26 replies to this topic

[Kuaron]

http://mwomercs.com/...change-12152016

Bwahahahaha

But really, what do you think of the direction of solving the problem this way?

Spoiler

I guess, I'm OK with it.
I compensates for Clan weapons being lighter, and fluff-wise it makes sense that IS brings more weight to the battlefields of the Inner Sphere - just that "weight" is read literally here to leave it a 12 vs. 12 game.

But even if this gives the IS the missing edge to offer something attractive to it's defenders, it will take a long time now to actually bring some of the good player and units back to the IS.

[Appogee]

I think you could give IS a 100t advantage and it still wouldn't stop hordes of IS PUGs from losing matches for IS.

If there was a matchmaker, which put large teams against each other, and PUGs against each other, there'd be more even matches.

[Desdakan]

Run that logic by me again.

The game has an imbalance due to an imbalance in population/skill. Accepted.

So the answer is to create an excessive imbalance in the drop weight?

That's like countering a headache by stomping yourself on your foot.

Pugs who lost 48-36 or worse to a coordinated team will still loose. Their opponents had a whole wave of drop weight to spare.

But when two premades of comparable skill meet, the clan team stands no chance due to the missing weight. So you take the fun out of previously fair encounters, too.

So how exactly is that adressing the problem?

[Kshahdoo]

It's a great decision! Especially considering I ain't gonna play faction wars anyway.

[Jun Watarase]

Im confused by the tonnage change, when it was 250vs250 tons in november, FW when pugging felt very balanced overall although most matches still went HEAVILY in favor of the IS because it was super easy to rig matches by putting a unit vs randoms. Even if units on both sides were dropping on the planet, 9 times out of 10 they were gonna get matched vs randoms anyway. But the few even matches that i saw felt very even overall. I was in a match with NTEX + randoms vs D"C/INYE + randoms and it ended up 45vs44 before we ran out of time, and it could have easily gone either way.

It felt massively more balanced than when it was 250vs265 or 240vs265 tons because at that tonnage difference, you have EBJs/Timbers in the first wave vs assaults boating LPLs or LLs. At 250vs250, you saw mostly IS heavies instead.

Im not sure, but i think the new FW system prevents you from targetting a specific planet and the "fight now" button is similar to quickplay? I dont know if that would help even things out though. It was very easy to look at a particular planet and figure out if it had any serious opposition, which obviously influenced your decision whether to drop there or not. "Oh hey it looks like lots of good units are dropping there, let's go somewhere else".

Its a shame PGI hasnt learnt anything from PVP focused MMOs though, you cant allow players to easily switch (or stack) sides or you run into problems where a group of players can stack one side and they get an overwhelming advantage. Obviously, most people will join the side that looks like they are winning the most. I once played warhammer online, and the Oceanic server had such lopsided player numbers that one side had a 4:1 numerical advantage after the first few months, because people just kept joining the winning side. And players on the losing side kept swapping to the winning side because they got frustrated with getting zerged.

The fact that PGI is only looking at FW data for "high tier" players (IIRC) is kind of disturbing. Most high tier players in FW will be playing in teams, which will show skewed results. E.G. It may be that clans have an overwhelming advantage if they are defending in organized teams because they setup perfect high alpha firing lines vs choke points. It may be that this advantage is amplified by certain maps that are mostly long range focused like alpine peaks. It may be that IS has a massive advantage in other situations or in certain maps or game modes, or at certain tiers. It may be that 240 vs 265 is better balanced for organized teams but terrible for randoms vs randoms, and the same applies for certain maps/game modes.

Personally, When i use my cataphract or warhammer in quickplay, I never get an overwhelming sense of fighting uphill vs clan mechs, unlike when i played FW and had to fight IS mechs that were much heavier.

Given what we have seen of PGI balancing, i doubt they have anyone who has taken a statistics course and knows how to account for all variables. I mean, given that the designer in charge of game balance is Paul...

Edited by Jun Watarase, 16 December 2016 - 01:13 AM.

[Appogee]

From the little I've seen of the Tug of War system (ie in the hour or so it takes Clans to comprehensively win the skirmish, conquest, domination and assault phases), it's like dropping in Quick Play but with even more clueless PUGs.

I guess the absence of a matchmaker, plus Clan tech advantages and more organised groups, is going to do that to a mode.

Increased tonnage won't make IS PUGs any smarter or more experienced.

Edited by Appogee, 16 December 2016 - 02:10 AM.

[naterist]

the only things that i hink can fix this are a combo of normalizing is xl's, revamping rewards so mercs have a reason to switch to the losing side, and limit people who have played less than X amount of qp games, and no trials allowed.

[Willard Phule]

It's obvious what FW needs to make PUGs useful.

Use their PSR rating as a damage multiplier for LRMs. Think about it....when they dump 60 LRMs into a wall and a couple actually hit, it might actually do a little damage.

Either that or extend the range on LRMs if you're standing in one spot and zoomed in, like a turret. That would work, too.

[SteelMantis]

First and foremost, I am happy to see the population issues being address now. I would much rather have an inelegant solution now than a perfect solution in three or four months when the FW population has flat-lined again.

My main complaint with the change is it punishes loyalist much more than mercs. Mercs can flip over to IS anytime the balance shifts to favor IS leaving Clan loyalists to deal with the lowered tonnage limits. Ironically the population problem was caused by the merc units in the first place.

Still much better than nothing.

[Uxong]

Clan Invasion DropDeck tonnage limit reduced to 240 tonnes.
Where 20 tons clan mech?

Edited by Uxong, 16 December 2016 - 05:07 AM.

[Count Zero 74]

So they will set the tonnage depending on the distribution of top tier FP players between factions?

So what about if said top tier players switch between factions multiple times a day?

[Hanky Spam]

Count Zero 74, on 16 December 2016 - 05:08 AM, said:

So they will set the tonnage depending on the distribution of top tier FP players between factions?

So what about if said top tier players switch between factions multiple times a day?

Question: is the tonnage adjusted automatically by a routine, or does the adjustment happen by a PGI employee from "time to time"?
If the first should be the case, then I see alot of exploit and trolling potential...

[Count Zero 74]

Well, I switched between Clan/IS 3 or 4 times today I think.

[Super Trooper]

If you could achieve a perfect 50/50 win rate balance, think of all the problems it would create with no one being able to play anything other than skirmish.

[Sixpack]

That and nobody would get any planets.

[Natural Predator]

Due to IS puggies losing. Drop weights for IS will be moved to 400 tons. Clans will be restricted to machine guns and flamers.

Edited by Ragnar Baron Leiningen, 16 December 2016 - 07:12 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

Super Trooper, on 16 December 2016 - 06:45 AM, said:

If you could achieve a perfect 50/50 win rate balance, think of all the problems it would create with no one being able to play anything other than skirmish.

And that is why the whole idea of faction warfare is kind of flawed to begin with. If it's balanced, we never really get anywhere. If it isn't balanced then once people figure it out they will gravitate towards that factions and multiply the problem.
So no matter what, it will never really work.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Super Trooper, on 16 December 2016 - 06:45 AM, said:

If you could achieve a perfect 50/50 win rate balance, think of all the problems it would create with no one being able to play anything other than skirmish.

Amazing to think that a week ago some folks were concerned (coming into phase 4.1) that we might be mostly locked out of Invasion mode due to better balance after the December patch.....no side getting enough of an upper hand to get into invasion. So, much for that concern.

Seriously though...50/50 can't be the goal.. a total stalemate on the map isn't going to satisfy players either...

Also, all this Buffing /nerfing drop deck tonnages will just encourage experienced players play more on their alt-accounts (many have them) to take advantage of wherever the tonnage advantage is. I had suggested max population limits for Mercs on another thread, but really that wouldn't work either...as experienced players would just play an alt-loyalist account on the side they really wanted to play on anyway...nowadays you even only need 2 (maybe 3...loyalist IS..loyalist Clan and Merc) accounts, one for each side to get whatever drops you need, because of bucket reduction.

Let's face it...Breaking the game is what we try to do as players...we try to optimize mechs,decks and everything so we can win. PGI makes the game as balanced as they know how (which will always be flawed as they introduce new content) and we try to "break it" (cause imbalance...or more imbalance) for our own advantage by getting around whatever they set up "to finally fix things". PGI can and does break it's own game with its new content introductions and modifications (KDK-3, IS re-size) and on top of that it is always then trying to fix the parts of the game we just broke which they can't anticipate ...i.e...fixing population/skill imbalance with tonnage changes. Trying to balance things has got to be a full time job over there at PGI these days .

The problem with quick fixes like tonnage changes is we can easily break the game the other way and they have to see us doing it and adjust quick....if the population flips IS they will have to adjust tonnage quick to prevent the IS from doing the same thing next week to the Clans as what has happened to them this week...and again....what's to prevent better players having two accounts and playing whatever side has the tonnage buffs that day or hour. Nothing...and nothing can be set up to prevent it. Experienced players (even entire units) can login/logout of their accounts and play the side they feel gives them what they want that moment (better win chance or more challenging games). I don't know the answer to any of this...most players aren't going to put themselves at risk for winning less just for "the good of the game". It's not human nature.

[Natred]

Intentionally trying to alter population after releasing a clan mech is redundant. What the heck did you expect to happen for mercs? Tonnage has some play but skill and teamwork will still overcome these set backs.

Forsight and planning way better at dealing with these issues. Yawn, they do what they want I don't know why I use my time trying to give positive constructive criticism.

[Monkey Lover]

It should help units a little. Pugs will stop playing cw after rewards go away so it's not really an issue. I still don't think k it's enough for IS u it players to stick around.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 16 December 2016 - 08:07 AM.