354 replies to this topic

[nitra]

Kuritaclan, on 26 January 2016 - 09:02 PM, said:

what does the last examples mean in 1vs1 - that does nothing say about an team vs team environment. A SRM Bomb Timber will mostlikley outtrade a phract and a marauder too, but such short rang builds may never arrive their counterpart in tonnage in a team vs team situation. So to speak thats crack pot wisdom generated trying to make evidence out of 1vs1 situations in a teamplay game.

but thats what needs to be established so we know what mechs and their builds are capable of. and whether its kosher on the play field instead of painting our selves into corners thinking oh heck theres a bj3 oh well im in this crappy clan mech oh well game over gg hf

[J0anna]

Lets remove opinions and look at the facts for a moment.

1) The IS won all 6 matches, even through the players switched half way through attempting to balance the play.

2) The IS won overall kills 48 to 6

3) In only one match (#5) did the clan players manage to kill more than one mech, in every other match, the clans killed 1 or 0 mechs

(match 1 - 0 kills)
(match 2 - 1 light killed)
(match 3 - 1 heavy killed)
(match 4 - 1 heavy killed)
(match 5 - 2 Assaults, 1 medium killed)
(match 6 - 0 kills)

4) In every match The IS mechs had more damage than the best clan mechs. Only one clan mech broke 400 damage in only one match. The top IS mechs broke 400 damage in every match (except the second - 394 damage) and in 3 matches the IS had mechs break 500 damage (2 matches had multiple people break 500 damage). Top IS damage was between 117 to 239 above clan top damage in each match.

5) Battles were played out on a 'hot' map, a heat 'neutral' map ad a 'cold' map thus balancing heat effects.

Keep drawing your own conclusions, but those are the facts.

As for me, despite the fact that these are some of the top players in this game, not one of the matches was very close. If play was balanced, I expect to see either side have a chance to win and the match coming down to who made the least mistakes. These matches were rolls, plain and simple.

Besides nobody should really care what I (or anyone who wasn't there for that matter) think, the real questions are:

What do the players involved think?
When you played the clans did you feel like you were evenly matched and had a balanced chance to win?
Did you feel the same way after it was over?

[MischiefSC]

Yeonne Greene, on 26 January 2016 - 07:31 PM, said:

Wut. I think we are agreeing, but you might've missed the last 3 or 4 pages. I know the Clans don't have the options. Nitra was saying that it didn't look like the Clan players were even trying...which I scoffed at because they most certainly were.

Also, the whole premise for that conversation was one commentator, Jabilac, saying testing should be done with 'Mechs that are standing still and blasting at each other with no twisting, and Nitra was supporting him. Now Nitra's stance has slowly been shifted in favor of active, real-world testing.



Don't forget to buff the SCat while they're at it, pls.

Scat needs the same structure buffs the BJ got. No question.

[Gyrok]

MischiefSC, on 26 January 2016 - 09:53 PM, said:

Scat needs the same structure buffs the BJ got. No question.

I would love to see SCat get 2 more energy somewhere...make you choose between ECM or 2 more energy in LT if you want...

[Sandpit]

MischiefSC, on 24 January 2016 - 04:48 PM, said:

This was akin to someone posting a match of IS brawlers with XLs vs A full meta Clan deck.

In 8v8 in the right map with the right tonnage limitations playing poke at long range the IS will win. Ideally there should be about 50% of situations where the IS should win.

It was more akin to 16 players jumping into a private match, setting their own biased build rules, then playing out the game to "prove" something.

I understand it was just an example OP, but here's the issue. Most of the people here on the forums? Have zero clue when it comes to sampling, data collection, etc.

The example posted? Just that. An example based on what we have to take on faith wasn't setup to directly give the results they wanted it to.

There's no parameters
No control
No counter example
No sampling size of significance
No parameters for individual skill level

I can take 8 brand new players, toss them into any build you want, and I'll take 8 vets with any build you want. Guess who's going to come out on top the vast majority of time?

I participated in the whole official 10v12 Clan vs. IS testing PGI actually did on the test servers way back when.

It was horrible. It was terribad. It was just about nonstop stomps on the clans.

It was bad. It didn't work.

[Mcgral18]

MischiefSC, on 26 January 2016 - 09:53 PM, said:

Scat needs the same structure buffs the BJ got. No question.

I'd prefer the Fridge and Vindi got those, while the BJ and SadCat got weapon quirks.

A set of tough and a set of deadly 45 tonners, but not both attributes.

[MischiefSC]

I will say that the people involved are excellent at MWO and have as a good a command of the game as anyone.

The concern is that when confronted with a situation where they could not win on long range trades they just didn't know what to do. So they tried to do long range trades anyway and made some uncertain pushes.

Armchair QB work is tiring I know. I'm not trying to imply I know better or play better than the CoS teams in question. However I've watched and played a lot of matches and that didn't jive.

Now I'm happy to concede that the long range trade game is so strong at that level it trumps all else and as such even a small imbalance there is huge to overall match performance. I don't know.

However builds and pushes there didn't look like the builds and pushes I see in play normally, even on other competitive matches.

[Gyrok]

Sandpit, on 27 January 2016 - 11:45 AM, said:

It was more akin to 16 players jumping into a private match, setting their own biased build rules, then playing out the game to "prove" something.

I understand it was just an example OP, but here's the issue. Most of the people here on the forums? Have zero clue when it comes to sampling, data collection, etc.

The example posted? Just that. An example based on what we have to take on faith wasn't setup to directly give the results they wanted it to.

There's no parameters
No control
No counter example
No sampling size of significance
No parameters for individual skill level

I can take 8 brand new players, toss them into any build you want, and I'll take 8 vets with any build you want. Guess who's going to come out on top the vast majority of time?

I participated in the whole official 10v12 Clan vs. IS testing PGI actually did on the test servers way back when.

It was horrible. It was terribad. It was just about nonstop stomps on the clans.

It was bad. It didn't work.

They switched mid sequence and the IS team went Clans and the Clan team went IS and the results were staggeringly the same.

[MischiefSC]

Mcgral18, on 27 January 2016 - 11:53 AM, said:

I'd prefer the Fridge and Vindi got those, while the BJ and SadCat got weapon quirks.

A set of tough and a set of deadly 45 tonners, but not both attributes.

No weapon quirks. They are the devil. Maybe cooldown on ones like the Scat that have too few hardpoints. No range, no burn, no heat changes.

Otherwise all structure and mobility.

[Mcgral18]

MischiefSC, on 27 January 2016 - 02:39 PM, said:

No weapon quirks. They are the devil. Maybe cooldown on ones like the Scat that have too few hardpoints. No range, no burn, no heat changes.

Otherwise all structure and mobility.

SadCat Could use weapon quirks safely, mounting a max of 3 effective weapon systems.

BJ1 could use AC2 quirks, because Terribad weapons.

"Laser" range quirks (not ER, not Pulse) are safe on all BJs. 300M MLs aren't too powerful.

[Deathlike]

The easiest method is to change the IS energy quirks to avoid/minimize applying them to ER Larges ("Non-ER laser quirks" or "Non-ER energy quirks" could work).

You really shouldn't be trading with CERLL as you will lose to quirked IS ERLL. CLPL provides a better shot at this IMO (but you'd have to close the gap a little).

[MischiefSC]

Mcgral18, on 27 January 2016 - 05:41 PM, said:

SadCat Could use weapon quirks safely, mounting a max of 3 effective weapon systems.

BJ1 could use AC2 quirks, because Terribad weapons.

"Laser" range quirks (not ER, not Pulse) are safe on all BJs. 300M MLs aren't too powerful.

Ll, lpl.

No range, no duration. You want to adjust those you adjust the weapons.

The BJ sure as hell doesn't need weapon quirks. Hardpoints too low? Too few? Bad hitboxes? Not good hardpoint types?

It's a great 45 tonner. The Vendi? Sure. Dear God give the poor girl the whole Bad Robbits Federal Aid package. It should get 3 free Art strikes per match and the ability to mount Clan weapons.

And a hug. The poor girl got done dirty.

[nitra]

MischiefSC, on 27 January 2016 - 06:31 PM, said:

Ll, lpl.

No range, no duration. You want to adjust those you adjust the weapons.

The BJ sure as hell doesn't need weapon quirks. Hardpoints too low? Too few? Bad hitboxes? Not good hardpoint types?

It's a great 45 tonner. The Vendi? Sure. Dear God give the poor girl the whole Bad Robbits Federal Aid package. It should get 3 free Art strikes per match and the ability to mount Clan weapons.

And a hug. The poor girl got done dirty.

i think pgi put this mech in game to purposefully abuse players... im surprised they dont run sells on it regularly and have a badge for it. just so they can laugh it up at the office ...

[FupDup]

MischiefSC, on 27 January 2016 - 02:39 PM, said:

No weapon quirks. They are the devil. Maybe cooldown on ones like the Scat that have too few hardpoints. No range, no burn, no heat changes.

Otherwise all structure and mobility.

The first PTS session of the "Great Rebalance" already tested that. Every mech had the same quirks of agility/structure/sensors just with somewhat different values, meaning that the only significant differences between mechs were hitboxes and hardpoints once again.

I'm not saying that every weapon quirk we have at the moment is well designed (e.g. which weapons affected, what values, etc.), but outright killing one entire dimension of quirks makes the whole system bland and kinda pointless.

Edited by FupDup, 27 January 2016 - 08:45 PM.

[Ultimax]

FupDup, on 27 January 2016 - 08:42 PM, said:

The first PTS session of the "Great Rebalance" already tested that. Every mech had the same quirks of agility/structure/sensors just with somewhat different values, meaning that the only significant differences between mechs were hitboxes and hardpoints once again.

I'm not saying that every weapon quirk we have at the moment is well designed (e.g. which weapons affected, what values, etc.), but outright killing one entire dimension of quirks makes the whole system bland and kinda pointless.

Its like people forget why some mechs were T3 & 4 in the first place, and blame it all on TTK.

[Aresye]

FupDup, on 27 January 2016 - 08:42 PM, said:

The first PTS session of the "Great Rebalance" already tested that. Every mech had the same quirks of agility/structure/sensors just with somewhat different values, meaning that the only significant differences between mechs were hitboxes and hardpoints once again.

I'm not saying that every weapon quirk we have at the moment is well designed (e.g. which weapons affected, what values, etc.), but outright killing one entire dimension of quirks makes the whole system bland and kinda pointless.

It wasn't so much mobility and structure quirks though. It was that failed infotech system and the quirks that went along with that they were testing.

[Deathlike]

Aresye, on 27 January 2016 - 09:31 PM, said:

It wasn't so much mobility and structure quirks though. It was that failed infotech system and the quirks that went along with that they were testing.

That's balance by Tier Paul.

[FupDup]

Deathlike, on 27 January 2016 - 09:32 PM, said:

That's balance by Tier Paul.

Even the Steering Wheel Underhive looks down on him...

[White Bear 84]

FupDup, on 24 January 2016 - 08:06 PM, said:

At this rate, maybe Russ will finally get around to fixing Flamers...

Don't jinx it, only so many times our souls can be burned..

[Gyrok]

Deathlike, on 27 January 2016 - 05:43 PM, said:

The easiest method is to change the IS energy quirks to avoid/minimize applying them to ER Larges ("Non-ER laser quirks" or "Non-ER energy quirks" could work).

You really shouldn't be trading with CERLL as you will lose to quirked IS ERLL. CLPL provides a better shot at this IMO (but you'd have to close the gap a little).

Even then, IS can fire 3 at once meaning trading 26 damage for 27. The difference in burn time is not significant enough to make those trades worthwhile.