don't expect this to change in the future.

[Svarn Lornon]

This is actually mostly related to the higher waiting times the IS faced compared to the Clans. Which was one of the reason why several of the Merc Units switched sides.

Lily from animove, on 15 December 2015 - 04:13 AM, said:

you guys claim skill was not involved, yet just size matters? NO its wrong, 12DG had a lot more active players, yet not even more drops. The argument is just not reflectign the truth.

[MarsThunder]

Jade Falcon units sorted by average score per match.

Top 5 best Jade Falcon units:
1. EmpyreaL
2. White Death Mercenary Company
3. Black Spikes
4. Kell's Commandos
5. Clan Ice Phoenix

Edited by MarsThunder, 15 December 2015 - 05:07 AM.

[FlipOver]

Even though we (13WD - 13th WarDogs) only had 5 active players and one of them had little to no experience in CW, we did quite well!

Top20 final Davion stats (from over 200 units).
Top 15 IS W/L % ratio.

Top 3 Davion W/L % ratio.

But what I loved the most was, because we didn't have 12 mans to use, we resorted to our own Davion brothers and with them we dropped time and time again for fun and more fun!

All of you, my Davion brothers (between all HHoD, Lemmings and some other distinguished Davion members - looking at you Baldy and Lumpypants ), I salute you! <o

And congrats to everyone who joined up to drop together. We put up a hell of a fight!

[Colonel ONeill]

MarsThunder, on 15 December 2015 - 04:45 AM, said:

Jade Falcon units sorted by average score per match.

Top 5 best Jade Falcon units:
1. EmpyreaL
2. White Death Mercenary Company
3. Black Spikes
4. Kell's Commandos
5. Clan Ice Phoenix

MATCHscore
Intresting, that it does not change a lot. I hope they change that formula to something usefull in Phase III.

[Shadey99]

I have to hand it to KCom, I fought them twice (once on Friday, once on Sunday) and both times it was defense for my side and attack for them. Both times they sized us up using waves 1 and 2 and crushed our weakened machines on wave 3 and leveled the gens and omega before we could force them back out.

The first encounter was almost a 12 man of my unit (and with only 28 people in my unit we didn't run many large teams) against them. The second was a gathering of Davions on TS from at least 4 units. I tried to warn the drop commander on the second one, but... Well he didn't know me very well, so we did the same thing as what happened in the first encounter. Which was hunker down and defend since it 'was working well'. Except it doesn't because they planned it that way.

If I could do it over again and I could call for action as wave 3 started... I'd charge them with our damaged mechs trying to both delay the push and use up our damaged machines so a new fresh defensive line awaited them. I have a feeling that is a key to overturning their edge, but I've never seen their 'wave 4' so I'm not entirely certain.

Btw as far as clan vs IS balance goes... The clans have one sure edge on most of their machines: Speed. It's not a big edge, but a TBR, HBR, or EBJ is faster than most IS heavies of equal weight such as Marauders, Thunderbolts, or Black Knights. And the BKs have it best with big XL engines that aren't huge risks like they are in Marauders or Tbolts. Even so most BKs run 350XLs (because most have a cap of 360) and the clan mech equal to it runs a 375XL. The requirement to run a Standard Engine to be viable hurts the Marauders and Tbolts which typically run around a 300 because standards take up so much tonnage that they limit your weapons load. In fact if you look at the most common IS mechs used, the slower IS mechs (roughly 20 kph slower) went up against the faster Clan mechs most of the time. This makes it easier to rush for the clans even in Heavies than it is for IS, your mech stays exposed longer as IS because you can't get to cover as fast, and makes heat less an issue for clans as they can dash behind cover easier to cool down. Clan groups that make effective use of this win.

[S C A R]

Shadey99, I like your analysis. Sometimes attack is the best defence. We definitely utilise the speed and positioning.

[Khereg]

Thelamon, on 15 December 2015 - 01:16 AM, said:

Thanks for the stats!

After the "hardcore unit event" someone made a nice spreadsheet, that allowed to compare and quickly sort by all the different factors. (like sort units by win / loss rate etc.)

Could we please get one for Tuk 2 as well plz ?!

Stat-cruncher-nerds to the front

That was me, and here you go:

https://docs.google....Rjlw/edit#gid=0

[Khereg]

PerfectDuck, on 15 December 2015 - 01:31 AM, said:

I don't understand. How does a shorter line filter out the bad players? Don't bad players go more as well?

He's saying the extra players on the IS side were bads occupying queue space, getting in the way of the gudz dropping against the clan gudz.

I don't entirely buy it.

[Tarogato]

Stats in spreadsheet form!
- All factions combined into one table
- Multiple tables sorted by each criteria
- Extra critieria (WLR, average match score, and more)
- PRETTY COLOURS

----> https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing