134 replies to this topic

[BLOOD WOLF]

ScarecrowES, on 20 December 2016 - 11:21 PM, said:

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.

Not an inherent problem of tug of war.

you have yet to point to anything that pegs tug of war as an inherent problem to the current problem of clans winning. So far all you managed to to was strawmann it.

It went to the Invasion becuase they were beaten back to it. They could have won to the Clans invasion, but they didn't.

Them not being able to swing the bar over has nothing to do with the concept of Tug-of war.

you brought up an inherent flaw in the system but keep pointing to everything but, and then had the nerve to act as if I didn't understand what you are talking about.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 20 December 2016 - 11:29 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Its Clan IS balance, that is the problem, not tug of war. There Thread solved.

Keep note, that the clans where dominating Pre-4.1 as well.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 20 December 2016 - 11:31 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

BLOOD WOLF, on 20 December 2016 - 11:25 PM, said:

Not an inherent problem of tug of war.

Are you trolling me right now? It's the very definition of an inherent problem with tug of war.

You're the sort of person who will walk into a science classroom where the teacher is trying to explain why light scattering off oxygen molecules in the air causes the sky to look blue... and then will argue that when you look out the window you see clouds, which are grey, and thus his science is flawed.

[BLOOD WOLF]

ScarecrowES, on 20 December 2016 - 11:30 PM, said:

It's the very definition of an inherent problem with tug of war.

the only person trolling or making fallacious threads is you. How is clans winning which has been a constant problem of this game and has been so before tug of war, has anything to do with them winning now?

If we had 6 hexes on a planet, the Clans would win majority. No concept they come up with has clans losing a majority anywhere.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 20 December 2016 - 11:33 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

BLOOD WOLF, on 20 December 2016 - 11:30 PM, said:

Keep note, that the clans where dominating Pre-4.1 as well.

Not back in January they weren't. It was IS all day, every day, and it was again a case of all the good units being on one side because one side had both better stuff and better payouts.

BLOOD WOLF, on 20 December 2016 - 11:33 PM, said:

the only person trolling or making fallacious threads is you. How is clans winning which has been a constant problem of this game and has been so before tug of war, has anything to do with them winning now?

It's the way the tug-of-war progress is being tracked. It's being tracked solely by the win and in fixed increments instead of based on win and closeness of the match with progress moving proportional to that result. So what happens is that a small advantage in the number of matches won has a disproportionately large effect on the measured performance by the system. PGI is using that flawed measurement to determine Clan/IS balance, which will lead them to a faulty conclusion.

So, it's an inherent flaw with PGI's implementation of tug-of-war, but not with the broad, generic concept of tug-of-war.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 20 December 2016 - 11:37 PM.

[Kargush]

I'm getting too Loyalist for this ****-

[BLOOD WOLF]

Yeonne Greene, on 20 December 2016 - 11:33 PM, said:

Not back in January they weren't. It was IS all day, every day, and it was again a case of all the good units being on one side because one side had both better stuff and better payouts.

yea, I.S can win, that is what puts a dent in his theory here, too bad he can't accept that. Somehow its tug of war, giving players an edge. What a load

if IS start kicking Clan back somehow, not only is this thread going to be blown into space, but some clansmen is going to make this same thread. Expect he might blame something else, and then we are back into straw-men fallacy threads.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 20 December 2016 - 11:37 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Yeonne Greene, on 20 December 2016 - 11:33 PM, said:

Not back in January they weren't. It was IS all day, every day, and it was again a case of all the good units being on one side because one side had both better stuff and better payouts.

And really, this has been endemic in the mode for the longest time. The map shifted based on where the best units were. NEVER has the Clan ever been so powerful that they won every single planetary contest - and yet under the tug-of-war system this is so.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 20 December 2016 - 11:36 PM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

ScarecrowES, on 20 December 2016 - 11:36 PM, said:

And really, this has been endemic in the mode for the longest time. The map shifted based on where the best units were. NEVER has the Clan ever been so powerful that they won every single planetary contest - and yet under the tug-of-war system this is so.

Wow, this guy can not help but make fallacy after fallacy. your ED threads are no better. The TUG-of-war system has nothing to do with Clan or IS win rate

[ScarecrowES]

BLOOD WOLF, on 20 December 2016 - 11:35 PM, said:

yea, I.S can win, that is what puts a dent in his theory here, too bad he can't accept that. Somehow its tug of war, giving players an edge. What a load

And once again, your lack of reading comprehension comes into play. This is absolutely NOT what I've said. If you're going to continue on this path, I'll have to ask you to leave. Occasionally your inability to understand simple things can be amusing, but then you manage to go completely off the rails with it and it stops being funny. You've definitely crossed that line.

[BearFlag]

BLOOD WOLF, on 20 December 2016 - 11:25 PM, said:

Not an inherent problem of tug of war.

Have to disagree, BW. I think ScarecrowES has stumbled on an acute "tug of war" problem.

1) At 100% additional victories by the leading side are thrown out the window.
2) The trailing side could in the last 2 hours OP 30 victories and go from absolute defeat to total victory against a scale of possibly a 1000 matches.

Edited by BearFlag, 20 December 2016 - 11:41 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

BLOOD WOLF, on 20 December 2016 - 11:35 PM, said:

yea, I.S can win, that is what puts a dent in his theory here, too bad he can't accept that. Somehow its tug of war, giving players an edge. What a load

if IS start kicking Clan back somehow, not only is this thread going to be blown into space, but some clansmen is going to make this same thread. Expect he might blame something else, and then we are back into straw-men fallacy threads.

IS no longer have the better stuff. That's why there aren't as many top units registered as IS. It doesn't really put any dent in this thread, though, because this thread isn't about whether or not IS can win, it's about PGI ultimately using a metric derived from an easily skewed system to determine what the state of Clan/IS balance is.

[BLOOD WOLF]

BearFlag, on 20 December 2016 - 11:39 PM, said:

Have to disagree, BW. I think ScarecrowES has stumbled on an acute "tug of war" problem.

1) At 100% additional victories by the leading side are thrown out the window.
2) The trailing side could in the last 2 hours OP 30 victories and go from absolute defeat to total victory.

this would be the same given any system. that should always be a possibility as well.

[Shalune]

ScarecrowES, on 20 December 2016 - 11:21 PM, said:

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.

Alright first of all I want to commend you on a good initial observation. I think it's a good one that explains the disparity between community perceptions and what PGI has been citing from match stats.

But you're making a ton of assumptions here, mainly:
- the tug of war is why the IS is disadvantaged
- the tug of war is why there has not been a swing

These are ******* nonsense. We know the first is false because the tug of war provides no initial advantage to either side. They start at complete parity. The second is equally ridiculous specifically because of the threshold your describe.

You're considering the system purely based on the current results and ignoring how it would behave under different conditions. One side could maintain a 90% win rate, but if they lose a string of 30 matches as the period ends, they will lose. So it's absurd to argue the tug of war somehow discourages swings. It actually enables them, which is why I'd argue it's at least a decent system. It encourages both sides to stay involved to the end without punishing the current winner so harshly. It also encourages continued engagement by the winner lest the current loser slowly push towards the middle, making a last minute comeback more realistic.

I'd also argue that the pegging you describe is a good thing for FP right now. Until we have a better system, having planets frequently change hand is more interesting than frequent stalemates. And people are going to keep playing either way right now because of the payout, and apparent fun of respawns.

PS: being paranoid about PGI's balancing around the metagame is nonsense. They're the ones that keep raising the less dramatic stats of match winrates, not us.

[ScarecrowES]

BearFlag, on 20 December 2016 - 11:39 PM, said:

Have to disagree, BW. I think ScarecrowES has stumbled on an acute "tug of war" problem.

1) At 100% additional victories by the leading side are thrown out the window.
2) The trailing side could in the last 2 hours OP 30 victories and go from absolute defeat to total victory.

60 probably to go 100% to 100%... but I would find that unlikely... given the number of matches played, the IS would have to see a radical and completely dominant swing in win percentage. Possible, but unlikely. The more likely scenario is one we've been close to so far but still have failed to see work out... that the IS rallies at the end of a session and pushes the Clans out of a win condition. This would only take a very small in differential in the last few minutes of a session. The IS hasn't been able to do that at all since the patch dropped last week. They haven't been able to rally a win differential that overcomes the inherent bias of the tug-of-war toward the advantaged side.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Yeonne Greene, on 20 December 2016 - 11:40 PM, said:

IS no longer have the better stuff. That's why there aren't as many top units registered as IS. It doesn't really put any dent in this thread, though, because this thread isn't about whether or not IS can win, it's about PGI ultimately using a metric derived from an easily skewed system to determine what the state of Clan/IS balance is.

the OP is linking this to the Tug-of-war system and then claiming a flaw becuase the Clan are winning.

A thread based on balance using this metric data would go a bit differently.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 20 December 2016 - 11:44 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

BLOOD WOLF, on 20 December 2016 - 11:42 PM, said:

this would be the same given any system. that should always be a possibility as well.

No it wouldn't. If progress is measured as number of wins against the ever-expanding total matches played, you never actually hit 100%, ever. You only approach it.

It becomes a game of averages.

BLOOD WOLF, on 20 December 2016 - 11:44 PM, said:

the OP is linking this to the Tug-of-war system and then claiming a flaw becuase the Clan are winning.

A thread based on balance using this metric data would go a bit differently.

He's claiming a flaw because it's showing the Clans as winning more than they actually are.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Yeonne Greene, on 20 December 2016 - 11:46 PM, said:

He's claiming a flaw because it's showing the Clans as winning more than they actually are.

by linking it to something that has nothing to do with why they are winning.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 20 December 2016 - 11:49 PM.

[Johnny Z]

ScarecrowES, on 20 December 2016 - 11:36 PM, said:

And really, this has been endemic in the mode for the longest time. The map shifted based on where the best units were. NEVER has the Clan ever been so powerful that they won every single planetary contest - and yet under the tug-of-war system this is so.

You lost all credibility on this point. Clans were easy mode in the extreme in the past. Balance may have been worse in this game at that time than any other game ever made. I really mean this even if it sounds extreme. Players piloting Clan had every advantage in a completely one sided way unheard of.

Most of the teams have stayed Clan most of the time. Any match fixing or side switching or anything else of that sort does not effect if balance is good or not.

At this moment Clantech has advanatage anyone can see. They always have.

Until the Arctic Cheater gets nerfed into not being the best light like it has been for years and a few other balance problems then anyone arguing balance is completely good is simply wrong.

Edited by Johnny Z, 21 December 2016 - 12:07 AM.

[BearFlag]

ScarecrowES, on 20 December 2016 - 11:43 PM, said:

60 probably to go 100% to 100%... but I would find that unlikely... given the number of matches played, the IS would have to see a radical and completely dominant swing in win percentage. Possible, but unlikely. The more likely scenario is one we've been close to so far but still have failed to see work out... that the IS rallies at the end of a session and pushes the Clans out of a win condition. This would only take a very small in differential in the last few minutes of a session. The IS hasn't been able to do that at all since the patch dropped last week. They haven't been able to rally a win differential that overcomes the inherent bias of the tug-of-war toward the advantaged side.

Gotcha. Yeah, unlikely.