134 replies to this topic

[HellJumper]

Novakaine, on 20 December 2016 - 10:05 PM, said:

We need a real campaign.

MW5 is going to do that... or so we hope

[Duke Nedo]

There is also a match log, clans win nearly every game. But that obviously has nothing to do with balance as usual.

[naterist]

imma poke a massive hole in your theory op, if its the sliders fault, and its so easy to go either way right off the bat, why hasnt the inner sphere won a single tug of war yet? would seem like both sides have an equal chance to win in this situation, but IS hasnt won a single planet yet.

Edited by naterist, 20 December 2016 - 10:29 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Yeonne Greene, on 20 December 2016 - 09:33 PM, said:

Again, I do not think it is the overall strategic game causing the complaints. It is that, within a single match, one team has a starting advantage more often than not and it is resulting in lopsided matches that are not fun to play. If the individual matches weren't routs as often as they are, there would be far less complaints even if one team was still winning at the higher level meta-game, which is entirely irrelevant.

I'd argue this point, as the higher-level meta-game is precisely the point of Faction Play. It's less about what happens in individual matches and more about what happens on the galaxy map.

Granted, I'm not at all discounting that matches have to be both fair AND fun, simply that the meta-game is extremely important to this mode. In fact, it's EVERYTHING to this mode. And given all of the things tied up in the meta-game... including mode selection, it's absolutely necessary to make sure that works.

Now, players are exaggerating Clan superiority in win percentage... PGI has confirmed that it's not as unbalanced as people seem to think. Russ says the win rate for Clans is only 57%... a far cry from what people are claiming. Under the current system, 57% is a stomp. That's more than enough to peg the needle to max and hold it there after only about 300-350 matches. That's nothing.

Not only does that mean players cycle through any mode that's not Invasion early in the 8-hour session, but that pretty much every match thereafter, right up until the last few minutes before cease-fire is pointless. It also means that, even with a win percentage that's hardly significant, let alone dominating, the Clans are still all-but guaranteed to seize the planets involved in the session.

And unfortunately, we're trying to figure out Clan vs IS balance... population balance, skill balance, tonnage balance, etc... based on this idea that we don't want to have the needle pegged at max all the time. Unfortunately, that's built right into the system as a core design flaw. There's no happy middle under this system. It's like trying to steer a car that can only go 100% left or 100% right.

[ScarecrowES]

Duke Nedo, on 20 December 2016 - 10:26 PM, said:

There is also a match log, clans win nearly every game. But that obviously has nothing to do with balance as usual.

naterist, on 20 December 2016 - 10:29 PM, said:

imma poke a massive hole in your theory op, if its the sliders fault, and its so easy to go either way right off the bat, why hasnt the inner sphere won a single tug of war yet? would seem like both sides have an equal chance to win in this situation, but IS hasnt won a single planet yet.

Already addressed... as I said, even the tiniest imbalance will result in a massive swing to 100%. First "every match" is a massive exaggeration - PGI confirms it's nowhere near that. Since the Clan side is winning 57% of matches, at that rate Clan victory is a foregone conclusion after only about 300 matches. As I said, victory is all-but guaranteed for whichever side has the advantage... be it from tech imbalance, population imbalance, skill imbalance... doesn't matter.

[Y E O N N E]

ScarecrowES, on 20 December 2016 - 10:30 PM, said:

I'd argue this point, as the higher-level meta-game is precisely the point of Faction Play. It's less about what happens in individual matches and more about what happens on the galaxy map.

But you don't actually play the meta-game. The results of the meta-game are just a record of how you are doing in your combat encounters, and not even an accurate one as you point out. There's little to no feedback into the combat encounters from having better performance in the meta-game. As such, it is irrelevant. A number on the page, and nothing more.

That has been one of the complaints about FW since its early days; that it doesn't feed back into the matches. That's what people want when they say "owning planets should have consequences," not free MC.

Quote

Now, players are exaggerating Clan superiority in win percentage... PGI has confirmed that it's not as unbalanced as people seem to think. Russ says the win rate for Clans is only 57%... a far cry from what people are claiming. Under the current system, 57% is a stomp. That's more than enough to peg the needle to max and hold it there after only about 300-350 matches. That's nothing.

I bet the Clan win percentage changes dramatically depending on the mode. It's hard to glean anything useful from a blanket 57%, we need to know specifics so we can really deduce where the advantage is.

Quote

And unfortunately, we're trying to figure out Clan vs IS balance... population balance, skill balance, tonnage balance, etc... based on this idea that we don't want to have the needle pegged at max all the time. Unfortunately, that's built right into the system as a core design flaw. There's no happy middle under this system. It's like trying to steer a car that can only go 100% left or 100% right.

Certainly muddies the water a bit, yup.

[ScarecrowES]

Yeonne Greene, on 20 December 2016 - 10:43 PM, said:

But you don't actually play the meta-game. The results of the meta-game are just a record of how you are doing in your combat encounters, and not even an accurate one as you point out. There's little to no feedback into the combat encounters from having better performance in the meta-game. As such, it is irrelevant. A number on the page, and nothing more.

That has been one of the complaints about FW since its early days; that it doesn't feed back into the matches. That's what people want when they say "owning planets should have consequences," not free MC.



I bet the Clan win percentage changes dramatically depending on the mode. It's hard to glean anything useful from a blanket 57%, we need to know specifics so we can really deduce where the advantage is.



Certainly muddies the water a bit, yup.

I think we're largely on the same page here. I'd add that, historically, the most successful units playing FW have been the ones that play the meta-game exceptionally well. While I'd agree that most players wouldn't even consider the meta-game something to concern themselves over, there's little doubt that the units that do best in the mode DO concern themselves over it.

Ultimately, my greatest point here is that from a design perspective, the tug-of-war system is SO thoroughly flawed that it's completely useless as a balance aid. That the needle is pegged 100% to one side and that the IS can't win a single session isn't the least bit surprising when you actually look at how the system works. So long as the players playing on the Clan side have any advantage at all - no matter how small - their victory is assured.

And since Russ says that 4 of the top 5 units are all Clan, even this skill gap is enough to push the needle all the way to the Clan side, irrespective of any tech advantage.

If we hope to have any Clan vs IS balance in the mode, the base design of the tug-of-war needs to be fixed so that both sides CAN have the possibility of success in the meta-game (given that this is the metric PGI is looking at).

[BLOOD WOLF]

HellJumper, on 20 December 2016 - 09:51 PM, said:

then why not counter the op in a similar manner he has done? (providing numbers etc to say this is a non issue or has no correlation or is a non sense) that can help you a lot in my opinion

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.

ScarecrowES, on 20 December 2016 - 10:51 PM, said:

Ultimately, my greatest point here is that from a design perspective, the tug-of-war system is SO thoroughly flawed that it's completely useless as a balance aid.

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

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 20 December 2016 - 11:02 PM.

[naterist]

ok, so if youve admited balance is off a smidge, and its essentailly possible for both sides to win as the slider gives each side an equal, though strange, route to winning.

so....... the solution is fixing is tech and making the mercs spread out evenly? may i hazard that your even supportive of limiting low skill pugs ability to get into a faction match in the first place, to stop the inflation of matches?

nothing new is being added to the foruym wide conversation then. i the slider is the problem, ok, but youve admitted its equal chances for both sides and the main cause of the flaw is what the IS has been saying it is this whole time. glad to hear you agree with us. now go take a davion contract.

[BearFlag]

ScarecrowES, on 20 December 2016 - 10:12 PM, said:

Unfortunately, with the current system, the result is largely predetermined for the faction which currently has any advantage over the other - no matter how minor. In this case the Clans have that advantage. The system is fundamentally set up to expound on that advantage. And by nature of the tendency for the system to peg the needle at maximum for the advantaged faction, we're completely unable to play through any of the other modes or engage in a real tug of war.

If you wanted to "draw it out" over the eight hour period, there are certainly ways to do it. One method would be the uphill/downhill approach. Say you have a 200 point line centered on zero at phase start. Instead of a fixed increment, actually apply the multiplier to the enemy's amount of control. We'll use 3%. First victory, the victor advances three points. Second victory, enemy control is down to 97. Three percent of 97 = 2.91 advance. And so on.

So it gets harder for the winning side to advance, easier for the losing side to gain ground back.

At 50/150, a victory on the leading side advances 1.5 points. A victory by the trailing side advances 4.5.

My first sense is these numbers are overly potent. But with adjustment, you get the idea. To cross the threshhold of capture, the victor would have to win a bunch. And trailing side would not be able to just "flip" the planet since they have an "uphill" side too.

(Whether players would consider such a system "fair" is another story.)

Edited by BearFlag, 20 December 2016 - 11:07 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

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.

I understand that concepts are often difficult for you, but do try to keep up.

We're talking simple math here. There's no trickery and no convolution.

Regardless of the number of matches played in a session, or the average win percentage of each faction, the only thing required for the needle to get pegged to maximum is a 30-game win differential between factions. That's it.

THIS is why the needle swings so quickly to one side and stays there.

And this will continue to happen even if balance is about as perfect as you can make it - as even the slightest advantage will cause an inevitable full swing to max for the advantaged side. It doesn't matter if that advantage is from tech tree imbalance, population, skill, whatever.

This is completely irrefutable. But by all means, you're welcome to try.

[Y E O N N E]

ScarecrowES, on 20 December 2016 - 10:51 PM, said:

If we hope to have any Clan vs IS balance in the mode, the base design of the tug-of-war needs to be fixed so that both sides CAN have the possibility of success in the meta-game (given that this is the metric PGI is looking at).

We are on the same page, yes, though I would add that if PGI is using the FW meta-game results as their balancing measure and not the match-to-match performance, we are in even deeper trouble than we thought.

[BLOOD WOLF]

ScarecrowES, on 20 December 2016 - 11:02 PM, said:

Regardless of the number of matches played in a session, or the average win percentage of each faction, the only thing required for the needle to get pegged to maximum is a 30-game win differential between factions. That's it.

THIS is why the needle swings so quickly to one side and stays there.

And thats not a flaw. your also not equating to the fact that matches can go either way. Also when that 30 is reached, it doesn't stop as far as I am aware of. So the enemy need only to push it back.

your criticisms rely on an account of not getting all the facts. Its not a static system, Matches are the X variable.

There is a difference of get to 30 and you win, as opposed to keep it at 30 and you win.

You create issues from non-issue, like what you did with ED. All your conclusions are flawed becuase you don't take into account the variables.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 20 December 2016 - 11:09 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

naterist, on 20 December 2016 - 10:59 PM, said:

ok, so if youve admited balance is off a smidge, and its essentailly possible for both sides to win as the slider gives each side an equal, though strange, route to winning.

so....... the solution is fixing is tech and making the mercs spread out evenly? may i hazard that your even supportive of limiting low skill pugs ability to get into a faction match in the first place, to stop the inflation of matches?

nothing new is being added to the foruym wide conversation then. i the slider is the problem, ok, but youve admitted its equal chances for both sides and the main cause of the flaw is what the IS has been saying it is this whole time. glad to hear you agree with us. now go take a davion contract.

Well, I'd suggest first and foremost to fix the tug-of-war system so that it can actually swing in both directions. Gotta give both sides a fair shot at getting the bar to move... or at the very least make it so that the disadvantaged side can actually prevent the needle from pegging out at max for the advantaged side. This means moving away from a fixed, static amount the peg moved for every win.

I've actually outlined ways that the system could work better... where a faction could absolutely lose a match, and still not have the peg move against them.

Once you fix the meta-game... the tug-of-war... the areas in which your game is imbalanced should be MUCH more clear. Right now, it's impossible to say, since PGI's efforts are focused 100% into making the needle not max out so quickly. They haven't quite figured out that they can't stop it entirely due to their core design.

With a 57% win percentage... that's not that great. Skill gaps alone can account for that. We simply don't know as long as we're trying to balance both factions by how they're performing in the meta-game.

Yeonne Greene, on 20 December 2016 - 11:07 PM, said:

We are on the same page, yes, though I would add that if PGI is using the FW meta-game results as their balancing measure and not the match-to-match performance, we are in even deeper trouble than we thought.

If you've been following their efforts since the 13th, you'd note that this is indeed the case. Currently, all efforts are focused on reducing how quickly the peg gets maxxed out.

[BLOOD WOLF]

ScarecrowES, on 20 December 2016 - 11:09 PM, said:

Well, I'd suggest first and foremost to fix the tug-of-war system so that it can actually swing in both directions. Gotta give both sides a fair shot at getting the bar to move....

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.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 20 December 2016 - 11:14 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

ScarecrowES, on 20 December 2016 - 11:10 PM, said:

If you've been following their efforts since the 13th, you'd note that this is indeed the case. Currently, all efforts are focused on reducing how quickly the peg gets maxxed out.

I honestly haven't been following it closely until today, since I don't play FW that much, but the effects of FW are destined to have an effect on what PGI does to IS/Clan balance, so now I'm invested.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Yeonne Greene, on 20 December 2016 - 11:13 PM, said:

I honestly haven't been following it closely until today, since I don't play FW that much, but the effects of FW are destined to have an effect on what PGI does to IS/Clan balance, so now I'm invested.

Thats true, and it has nothing to do with the concept in this thread. according to scarecrow and he said it "give both sides a fair shot". That doesn't come with the removal of the tug-of war and the implementation of another system

[ScarecrowES]

BLOOD WOLF, on 20 December 2016 - 11:08 PM, said:

And thats not a flaw. your also not equating to the fact that matches can go either way. Also when that 30 is reached, it doesn't stop as far as I am aware of. So the enemy need only to push it back.

your criticisms rely on an account of not getting all the facts. Its not a static system, Matches are the X variable.

There is a difference of get to 30 and you win, as opposed to keep it at 30 and you win.

You create issues from non-issue, like what you did with ED. All your conclusions are flawed becuase you don't take into account the variables.

What variables, exactly, are not accounted for?

Get to 30-win differential and stay there = guaranteed win regardless of number of matches played or overall win percentage.

Once you DO peg the needle at 100, you merely have to maintain an overall positive win-loss ratio to keep it there. And of course you WOULD have a positive win-loss ratio if you had managed to accumulate a 30-win differential in the first place.

I'm really not sure what you're having trouble with. In my experience with you here on the forums, we all understand that statistics are not your strong suit... but c'mon man. These concepts really aren't hard.

[BLOOD WOLF]

ScarecrowES, on 20 December 2016 - 11:16 PM, said:

Get to 30-win differential and stay there

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.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 20 December 2016 - 11:23 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

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.

The Clan has won every session since update 4.1 was activated. Once the tug-of-war has reached the Invasion zone against the IS, it has NEVER swung out of it. The disadvantaged side has YET to be able to swing the bar the other way.

What exactly are you talking about here? Are we having the same conversation? I'm talking about Faction Warfare... planetary tug-of-war.

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.

I'm literally NOT acting like that. You have a reading comprehension problem.