134 replies to this topic

[BLOOD WOLF]

EgoSlayer, on 21 December 2016 - 04:12 PM, said:

It's really not that simple.
Looking at this:


It looks like about 75% is required to flip the planet. And assuming that each side of the scale is 100% that gives us a total range of 200% to be working in.
If clans say get that 30 match advantage (30 * 3.33% = 99.9) right from the start they have the planet. But if IS then comes in and Win 8 (*3.33 = 26.64) in a row as the last matches, the clans don't take it because they are only at 76.59%. So the clans could have a 1000 match lead, and if the IS wins the last 8 the planet doesn't flip. The running total doesn't matter, it's just the delta on the last matches that has any meaning. And the advantage is for the defenders because they only have to prevent that last 20% from happening.




This is the root of the issue. It's still really only the last matches that have any bearing on the planet flipping. A concerted effort at the ending hour of the flip window will tilt the planet to the team that is winning the most, regardless of what happened in the preceding hours. Same as it was before.

No system would get past this. It all comes down the X variable of A side winning, and we do not know which side would win. I agree with your end conclusion, but There is no solution as far as that is concerned, because you cant modify wins, that solely up to the matches being played.

something scarecrow does not include or even want to acknowledge. he said he outline it, but I already read his proposals and none of them solve the problem.

Of course the last bit of matches need to be a deciding factor, because one side needs to be able to pull themselves out, even if they can not win back more territory. Your not going to get past this with any system, unless they make it to where a certain percentage automatically wins the planet.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 21 December 2016 - 04:24 PM.

[HauptmanT]

Deathlike, on 21 December 2016 - 04:07 PM, said:

The problem is that you would have to plan it this way, and it is unlikely that every unit that participates is able to sustain their presence over time (unless you're Mercstar or some mega-unit). You can't be like "well, I'll show up at the end" which was a problem since every previous iteration of FW (making sure your side wins at the end of a phase), and conducive to empty periods of time of play.

You want people to actively participate over time at any time or people will feel the landslide effect by giving up.. which defeats the purpose of a tug-of-war.

There is no real incentive to play faction warfare other than free mechbays. That is a different topic entirely, but the real reason FW becomes a ghost town, regardless of how it's done.

A percentage based system of any kind would require a grind, which is more disheartening than having only the last matches matter. If in order to win a planet, you needed to maintain a win rate for 8 frikkin hours, it would dry up so fast from burnout. However, they way it is now lets PUGgles like me enjoy quick games for whenever I want to play, yet gives the competitive units a smaller timeline to have to deal with.

Winning or losing planets has ZERO effect on me, a PUGgle. But for a major unit, it's the reason they play. This gives them a set "raid" time which wont burn them out. And as a puggle, if I knew the Units were out in force at say, the 2 hour mark, Yeh, I'm gonna go play quickplay instead and leave them to their important stuff. Since I know I'm likely to be roflstomped in my pug by an orginized unit.

The current system is a good system. I think they did real good on this one.

[ScarecrowES]

EgoSlayer, on 21 December 2016 - 04:12 PM, said:

It's really not that simple.
Looking at this:

<snip>

Of course, and this is largely what we've been talking about. I'm perfectly content with the idea that the defending team only needs a good push near the end of the session to beat back the attackers. Defenders should NEVER be counted completely out of a defense, and always deserve a chance to rally. My proposed changes completely retain this particular aspect.

The issue is, really, that the current tug-of-war system is predisposed to putting one faction at max with even a tiny advantage in overall win percentage. It puts the disadvantaged side in a position where their only non-loss possibility comes in the form of that rally. And PGI's only recourse in "balancing" the tug-of-war under the current system is to place shackles on the advantaged faction to reduce the speed at which they're able to achieve that max.

Unfortunately, unless you're willing to constantly change the parameters of those shackles to account for moment-to-moment differences in faction skill, population, etc, it will never work. Either you'll slow the advantaged faction too much and it can't ever win, or you'll not slow it enough and it will never lose. Worse, perhaps, in the middle ground - if you can call it that - is a zone of pure randomness, where intangible factors that change from moment to moment result in largely random results. It's just a bad way to do things.

[Chuck Jager]

If folks can choose sides there will always be an imbalance. Especially if there are rewards going to folks based on wins. PGI tried changing the rewards to attract folks to the loosing sides, but we have seen how well this played out

I play FW because I like to min/max the builds and drop decks that lead to theoretically longer games.

[Zeroster]

I dont know if you just like to try to over-analyse things and thus feel as if you are more complex person or something.Its good to carry out some analysis but you should not lose the context. So are you suggesting there are 1000 matches being played in 8 hours? Changing the bar movement from fixed to variable will only make the matter worse.

It depends on the time. In european time zone, IS tend to lead massively but as US users log in, it tends to shift.

Biggest turn-off for FP, in my opinion, is that its waste of time for most people, ie. the payoff does not meet the effort, time to play. I think even if there is higher chance of losing, if the content was fun and interesting people would play it. Main off-putting aspect for non-unit players (like myself) is that there is serious lack of organisation which is the biggest factor for me to avoid FP. So why not introduce AI to give orders (such as defend point A, fall back to point B etc) so it brings some organisation to the team instead of everyone going on his own way. This could also make the feel of battlefield for the player which could be fun experience for some players I would suspect.

And if you are going to mix tiers, then there should be equal proportion on both teams so that if there is 2 tier1 players on one side there should be 2 on the other side. Otherwise, keep matches in the respective tiers only.

Tonnage reduction as means of balancing is really poor judgement by PGI. They should do some thorough thinking before coming up with a solution

[BLOOD WOLF]

ScarecrowES, on 21 December 2016 - 04:22 PM, said:

The issue is, really, that the current tug-of-war system is predisposed to putting one faction at max with even a tiny advantage in overall win percentage. It puts the disadvantaged side in a position where their only non-loss possibility comes in the form of that rally. And PGI's only recourse in "balancing" the tug-of-war under the current system is to place shackles on the advantaged faction to reduce the speed at which they're able to achieve that max.

You keep asserting that it is the tug of war system that is doing that and no evidence leads to that. That is the problem.

That is the Point of the tug of war, the more one side wins, the more pressure it puts on the other side.

This concept number one is not PGI's unique Idea. Hearsts of Iron 4 does this in a more complex way. When Pushing a front you have a tug of war that occurs and the more a side is losing the harder it is to push it back.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 21 December 2016 - 04:29 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

BLOOD WOLF, on 21 December 2016 - 04:18 PM, said:

No system would get past this. It all comes down the X variable of A side winning, and we do not know which side would win. I agree with your end conclusion, but Their is no solution as far as that is concerned, because you cant modify wins, that solely up to the matches being played.

something scarecrow does not include or even want to acknowledge. he said he outline it, but I already read his proposals and none of them solve the problem.

Exactly how DON'T they solve this problem? Or at least address them in such a way that they're completely mitigated and ineffectual? My system actually DOES, effectively, modify wins based on actual performance in the middle tug-of-war portion of the session.

This ensures that no small amount of imbalance between factions can result in a massive and irreversible swing to max as is the case under the current system.

It doesn't fix Clan/IS balance, and it doesn't force a population or skill redistribution... those all have to be addressed directly in their own spaces... but it does mitigate the effects of those on the meta-game and presents a game mode where results are extremely reflective of the actual match performance of both factions. It presents a nearly ideal platform from which to balance.

BLOOD WOLF, on 21 December 2016 - 04:26 PM, said:

You keep asserting that it is the tug of war system that is doing that and no evidence leads to that. That is the problem.

ALL evidence leads to that. It's an effing mathematical certainty. Math that's been clearly explained here. What are you struggling to understand?

BLOOD WOLF, on 21 December 2016 - 04:26 PM, said:

That is the Point of the tug of war, the more one side wins, the more pressure it puts on the other side.

This concept number one is not PGI's unique Idea. Hearsts of Iron 4 does this in a more complex way. When Pushing a front you have a tug of war that occurs and the more a side is losing the harder it is to push it back.

And here I think you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of how the system works.

[BLOOD WOLF]

you can play snide and condescending all you want but this attitude of barking at people who poke holes in your theory crafting shows you handle criticism worse than PGI, and two, probably don't want to acknowledge your system has flaws, the flaw is it doesn't solve the thing you are attempting to replace because you account for everything but can not account for who wins and at what time.

"This ensures that no small amount of imbalance between factions can result in a massive and irreversible swing to max as is the case under the current system."

Number one, the current system does not prevent an swing in the other direction, even given if one side is pushed to invasion. your asserting things with no foundation for a claim.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 21 December 2016 - 04:40 PM.

[HauptmanT]

Blood Wolf, he's arguing against you, and only you, not the system, he knows he lost the argument, ignore him.

"In a debate, slander becomes the tool of the loser" -- Socrates.

[BLOOD WOLF]

HauptmanT, on 21 December 2016 - 04:38 PM, said:

Blood Wolf, he's arguing against you, and only you, not the system, he knows he lost the argument, ignore him.

"In a debate, slander becomes the tool of the loser" -- Socrates.

will not be the end of these threads I assure you. More headaches to come.

I know, other people already poked their holes, but he seems to be interesting in responding only to me, as if I am the only one who made an objection.

they could make another system, I suppose, but I rather not waste time on something that is going to hit the same wall.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 21 December 2016 - 05:55 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

HauptmanT, on 21 December 2016 - 04:38 PM, said:

Blood Wolf, he's arguing against you, and only you, not the system, he knows he lost the argument, ignore him.

"In a debate, slander becomes the tool of the loser" -- Socrates.

Yeah, the problem with that is that Blood has already lost the argument. The function of the system is clear. It operates a certain way and there's no arguing that it doesn't. Blood Wolf is quite literally arguing that the system doesn't operate the way everyone agrees it does.

It's one thing to argue the SIGNIFICANCE of a fact. It's another thing to argue the fact itself. I'm happy to debate significance all day. But arguing the fact is stupid. Blood Wolf has a habit of trying to "poke holes" in math. Quite frankly, he hasn't... and for that matter CAN'T.

The facts are not in dispute, except by him, and it's pulling attention away from the debate on what to do, if anything about those facts.

You seem relatively new to the forums, so I'll give you a piece of advice... don't hitch your wagon to Blood Wolf in a debate. I've never seen a person dodge a forum ban more times than Blood.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 21 December 2016 - 04:47 PM.

[HauptmanT]

BLOOD WOLF, on 21 December 2016 - 04:41 PM, said:

will not be the end of these threads I assure you. More headaches to come.

I know, other people already poked their holes, but he seems to be interesting in responding only to me, as if I am the only one who made an objection.

they could make another system, I suppose, but I rather not waste time on something that is going to hit the same wall.

The wall can only be removed with incentive.

There is some incentive present, the rewards for gaining faction ranks. But that just isnt enough, as the grind is long.

As it stands, FW makes less c-bills than just playing QP. C-bills = more mechs, more toys. So if you want toys, grind em out in QP.

Now if they gave better rewards, like another class of 'special' mech, say Officer mechs, to go along with champion and hero, which gave like a 15% c-bill bonus (edit; that cost faction loyalty points), or just straight up gave you 1mc for every 100,000 c-bills in FW, then people would play it more.

I spent a lot of my life in MMOs. And most of that, raiding. Because to be the best you can be, you need the best gear. You get the best gear in raids. So there is the incentive. EQ (1) is still going strong with raiders, even though the solo or group game is crap and dead now. With incentives, people will play it.

ScarecrowES, on 21 December 2016 - 04:44 PM, said:

Yeah, the problem with that is that Blood has already lost the argument. The function of the system is clear. It operates a certain way and there's no arguing that it doesn't. Blood Wolf is quite literally arguing that the system doesn't operate the way everyone agrees it does.

It's one thing to argue the SIGNIFICANCE of a fact. It's another thing to argue the fact itself. I'm happy to debate significance all day. But arguing the fact is stupid. Blood Wolf has a habit of trying to "poke holes" in math. Quite frankly, he hasn't... and for that matter CAN'T.

The facts are not in dispute, except by him, and it's pulling attention away from the debate on what to do, if anything about those facts.

You seem relatively new to the forums, so I'll give you a piece of advice... don't hitch your wagon to Blood Wolf in a debate. I've never seen a person dodge a forum ban more times than Blood.

Thank you for proving my point.

Edited by HauptmanT, 21 December 2016 - 05:06 PM.

[Mystere]

HauptmanT, on 21 December 2016 - 04:03 PM, said:

Right now, if IS units come in at the end and roll the Clan PUGgles in the last hour, they can stop them from winning the planets with like 6 wins. If every IS unit planned their matches at the end, they could completely reverse it no matter how many PUG matches there were prior.

I don't know about you, but that sounds just as lame.

Again, let me reiterate:

Mystere, on 20 December 2016 - 09:06 PM, said:

In Hades' name, let's just have a real planetary campaign system already and none of these highly simplistic planetary invasion resolution methods.

[HauptmanT]

Mystere, on 21 December 2016 - 04:54 PM, said:

I don't know about you, but that sounds just as lame.

Again, let me reiterate:

Why does that sound lame. I explained it fully. You have puggers who dont care about planets, they just wanna play. And you have Units who do care about planets, and it gives them a smaller time-frame to focus on, no matter how many puggers are playing.

That is win/win for both types of players.

[HauptmanT]

Incentive continued;

Or follow in the footsteps of War Thunder, and allow a "Talisman" purchased with faction loyalty that you put on a mech of your choice for the 15% c-bill boost.

[ScarecrowES]

HauptmanT, on 21 December 2016 - 04:52 PM, said:

Thank you for proving my point.

Your point was that Blood had won an argument... that he was somehow right about... something. This is not the case. Blood is clearly and indisputably WRONG.

The tug-of-war system as currently implemented only requires a 30-win differential between factions to peg the needle at max for that faction. A 30-point win differential is extremely easy to achieve with only a tiny advantage in win percentage given the number of games played per session. Thus, the system will ALWAYS tend toward pegging out to one side or the other, regardless of the specific degree of intra-faction balance.

You CANNOT argue against this. The function of the system is not in dispute. It DOES work this way.

You can argue that making it so that one faction is always predisposed to win the tug-of-war is an intentional design choice. I could counter that by saying that PGI has worked steadily over the last week - introducing dozens of changes and 2 discrete hotfixes specifically to address this issue. It's clearly not intentional on their part.

You could say that it's a desirable result. I think most players, and PGI too, would argue that making it so that one faction is always in a position to win, regardless of their specific performance, is definitely not desirable. Given PGI's actions - that they're actively working against this result - I think it's safe to say they don't want it.

But no... you can't argue that the system works any way other than how it does. Those are facts, and they're very clear.

You also can't argue that even minor faction imbalances, regardless of the source of those imbalances, will predispose the advantaged faction to winning a session. This is basic statistics. The math is clear.

So at this point you have to ask what Blood's argument here even is... You say he's won something, except his statements are all FACTUALLY WRONG.

Now, you can imagine my exasperation here when I say, "the sky is blue," and he says "no it's not... sometimes it's grey. Ah HA! I poked holes in your argument about the color of the sky!" No... because the sky is NEVER grey. It's always blue.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 21 December 2016 - 05:09 PM.

[TLBFestus]

BLOOD WOLF, on 20 December 2016 - 07:37 PM, said:

This is nonesense. No correlation.

BLOOD WOLF, on 20 December 2016 - 09:30 PM, said:

This is really a non-issue that people are going to blow out of proportion.

BLOOD WOLF, on 20 December 2016 - 10:56 PM, said:

I was going to, but found that it is going to be a huge waste of time.

Besides the concept is to simple, and the op is convuluting it with numbers that don't mean much in the long run.

anyway, there is no correlation.


Its not, actually. That is why I won't bother wasting to much time.

lets take this to pre-scholl

Either side has a threshold to get to. Lets 100 for each side, and you can use any number really but their is a good reason they use a decimal rather than just whole numbers

3 matches kick off. side 1 wins twice. side wins 1. now we have a gain of +10 and a deficit of -10

Thats a really simply concept which the OP seems to make it seem more complex into making a problem when there isn't one.

any system of numbers as long as their is a finite limit on either side will hit the same wall. Unless you make it go forever

BLOOD WOLF, on 20 December 2016 - 11:11 PM, said:

It already does. That's the X variable. Matches won and matches lost, all that's needed to debunk your conclusion.

you fix is something that can already happen.

Nothing is wrong with the concept of Tug of war, they could have done squares or whatever they wanted.

BLOOD WOLF, on 20 December 2016 - 11:20 PM, said:

okay, that is one variable. Staying there requires winning and units and players don't always win, that is the idea of tug of war. One side can always push it back; Therefore your conclusions are flawed, becuase you are acting as if its just get to 30 and you win.

there is a threshold to push over, meaning there is about 20% that is just buffer. Doesn't mean that the I.S can not bring that down or even given the opportunity kick it back over.

People, people people. I've discovered that in order to truly understand BloodWolfs impeccable train of thought you have to put it through a translator that makes it easier to understand thinking that occurs on a higher plain than the ones the rest of us occupy.

It's called the BW GIGO Universal Translator;

For Instance, I run his first comment thru the GIGO;

Quote

"This is nonsense. No correlation."

And you get;

Quote

"Math is Stupid. Numbers upset me, therefore it's not Logical".

Since finding the BW GIGO Universal Translator, my life is a lot easier.

Edited by TLBFestus, 21 December 2016 - 05:14 PM.

[Mystere]

HauptmanT, on 21 December 2016 - 05:00 PM, said:

Why does that sound lame. I explained it fully. You have puggers who dont care about planets, they just wanna play. And you have Units who do care about planets, and it gives them a smaller time-frame to focus on, no matter how many puggers are playing.

That is win/win for both types of players.

I am saying the current system is just as lame as the original because they're both just counting wins and losses. I want a real campaign with cities and bases to take/defend and "chokepoints" that the invader needs to overcome before they move on to the "next" stage, wgat ever form that may be. Or in other words, I want more depth in CW.

Here is a highly abstract representation of what I am talking about.

[HauptmanT]

ScarecrowES, on 21 December 2016 - 05:08 PM, said:

The tug-of-war system as currently implemented only requires a 30-win differential between factions to peg the needle at max for that faction. A 30-point win differential is extremely easy to achieve with only a tiny advantage in win percentage given the number of games played per session. Thus, the system will ALWAYS tend toward pegging out to one side or the other, regardless of the specific degree of intra-faction balance.

You CANNOT argue against this. The function of the system is not in dispute. It DOES work this way.

No niether Blood nor I argued against that being the case (at least I didnt). We argued that is the case AND THAT THAT IS A GOOD THING!

It being down to 30 matches is good. In every conceivable way for the players who actually play this damn game. Regardless of how many people are playing, the people who care about whether or not the planets are won, do and can affect that. Changing the system to requiring people to focus on it for 8 hours at a time, in order to win a planet, will lead to burnout.

[HauptmanT]

Mystere, on 21 December 2016 - 05:14 PM, said:

I am saying the current system is just as lame as the original because they're both just counting wins and losses. I want a real campaign with cities and bases to take/defend and "chokepoints" that the invader needs to overcome before they move on to the "next" stage, wgat ever form that may be. Or in other words, I want more depth in CW.

Here is a highly abstract representation of what I am talking about.

That would require a completely different game, built as such from the ground up. Not an added on game mode.

Those games are out there, and could be cool, but how big are they? They dont draw huge crowds, to be honest. Few people have that much time to make sure they get what they want in a video game... so simple games, for simple people, require simple systems.

Trust me I'd love some EVE like galaxy in the Battletech universe... but this game could never be like that.