134 replies to this topic

[Johnny Z]

To the topic title, there seems to be a big problem that if side switchers all go Inner Sphere there will be no battles going or what?

[BLOOD WOLF]

ScarecrowES, on 21 December 2016 - 12:56 AM, said:

I have to laugh here, because this is EXACTLY what PGI is doing.

so you take a few text and nothing else. Russ never said that they are solely using that information.

Duke Nedo, on 21 December 2016 - 01:44 AM, said:

Now you're mixing things up. They have not yet made any faction balance changes. They change drop limits in FW, that's a FW mechanic and not faction balance at the level that matters. It's mostly just a quick way to compensate for populations.

All in all, tug-of-war is nothing unique or new. The same kind of polarization happened in the old zone-system as well. The mechanics in that respect are identical. The real change is that there are no longer separate queues for attackers and defenders, which was the whole point with this change. There are differences in how many games you need to turn a planet and winning conditions but that is irrelevant to everything but the star map, which I don't give a flying **** about. The mechanic is the same. It's linear and it's capped at 0% and 100%.

dude, he can recognize the fallacious web he has set up. So there is no point.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Fw Tug-Of-War: Design Fail


OP has not demonstrated nor anybody else for that matter, any other system that can get around that inherient problem in the claim.

This is what happens when you start linking things that have no correlation and then asserting without proper demonstration, nor giving a system that would escape this effect.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 21 December 2016 - 02:56 AM.

[Lehmund]

I like the OP's discussion primer.

Mathematically, he is correct. With sufficient player population dropping, the spread needed to fill in the bar may be too small and if there are too few players involved, perhaps too big etc...

The fact that Clan has been consistently winning those means that strength is on the Clan side of things, of course, whether because of tech, population etc... That is not in contention.

Now for a solution.... : PGI could use % of games won by one side to make the bar move instead of a static number where to flip the planet, there would be a need for one side to win say 60% of all matches played, no matter how many.

This solves the OP's issue, but the bar would radically warp from place to place really quickly in the first number of games of a cycle, which would look and feel wild.

On the other hand, a little bit of manipulation could resolve this in the Tug of War bar, like this:
- When the bar hits a new game mode threshold, the next played match must be a Win by the winning side to cross the threshold. This would be required at each game mode threshold.

So if Clans win the first 2 out of 3 games. Win, Loss, Win, the win % is 65% but the tug of war bar would go on the Skirmish/Dom threshold on Win 1. Go back to Neutral on Loss 1, then back on the Skir/Dom threshold on Win 2 (instead of throwing itself completely above the Flip bar).

If Clans win the next game, then the % would be 75%, but the bar would land on the Dom/Conquest threshold etc....

With more games, if wins/losses on both sides, the bar will eventually settle at a decent % that makes sense.

Anyway, food for thought.

[Almond Brown]

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.

So given a system where only Clans fought Clans, then there could be no possible perceived "slight starting advantage", this issue would go away for ever right?

Then, the only solution left is to Delete either the Clans Mechs, or the Inner Sphere Mechs, and only fight "same on same". Maybe even reduce the Mechs down to only 1 weight/type and build to be absolutely sure that "balance" is assured.

Otherwise the whining and salting of the fields will continue given all things are not exactly equal, which until they are is the root cause of these veiled posts about game Maths being the problem when in reality, it is the fact that the Clans are seen as the "bestest" and those without Clan Mechs are getting "rucked" over and it can not be allowed to continue to ruin the I.S.'s game.

[Novakaine]

Locked down both sides.
If you want to be Clans then that's it.
If you want to be IS then that's it.
If you want to be Merc's then you're only allowed to switch between IS factions.
And you want to play with your clans toys like I do from time to time.
Or vice versa do it in QP.

[Stonekeg]

For the record, I am all about doing some baby step tech buffs to IS to bring about a more even battle ground. I believe this is the best solution to the issue, but I'm no designer. I would also guess that a lot of you already have thought of this, but I wanted to say it again anyway.

It doesn't make any business sense for PGI designers to work on tech parity solutions until the skill system has been implemented and had time to breathe. A lot of things in this game could be heavily affected by that feature.

We can and should talk about all the possibilities, but just keep in mind it's likely going to be a long time before we see changes.

That's all I had to say about it. Happy holidays everyone!

[ScarecrowES]

BLOOD WOLF, on 21 December 2016 - 02:55 AM, said:

Fw Tug-Of-War: Design Fail


OP has not demonstrated nor anybody else for that matter, any other system that can get around that inherient problem in the claim.

This is what happens when you start linking things that have no correlation and then asserting without proper demonstration, nor giving a system that would escape this effect.

I actually did. Again, I know you find reading hard.

[BLOOD WOLF]

ScarecrowES, on 21 December 2016 - 11:51 AM, said:

I actually did. Again, I know you find reading hard.

No you didn't, but you are welcome to state and put one on the table for discussion.

Seems like you took the time to respond, but like the other 4 times, ducked and dodged in giving any system that would avoid this problem. At this point, I think you know that you can't. Instead you respond with childish insults rather than debate and prove the merit of the claim. This is Child's play to point out the fallacies you make. Keep them coming.

So not only are you identifying a problem where there isn't one, you are failing to differentiate the modes flaws that are theoretical in all modes that are introduced. Via the team that wins keeps winning.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 21 December 2016 - 02:49 PM.

[HauptmanT]

This is not a blunder. This is the intended design.

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.

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.

So instead they chose a system that with more games played, makes thing easier. This is the IS's only viable tactic. Numbers. By lore itself, IS has the numbers advantage. This current system replicates that satisfactorily. So even if the clans are stomping face with a 99% win rate, however IS keeps the pressure up, and doesnt get disheartened, and rallies towards the end, they could actually stop the clans from capturing the planets with a handful of last minute victories. And even better, a concerted planned effort of the IS units working together to pull it off, could attain a complete reversal in the last hours with ~60 victories, even if thousands had been played prior.

You need to look at the grand picture here man. The mode would be completely lame if the planets never changed hands. And especially lame if ONLY the clans were capable of reaching the victory thresh-hold.

IS needs to play smarter, the good units that roll me in my drops constantly need to plan their games late in the session if they want planets, which means Clan Units must counter it in order to win. So leave 6 hours to the PUGgles, let them get the bar one way or the other, then the units come in with the 2 hour count and decide the fate of the planets.

As far as player balance; Yes more players want to play clans. And guess what that means, longer wait times for a match, I sat with the "searching" icon for a good 15 minutes last night to play my faction skirmish for the daily. Yeh that aint gonna fly, when I know IS needs people. So I have 4 days left on my betrayel, and Davion gets me after that. Because even a loss is better than staring at a spinning circle. As soon as more people figure that out, people will move towards IS, and balance out the player base.

[BLOOD WOLF]

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

This is not a blunder. This is the intended design.

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.

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.

So instead they chose a system that with more games played, makes thing easier. This is the IS's only viable tactic. Numbers. By lore itself, IS has the numbers advantage. This current system replicates that satisfactorily. So even if the clans are stomping face with a 99% win rate, however IS keeps the pressure up, and doesnt get disheartened, and rallies towards the end, they could actually stop the clans from capturing the planets with a handful of last minute victories. And even better, a concerted planned effort of the IS units working together to pull it off, could attain a complete reversal in the last hours with ~60 victories, even if thousands had been played prior.

You need to look at the grand picture here man. The mode would be completely lame if the planets never changed hands. And especially lame if ONLY the clans were capable of reaching the victory thresh-hold.

IS needs to play smarter, the good units that roll me in my drops constantly need to plan their games late in the session if they want planets, which means Clan Units must counter it in order to win. So leave 6 hours to the PUGgles, let them get the bar one way or the other, then the units come in with the 2 hour count and decide the fate of the planets.

As far as player balance; Yes more players want to play clans. And guess what that means, longer wait times for a match, I sat with the "searching" icon for a good 15 minutes last night to play my faction skirmish for the daily. Yeh that aint gonna fly, when I know IS needs people. So I have 4 days left on my betrayel, and Davion gets me after that. Because even a loss is better than staring at a spinning circle. As soon as more people figure that out, people will move towards IS, and balance out the player base.

^^ ALL this.

So Scarecrow, stop it with the "you just aren't understanding" claim. Multiple people are telling you the same thing. The OP and a few other people are spinning their heads, making up problems that don't exist.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 21 December 2016 - 03:27 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Novakaine, on 21 December 2016 - 09:47 AM, said:

Locked down both sides.
If you want to be Clans then that's it.
If you want to be IS then that's it.
If you want to be Merc's then you're only allowed to switch between IS factions.
And you want to play with your clans toys like I do from time to time.
Or vice versa do it in QP.

Star Wars: The Old Republic there is no side switching ever. But how is that done in this game so long into it or is it even a good idea at all? What about Mercs.

[Deathlike]

I'm kinda unsure if there's an inherent design fail... but there surely is a balance fail that has the greatest effect on the system as currently constituted.

[Deathlike]

As an aside, having it to be a "fixed amount" doesn't seem logical... because it's just massing matches to get the goal.

What would need to happen is something like a W-L% over a time period, like 2-3 hours, where the win% threshold is met.

So say the W-L% threshold is 55% in favor of the Clans, this would require ~2+ hours (maybe 3) to call it a win. If the W-L% threshold was 60%, the time required is 2 hours or something along those lines.

There would have to be a minimum of 1 hour or so for an interval, with the max win rate would be like @ 75% or so..

It would look like this:

If Clan/IS win rate is > 50%...

Status over "tie" -> Time Required For Win/Success
55% -> 4 hours
60% -> 3 hours
67% -> 2 hours
75% -> 1.33 hours (80 mins)
80+% -> 1 hour

It's a rough concept, but a better revision of the "fixed # of wins before success".

Edit: Because, disproportionally bad math.

Edited by Deathlike, 21 December 2016 - 04:03 PM.

[HauptmanT]

Deathlike, on 21 December 2016 - 03:55 PM, said:

As an aside, having it to be a "fixed amount" doesn't seem logical... because it's just massing matches to get the goal.

What would need to happen is something like a W-L% over a time period, like 2-3 hours, where the win% threshold is met.

So say the W-L% threshold is 55% in favor of the Clans, this would require ~2+ hours (maybe 3) to call it a win. If the W-L% threshold was 60%, the time required is 2 hours or something along those lines.

There would have to be a minimum of 1 hour or so for an interval, with the max win rate would be like @ 75% or so..

It would look like this:

If Clan/IS win rate is > 50%...

Status over "tie" -> Time Required For Win/Success
55% -> 4 hours
60% -> 3 hours
66% -> 2 hours
75% -> 1.5 hours
80+% -> 1 hour

It's a rough concept, but a better revision of the "fixed # of wins before success".

Again no.

This would make things worse. Any % based system would make things harder for the underdogs (IS). The way it is now allows the IS to stop the Clans by being smart, and saving their best for last.

We dont know the numbers of matches that happen per 8 hours, but I'll stick with the guestimate of 1000, just for an example.

If there are a thousand matches played, and the clans are winning, reversing it would be impossible, as you'd need another thousand matches to reverse it. This is bad. So very bad.

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.

Edited by HauptmanT, 21 December 2016 - 04:10 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

BLOOD WOLF, on 21 December 2016 - 02:41 PM, said:

No you didn't, but you are welcome to state and put one on the table for discussion.

Seems like you took the time to respond, but like the other 4 times, ducked and dodged in giving any system that would avoid this problem. At this point, I think you know that you can't. Instead you respond with childish insults rather than debate and prove the merit of the claim. This is Child's play to point out the fallacies you make. Keep them coming.

So not only are you identifying a problem where there isn't one, you are failing to differentiate the modes flaws that are theoretical in all modes that are introduced. Via the team that wins keeps winning.

You might want to go back a page. I did a nice long write up for you that has a methodology for tug-of-war that avoids the current problem. So you are either blind, or full of ****. Either way, not my problem

As to fallacies... please tell me how I'm wrong about how the system works. Try it. You're literally the only person arguing that it doesn't work that way. Even people who are downplaying the total sum effect aren't arguing how it works.

[Novakaine]

Johnny Z, on 21 December 2016 - 03:27 PM, said:

Star Wars: The Old Republic there is no side switching ever. But how is that done in this game so long into it or is it even a good idea at all? What about Mercs.

Clans never used mercs in this first place.
Not in our present timeline.
Mercs could do all the switching they want, but only between IS factions.
Merc monkey jumping just needs to stop and been to easy to change side at a whim.
Chasing whatever perceived advantages on either side.
The only flaw in this game design is that it doesn't appear PGI accounted for population shifts.
Pick a side and own.

Edited by Novakaine, 21 December 2016 - 04:08 PM.

[Deathlike]

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

Again no.

This would make things worse. Any % based system would make things harder for the underdogs (IS). The way it is now allows the IS to stop the Clans by being smart, and saving their best for last.

We dont know the numbers of matches that happen per 8 hours, but I'll stick with the guestimate of 1000, just for an example.

If there are a thousand matches played, and the clans are winning, reversing it would be impossible, as you'd need another thousand matches to reverse it. This is bad. So very bad.

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 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.

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.

[ScarecrowES]

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

Again no.

This would make things worse. Any % based system would make things harder for the underdogs (IS). The way it is now allows the IS to stop the Clans by being smart, and saving their best for last.

We dont know the numbers of matches that happen per 8 hours, but I'll stick with the guestimate of 1000, just for an example.

If there are a thousand matches played, and the clans are winning, reversing it would be impossible, as you'd need another thousand matches to reverse it. This is bad. So very bad.

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 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 outlined the system for this last page. Avoids the problems you're talking about. It's a hybrid system where the percentage increase per win is modified by match performance. Makes it impossible for minor imbalances to result in steamrolls, but still allows for consistent forward progress through the tug-of-war for superior win percentage. It also retains the only good thing about the current system - the ability for the defenders to rally in the red zone with a few well-timed wins.

[EgoSlayer]

ScarecrowES, on 20 December 2016 - 05:19 PM, said:

<snip>
The reason the tug-of-war pegs out to one side of the conflict so readily is because of a inherent design flaw as to how match results influence the tug-of-war.

PGI chose to have every match move the tug-of-war peg by a fixed amount. This, more than anything else, is the cause of all FW 4.1's ills. This means that a faction needs only to maintain a specific win amount differential over the other faction to keep the tug-of-war pegged to max, rather than requiring a significantly higher win percentage to do so. Explained in detail:

Each win in FW moves the peg in the tug-of-war 3.33%, regardless of how many games have been played. This means one faction only needs to maintain a 30-game win differential to keep the peg maxxed for that faction. To move from a completely neutral position to a full-max position, the peg only has to moved 100% (100 points). If each match is worth 3.33%, then it only takes 30 more wins than losses for one of the factions to reach max.

Reaching a 30-win differential would be difficult if we're talking about a series of 100 matches. That requires the winning side win 65 of 100 matches - almost 2/3. But over a series of 1000 matchs? The winning side would only need to win 515 of 1000 matches to reach a 30-game differential. That's not even 52% of matches won! The more games that are played, the lower the win percentage needs to be for the victor to reach the required win amount differential.

This means that the tug-of-war will ALWAYS be a stomp for one faction or the other - even if every factor of balance was perfectly tuned. As long as each win is worth a fixed amount, this will always be the case.

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 25% from happening.

Additional edit - With Russ Saying that clan win rate is about 57% that means if takes about 163 matches for the clans to flip the planet and maintain the lead (worst case - assuming alternating wins/losses for Clan/IS, Clans 93 wins, IS 70 wins - a 75% win rate would drop that down to only 46 matches required)

ScarecrowES, on 20 December 2016 - 05:19 PM, said:

It also means that the only match performances that really matter are those that occur in the final minutes of a session, where the defending team has a chance to produce the very SMALL win percentage necessary to deny the attacking side a cap.

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.


EDITS: Updates on math and percentages

Edited by EgoSlayer, 21 December 2016 - 05:08 PM.