134 replies to this topic

[Lehmund]

Having though about it more and read through some if this thread and I think we can work with the current system as is though perhaps reduce the % won per match to 2% instead of 3.33% just to make it more games to be won in diff before a flip or counter flip.

Mech balance fixes can iterate to make every mech viable options.

However, I did have I a lore friendly idea that could help with Clan vs IS balance.

We know that Clans are more powerful in game as they were in lore at the invasion start.
We know from lore that IS we're able to update and consolidate and ultimately stop the invasion (let's forget the specific lore reasons for a minute...)

What neat thing PGI could do is implement a progressive penalty system, a simple one, that would be applied to clans based on how many planets conquered. That could be reduction of tonnage limits, mechs that start off slightly damaged in drops, whatever.... So that as the Invasion progresses, clans find it more and more challenging to defeat IS up to a point where it can go the other way. This would organically create an invasion stopping point in the map. Heck you could give Clan tech full power and only allow Mercs on IS side to start if it works well etc..

Combine that with special systems giving or denying access to specific mechs on either side if captured, the occasional trigger of events that would encourage Mercs to change faction allegiance etc...and things could get really interesting for all involved real quick.

With an auto balancing system like this, the current Tug of War system would work out fine...

[HauptmanT]

Anyways guys... Im'ma go blow some stuff up now. See ya in game!

[BLOOD WOLF]

Lehmund, on 21 December 2016 - 05:20 PM, said:

Having though about it more and read through some if this thread and I think we can work with the current system as is though perhaps reduce the % won per match to 2% instead of 3.33% just to make it more games to be won in diff before a flip or counter flip.

You would still end up with the same problem that the OP is getting at, or at least what I thought he was getting at, but he keeps switching the position.

Let me make an example. If both teams started at 0 points and there was a cap of 500 points and both teams earn 10 per victory. Over time the time that wins the most will just climb further and further ahead.

same scenario, but this time earning a win decreases the other teams points. The team that wins the most again, will reach that cap first.

last scenario. Both teams have a goal of of a 500 point threshold from the point of 0 in a tug of war, each win tugs on the rope. Once again, over enough time the winning side will pull it to theirs, despite winning only a bit ahead of the curve.

Also keep in mind that the system is not static, and in a tug of war every win and especially in succession would put the enemy team closer and you further from your goal. Its the equivalent of have a distance of 1000m to race and every 20 you get pulled back 30. or you make 50 but get pulled back 30.

If you are near the end, getting pulled back is no big deal, but if halfway it can be bad, and if you are at the beginning it make be you never see the end.

All this is given that enough time passes with little interruption, however none of this means that anything is for certain. it could be that none of this is the case. Or it could stay deadlocked given the chance

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 21 December 2016 - 06:21 PM.

[Chuck Jager]

It does not matter if somebody thinks their idea is valid, even if it is.

What matters in the present not historical framework is if you can sell it to a buying public.

Please note most people do not like math or more than 3 sentences without an obvious good and evil

Edited by Chuck Jager, 21 December 2016 - 07:04 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

HauptmanT, on 21 December 2016 - 05:15 PM, said:

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.

THIS is fair debate. You CAN argue that the system working the way it does is fine.

I think most people would argue against that, given the high volume of complaints against the ROFL Stomps in the tug-of-war and PGIs actions against that... however, it's a legit argument. Given the nature of the mode, some degree of progression is necessary.

I could even agree, to some extent, that the ability to move the bar by a decent amount in few games is even desirable in certain conditions... mostly in the red zone where win conditions are decided, which is why I kept this mechanism in my proposed changes.

But ultimately, the thing that really kills the current system is that it allows for pegging the tug-of-war at max with very little actual success. At the current win percentage of the Clans... 57%... you peg the bar out in 300-350 matches. Guaranteed. That's a dominate win, one in which the opposing side has no real hope of overcoming, with a paltry win margin in individual matches. 57% is nothing. It's on the verge of being statistically insignificant given the sample size - meaning it COULD come down to little more than the unit skill distribution per faction and not tech balance, as PGI has asserted. But with such a small win margin, the Clans are destined to dominate... or if the IS is ever the advantaged side, they will.

There is little chance of the tug-of-war ever being anything but a stead march from neutral to max for whichever side is advantaged at the time under the current system. The most PGI could do was dial back the speed that a given faction could reach the end. And that's really not fun at all for either side to know that the end result is largely predetermined.

So, for me, the purpose of this topic is to point out just HOW predetermined it is. To show that, as long as either side in the fight has any advantage at all, even if that advantage is very small, the end result is a foregone conclusion. There is no "tug." Only a march. And from there... once we acknowledge how the system works... do we want to do anything about that?

[MauttyKoray]

+1 for the thought process of OP and actual thought on the process of how FW Tug-of-War is calculated.

The question is how they actually work the math. Whether its an overall percentage of matches or if it does in fact stay constant.

I feel like the OP's breakdown is worth looking into because it could be relevant to the 'performance' aspect. Even if losses on one side are 'rolls', if the higher skilled players keep the win percentage high enough, one side could perform consistently while the majority of the other side performs below average and still be winning.

[BLOOD WOLF]

MauttyKoray, on 21 December 2016 - 08:56 PM, said:

+1 for the thought process of OP and actual thought on the process of how FW Tug-of-War is calculated. The question is how they actually work the math. Whether its an overall percentage of matches or if it does in fact stay constant. I feel like the OP's breakdown is worth looking into because it could be relevant to the 'performance' aspect. Even if losses on one side are 'rolls', if the higher skilled players keep the win percentage high enough, one side could perform consistently while the majority of the other side performs below average and still be winning.

He gets -5 for the logical disconnection.

All one side needs to do is win the majority of conflicts, but if the other side starts to win the majority of conflicts it can go either way. The thing he doesn't like is that if one side starts to lose more and get pushed back, they in theory have to win more games than they possibly could. That's not the concepts fault, that's not the MM's fault, the fault is nowhere except for the dynamic of how the matches are being played and won.

There is no getting around this no matter how much he tries, he can set up whatever system he likes and all it takes is for one side to gain the advantage. What debunks his whole analysis and it was a poor one at that, is if the matches start turning around, rather the IS is now able to at least keep the bar near the middle. There are tons of variables he is not accounting for, but at least we know anyone can post anything on the forum, color it with walls of text to look like its getting somewhere and you might snag some people, and get them to see something that is not there.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 21 December 2016 - 09:38 PM.

[Uncle Stickyfinger]

The thing that grinds my gears is that because 4.1 is an all-or-nothing proposition, a 57% success rate is netting one side 100% of the progress. It's too bad because it's absolute fuel for the perception that the clan is an unstoppable juggernaut in FW. That perception is impacting the population negatively.

Because of that, I think the mechanic is causing unintended harm to 4.1 .

[Duke Nedo]

@OP: The reason I criticize you is that this is nothing new. The mechanism is capped at 0% and at 100%, and the progression is linear in between. This is the way it has always been. You are re-inventing the wheel, stating the obvious and blowing your horn about it.

The reason I bother to reply is that your title is misleading and some less insightful clan players will use this as an argument for that there is no tech imbalance and be vocal about it... it's all an illusion because someone used school math to prove this on the forums. That's nonsense. In fact, nothing related to FW should ever be used as a basis for tech balancing because FW-populations are small and heterogeneous. Only competitive matches should be used.

As for what this thread is actually about, it's about the planet transfer mechanism in FW. That's the topic. Now we fight for 30 zones instead of 13 so it's actually harder to turn the tide now than it used to be. The real change lies in how games are spawned. The zones are not tracked individually anymore because there is only one queue so there is no need.

If you want to change the way planets are transferred I would not bother with the tug-of-war mechanism. It's simple but robust. I would rather work with the game modes that are spawned. If you want to make it harder to conclude a transfer and help the defenders to come back, then make sure that the defending side only spawns defense/counter-attack and help the defending side in these game modes by whatever you need. You could work with scouting bonuses, extra turrets, quicker respawns or whatever. That would be a more direct way to deal with it rather than making some convoluted design with non-linearity or something else that is unintuitive to the players.

And don't post misleading stuff about tech balance. If clans win every planet, continue to do so after getting tonnage penalties and nearly all mechs in the competitive matches are clan mechs, then there is in fact a tech imbalance that needs to be addressed for the health of the game.

[Dogstar]

One way to improve the design is to reduce the number of matches played. A 30 win lead over 100 games is difficult to achieve whereas a 30 win lead over 1000+ games is trivial to achieve.

So to improve the design there should be a limit on the number of matches played per planet instead of the time.

It's hard to determine the number but I figure something like 150-300.

This would mean that planets rotate quite frequently and that sometimes the result is inconclusive - just like real warfare

Edited by Dogstar, 22 December 2016 - 02:02 AM.

[Mystere]

Duke Nedo, on 22 December 2016 - 12:12 AM, said:

If you want to change the way planets are transferred I would not bother with the tug-of-war mechanism. It's simple but robust. I would rather work with the game modes that are spawned. If you want to make it harder to conclude a transfer and help the defenders to come back, then make sure that the defending side only spawns defense/counter-attack and help the defending side in these game modes by whatever you need. You could work with scouting bonuses, extra turrets, quicker respawns or whatever. That would be a more direct way to deal with it rather than making some convoluted design with non-linearity or something else that is unintuitive to the players.

Alternatively, PGI should take a step further and remove this highly simplified linear progression. Heck, even a tree-based graph would suffice as an abstraction of a planetary-level map. Do something like this:




Imagine that the central node is the capital city, the nodes attached to it as major cities or installations, and the outer nodes as lesser cities and/or installations. Also, each planet can have its own unique "map". Planetary invasions proceed as follows:

• To capture a major city or installation, the invading force first has to capture all the outer territories. In the meantime, the invaders are constantly facing counterattacks (presumably launched from the major cities) on those outer territories they have already captured.
  
• To capture the capital, the invading force has to first capture all the major territories. In the meantime, the invaders are constantly facing counterattacks (presumably from the capital) on those major cities/installations.

In addition, the "chokepoints" on the map (i.e. major areas) can be reserved by 12-person teams who will receive an alert when it's time to defend or attack. That by itself allows for some strategic elements.

Yes, it's a different conversation. But, someone needs to lead the way.

HauptmanT, on 21 December 2016 - 05:20 PM, said:

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

Oh, if only we can get that. But I'd be happy enough to move away from this linear thingy we now have.

Edited by Mystere, 22 December 2016 - 08:19 AM.

[Fox the Apprentice]

I feel the issue is as follows:
When one side wins 51% of the games, they can peg the tug-of-war at 100% if there are a large number of games (there only needs to be an imbalance of 30 games). This leads to the appearance of domination, even if things were relatively balanced.

Why not just switch to a percentage-based system? 52% of the wins would be 52% on the tug-of-war. Easy to tell at a first glance.

HauptmanT, on 21 December 2016 - 03:19 PM, said:

[...]
Your idea of "dominating the tug of war" is what makes the campaign dynamic.

If we changed the rules to a % based system like say, you must win 80% of matches, then absolutely nothing would ever happen to the map, Since you'd be required to win 80% of matches, which would not be consistently possible (relatively). Planets changing hands would be a rarity.

Don't make it 80%, then. Reduce it until planets changing hands is at the right amount of commonality.

HauptmanT, on 21 December 2016 - 03:19 PM, said:

Now couple it with tech difference; If it's much easier for Clans to win that 80% because of tech balance, then you'd end up with Clans winning planets occasionally, and IS NEVER winning planets back. Simply because the disadvantage they start with would never allow them that sort of win rate.
[...]

And we can all clearly see that clans are winning matches at X% without needing to be into the game enough to read the forums/Russ' Twitter posts. This reduces the current system of people looking at the 100% wins that appear to be happening and running to clan side.

The same thing happens either way, but in a % based system, there is visibility of the imbalance.

Also, FIX THE IMBALANCE if there is one. Don't cover it up by saying "Maybe the underdog (currently IS, though it has been clan in the past) will get lucky 60 times and actually be able to take a planet back" and try to sell it as a feature...

IMHO, the imbalance is the placement of the top competitive teams rather than tech differences.

ScarecrowES, on 21 December 2016 - 04:08 PM, said:

I outlined the system for this last page.
[...]

So, if I understand correctly:
If your only available play time is after a reset, it matters less than the games just before a reset? Groups that are able to hold all their play time till closer to the end will dominate those who got their time in early, because each win will matter more.

I don't like this system, I'd prefer a straight percent.


I'm also mighty sick of the ad-hominems. Please try to stay focused on an ID of the problem and a solution suggestion rather than pointing fingers and questioning intelligence.

Edited by Fox the Apprentice, 22 December 2016 - 08:29 AM.

[ScarecrowES]

BLOOD WOLF, on 21 December 2016 - 09:33 PM, said:

He gets -5 for the logical disconnection.

All one side needs to do is win the majority of conflicts, but if the other side starts to win the majority of conflicts it can go either way. The thing he doesn't like is that if one side starts to lose more and get pushed back, they in theory have to win more games than they possibly could. That's not the concepts fault, that's not the MM's fault, the fault is nowhere except for the dynamic of how the matches are being played and won.

There is no getting around this no matter how much he tries, he can set up whatever system he likes and all it takes is for one side to gain the advantage. What debunks his whole analysis and it was a poor one at that, is if the matches start turning around, rather the IS is now able to at least keep the bar near the middle. There are tons of variables he is not accounting for, but at least we know anyone can post anything on the forum, color it with walls of text to look like its getting somewhere and you might snag some people, and get them to see something that is not there.

What the bloody hell are you talking about? Have you read any of the posts in this topic, or have you literally been ****-posting this entire time? I can't imagine, after what you've written in this reply alone, that you have even an ounce of understanding of what we're talking about.

Uncle Stickyfinger, on 21 December 2016 - 10:24 PM, said:

The thing that grinds my gears is that because 4.1 is an all-or-nothing proposition, a 57% success rate is netting one side 100% of the progress. It's too bad because it's absolute fuel for the perception that the clan is an unstoppable juggernaut in FW. That perception is impacting the population negatively.

Because of that, I think the mechanic is causing unintended harm to 4.1 .

And this is exactly the point. In fact, the win percentage rate could actually be lower, depending on the number of games played per session, and the result would still be an absolute stomp on the board.

All the talk about balancing IS vs Clan is moot if even the slightest imbalance results in decisive and lopsided victories.

[ScarecrowES]

Duke Nedo, on 22 December 2016 - 12:12 AM, said:

@OP: The reason I criticize you is that this is nothing new. The mechanism is capped at 0% and at 100%, and the progression is linear in between. This is the way it has always been. You are re-inventing the wheel, stating the obvious and blowing your horn about it.

The reason I bother to reply is that your title is misleading and some less insightful clan players will use this as an argument for that there is no tech imbalance and be vocal about it... it's all an illusion because someone used school math to prove this on the forums. That's nonsense. In fact, nothing related to FW should ever be used as a basis for tech balancing because FW-populations are small and heterogeneous. Only competitive matches should be used.

As for what this thread is actually about, it's about the planet transfer mechanism in FW. That's the topic. Now we fight for 30 zones instead of 13 so it's actually harder to turn the tide now than it used to be. The real change lies in how games are spawned. The zones are not tracked individually anymore because there is only one queue so there is no need.

If you want to change the way planets are transferred I would not bother with the tug-of-war mechanism. It's simple but robust. I would rather work with the game modes that are spawned. If you want to make it harder to conclude a transfer and help the defenders to come back, then make sure that the defending side only spawns defense/counter-attack and help the defending side in these game modes by whatever you need. You could work with scouting bonuses, extra turrets, quicker respawns or whatever. That would be a more direct way to deal with it rather than making some convoluted design with non-linearity or something else that is unintuitive to the players.

And don't post misleading stuff about tech balance. If clans win every planet, continue to do so after getting tonnage penalties and nearly all mechs in the competitive matches are clan mechs, then there is in fact a tech imbalance that needs to be addressed for the health of the game.

I'll ignore where you have obvious misunderstandings with the way the new system works... even a casual glance at the new system should help you understand why many of the statements you've just made aren't right. But that doesn't matter much.

What I WILL address is the last point.

Players have a misconception about Clan/IS balance that is based around the fact that... now that it's only Clan vs IS matches... Clans are completely dominating FW. People think that because the Clans have kept the tug-of-war pegged at max in every session and won that the Clans must be ridiculously OP. After all... if they weren't so overwhelmingly powerful, the IS would be doing better in tug-of-wars, right?

Well, unfortunately that's patently wrong. The Clans' overwhelming success in the tug-of-war is due almost entirely to the design failings of the tug-of-war system itself. Clan tech is not significantly out-performing the IS in matches. The Clans are not winning a significantly larger percentage of matches than the IS. PGI has already confirmed that the tug-of-war results do NOT reflect how each side is actually performing in matches.

The reason the tug-of-war has pegged at max and stayed there is because the design of the system lends itself to this result. Any imbalance, no matter how small, will tend to result in a one-sided stomp. Being that the Clans have enjoyed a skill advantage since the start of 4.1 (with a significant skill differential, according to PGI), this alone can account for why the Clans have steamrolled the IS... irrespective of tech balancing which we know plays some role here.

So the premise of my original post and the topic title are 100% correct. The tendency for the tug-of-war to be completely one-sided in 4.1 is absolutely a design fail... NOT a tech balance fail. Any imbalance irrespective of tech would produce the same result... population differences, skill differences, etc. And so long as the system is NOT changed, the results will always be the same. The most PGI would be able to hope for in "balancing" the FW conflict would be to reduce the speed at which the advantaged side can accumulate their 30-win differential that there is actually some possibility that they can't accumulate that amount over an 8-hour period.

At that point, we're not even talking about a "tug-of-war." It means one side is always destined to be the loser whose only hope is slowing down the winner enough that they can't achieve their victory in the time alotted. Thus, one side can always win... the best the other can hope for is simply not losing. This isn't fair to either side.

[Duke Nedo]

Now you're just arrogant and annoying. Not half as smart as you think, and other people are not half as stupid as you think.

Most people here know how percentage and addition works. It's something we all learned in school. So what? We all understand how tug-of-war works. We all know that FW should not be used as means to balance factions. I wrote is many times here, FW only matters for the star map and the star map doesn't matter at all. That said, the advantage needed is not quite as tiny as you say because 1000 games are not played per planet window. Go count, exaggerate less.

In any case, it's irrelevant. You can change to any other system you like, and then you also need to change the winning conditions accordingly and the faction that wins most games will still win the planets in one way or the other. You can tune any system to give more or less frequent transfers. Make it very frequent and you might see IS staring to win 40% of the planets while clans take 60%, if you make it slow then clans will take all planets again (if we disregard tonnage balancing going on). Observe the frequent planet swapping long enough and clans get all planets again. If you make lots of draws, IS will never get a planet again. In the end you will have changed nothing of significance. The faction that is strongest and wins the most will get the planets, as intended.

Did you watch competitive games? That's the proper place where you'll see the faction imbalance. Clan mechs are almost exclusively used, now after the UAC nerf while we are waiting for a PPC/Gauss nerf, I expect clan mechs to be 100% used in competitive matches. Arguing that there is no significant tech advantage for clans it where you are wrong, and all players that play this game successfully knows very well that there is a tech advantage for clans. That's the good thing with the leaderboards, I can see your stats.