58 replies to this topic

[Novakaine]

We only need to look to history for a examples.
Were the French or British poor soldiers in WW2?
No not in the least yet Germany's superior tech and tactics allowed them to swallow Europe.
Superior tech was what made tiny Germany mighty in comparison to the combined French and British armies.
Superior tactics we can easily equate to skill in this game allows superior tech allows.
It wasn't superior tech that won the allies WW2, it was simply a matter of numbers.
Which Germany just did not have.
That being said the Clans have tech and the tactics and apparently the numbers now.
Because who would not want to play with the better toys.
The IS well we get the Roughneck.
Go figure.

[Karl Marlow]

Oh boy. Anecdotal evidence.

I pressed the skill button earlier today and got 3 matches in. I dropped as a pug which I wouldn't dare do as an inner sphere pilot. Here are the results

Match 1. Assault on tourmaline(sp?) clans pugs inner sphere 10 man. Result. Inner Sphere win.

Recap. We gathered together and started fighting the enemy. Suddenly our base was capped in under a minute due to a light rush. Match time under 3 minutes.

Match 2. Conquest on Terra Therma. Clans 4 man team. Inner Sphere mixed. Result. Clan win

Recap. Inner Sphere for an early cap lead then fell apart when they actually had to fight. We started rolling them so hard that by the end we had all the points and were camping their spawn.

Match 3. Assault on the new map based of grim portico. Clans 6 man inner sphere 4 man. Result. Clan win.

Recap. A lot of manuvering but the inner sphere was out ranged and outgunned the entire match. We intentionally stopped capping halfway through the match so we could farm mechs.

[Jun Watarase]

Tristan Winter, on 21 December 2016 - 04:44 PM, said:

The sample size you'd need to say anything remotely conclusive is just crazy. We used to have guys who made Science threads here, but I don't think they do that stuff anymore.

You need to compile lots and lots of post-match screenshots. Preferably from different tiers, preferably from both solo and group queue.

People misunderstand sample size requirements. When you are looking at, say, the population of the USA, you need a very large sample size due to the large population size.

If you are just flipping a coin, and you manage to get heads 10 time out of 10 times, thats enough to tell you that its not perfectly random.

We dont know what the population of MWO is so theres no way to tell what sample size we need. But again, as seen with the steam release, you did not need a large sample size to tell that "yea there is a problem here". Unless you can tell me exactly what sample size is needed and back it up with calculations, "muh sample size" isnt going to go anywhere. But thats going to be difficult since PGI removed the player counter to hide how low the population was ages ago.

We will see how what increasing the sample size does. Hey, maybe, just maybe, the next 10 games will all be clans stomping the IS. Who knows? I wouldn't be on it though.

[Y E O N N E]

Snazzy Dragon, on 21 December 2016 - 12:25 PM, said:

Different timezones, different players. A few of my friends I know that hate having piloting lights, and have to take two clan lights just to take two clan assaults; they dropped clan in favor of the 265 tons IS has to offer. That's two assaults, a heavy, and a medium if you distribute properly. I personally will be taking a battlemaster 2C, marauder 3R, and whichever thunderbolt it is that gets crazy large pulse laser quirks, then a cicada 3M with 2 ER large lasers to fill out the rest of the tonnage remaining.

So some of those players could be switching sides as well (mercs are OP).

All STD engines, right?

Also worth looking at, the WHM-6R can still do PPC+dakka on a STD270 engine with 150 rounds for the UACs; it's only short two DHS from the meta XL version, which is a really pittance in terms of actual performance. You can swap to standard AC/5 if you just want normal poke and better heat management or faster engine.

The WHM-BW can do 2xUAC/5 + 2x AC/2 on a STD 265 with 165 rounds on the big guns and 150 rounds on the small ones; I'd rate this one as superior to the MAD-3R for dakka, if dakka is what you are using the 3R for. You can drop a half-ton of ammo somewhere to boost up to the same STD 270 as the 6R.

The TDR-5S-T has a mean 52-point laser vomit alpha on a STD 280.

The TDR-9SE is a half-decent SMN-wannabe pop-tart on a STD300.

The RFL-5D is a very mobile, agile laser boat. I build it to 47 points.

[Chuck Jager]

FYI

I know of at least one former clan unit that is running alts on IS. They like padding their numbers and do know how to utilize the mechanics to their advantage. I am pretty sure (my guess) they do this when they are having a hard time getting matches.

It is pretty easy to legally utilize the system with the allowed alts to see who is attacking where and either join or avoid by just logging on with a laptop. This is really effective if the player is willing to use the friends button.

[GotShotALot]

Wow, Clan player cherry-picks small sample size of battles to show Clans don't have a significant advantage over IS... quelle surprise!

As others have pointed out, OP is either not getting or deliberately misrepresenting the nature of the skill gap. Highly competitive players go where the most advantage is. The most advantage is in a unit or premade drop group, using the most effective tech, against the weakest targets.

When the best tech is Clan, the organized groups go Clan. When the best tech is IS (due to quirks), they switch to IS. The past swings of imbalance have shown this clearly. The most competitive players mostly play in drop groups (not random PUGs) and they choose the most effective mechs to do it with. 85% of the time this has meant Clan mechs.

When you get a bigger sample size or start measuring the results of pre-mades/unit drops of size 6 or larger you might be worth listening to.

Or, you could simply observe the entire history of CW in MWO to spot the obvious. It's not like it's difficult to see.

[Tristan Winter]

Jun Watarase, on 21 December 2016 - 06:46 PM, said:

We dont know what the population of MWO is so theres no way to tell what sample size we need. But again, as seen with the steam release, you did not need a large sample size to tell that "yea there is a problem here". Unless you can tell me exactly what sample size is needed and back it up with calculations, "muh sample size" isnt going to go anywhere. But thats going to be difficult since PGI removed the player counter to hide how low the population was ages ago.

We will see how what increasing the sample size does. Hey, maybe, just maybe, the next 10 games will all be clans stomping the IS. Who knows? I wouldn't be on it though.

I don't generally like to have discussions with people who use derogatory lines like "muh sample size" as a way to ridicule anyone who doesn't agree with them, but here goes.

First of all, we do have a vague idea of how many MWO players there are, based on how many players were registered on the leaderboard back when there was no match number requirement. There were about 50,000 players on the leaderboards. We don't know how many of those accounts represent unique players, and we don't know how many players play only every other month or every couple of months, but if we go by 50,000, we are unlikely to be wrong by orders of magnitude.

The issue here isn't just population, however. We're not doing a survey predicting how America will vote in the next election. We're trying to figure out what is likely to happen in any given match, given certain factors.

Lastly, I am under no obligation to calculate what constitutes a statistically significant discrepancy between Clan and IS WLR. If you interview 10 people and use this as the basis for determining who the next president will be, I'll just go right out and say that it's not a big enough sample. I don't know exactly how many hundreds or thousands of people you would need to have any degree of certainty, or how you would randomise it and ensure you're covering different demographics, I'll just go out and say that 10 people isnt 'enough.

If you're not convinced, that's fine by me. I don't have time to go convincing everyone on the forum about everything I say.

GotShotALot, on 21 December 2016 - 06:59 PM, said:

Wow, Clan player cherry-picks small sample size of battles to show Clans don't have a significant advantage over IS... quelle surprise!

Now let's count how many Clan players come in to support his work and defend him against criticism.

[Chuck Jager]

I would like to see the work the OP finished or is working on because:

• "Before an individual can complete a capstone project, one must take a series of undergraduate or graduate courses that will give one the theoretical and skills-based knowledge necessary in order to formulate an idea for a capstone proposal. Classes that usually are required before taking a capstone course usually center around research statistics, ethics, program theory, leadership and other relevant courses based on the master’s program. Also, many programs have a GPA requirement before actually completing a capstone course."

http://www.gradschoo...raduate-school/

This is a version of picts or it did not happen. By picts I mean transcripts and google academic links to the project. If you do not have these, your words are no more or less valid than others.

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

[Mawai]

Jun Watarase, on 21 December 2016 - 12:30 PM, said:

Obviously if you drop in a 12 man full of top players, 99% of the time the game is won before it even began. Thats not an accurate judgement of whether there is a big skill gap between the two sides. Its like playing poker where you deal yourself two aces at the start...you cannot accurately judge the local poker scene by doing this. There are plenty of reasons for why clans would be winning most of the time...the most obvious one being that a skilled group of clan players are playing many more matches than their IS counterparts and that shifts the tug of war advantage to the clan side.

Anyone who played during the steam release should remember that 90% of the time you would have the clans face teams comprised of mostly IS newbies, even when dropping as randoms. The skill disparity was very, very obvious at the time to everyone (except perhaps PGI).

At the very least, my experience so far shows that the skill gap isnt as big as during the steam release. Of course, your mileage may differ.

Also those screenshots were taken during NA prime time.

A couple of questions ...

Are you dropping on the IS or clan side? (from your comments it sounds like clans)

Are you dropping solo or in a group? (I couldn't tell from your comment but I am guessing solo)

If you are dropping clan solo then you may be biasing your results since ...
1) The other side could have larger teams
2) You will never see the effect of clan 12 mans

It is quite possible that random players on both clans and IS sides are more or less equal in skill ... however, the coordination of a 12 man group is far more significant in determining match balance since unless 12 mans are generally playing other 12 mans or at least other large groups (which I don't believe is the case at the moment) then these large units will tend to win relatively easily. If one side in FW has substantially more 12 man teams or organized groups dropping then it should have a distinct advantage whether or not the skill of individual random players is the same as the IS side or not.

[El Bandito]

Wintersdark, on 21 December 2016 - 02:46 PM, said:

You misunderstand the "skill gap".


It isn't that Clan players are just better than IS players, it's that the top 5 units are all Clan side (or where, when I last checked Russ's reports).

MS is playing as IS now. Stomping Clan puggers, but against Clan pre-mades it is a toss up. Especially if those contain guys from units such as the Ebon Keshik. All top comp teams are Clans or Mercs. Not surprising, since most of the comp mechs are Clan mechs.

Novakaine, on 21 December 2016 - 06:32 PM, said:

We only need to look to history for a examples.
Were the French or British poor soldiers in WW2?
No not in the least yet Germany's superior tech and tactics allowed them to swallow Europe.
Superior tech was what made tiny Germany mighty in comparison to the combined French and British armies.
Superior tactics we can easily equate to skill in this game allows superior tech allows.
It wasn't superior tech that won the allies WW2, it was simply a matter of numbers.
Which Germany just did not have.
That being said the Clans have tech and the tactics and apparently the numbers now.
Because who would not want to play with the better toys.
The IS well we get the Roughneck.
Go figure.

Technically German tanks at the start of WWII had many deficiencies compared to many European counterparts. It is the Blitzkrieg doctrine that had carried the day.

Edited by El Bandito, 21 December 2016 - 11:59 PM.

[BootyBlaster17]

El Bandito, on 21 December 2016 - 10:10 PM, said:

MS is playing as IS now. Stomping Clan puggers, but against Clan pre-mades it is a toss up. Especially if those contain guys from units such as the Ebon Keshik. All top comp teams are Clans or Mercs. Not surprising, since most of the comp mechs are Clan mechs.




Technically German tanks at the start of WWII had many deficiencies compared to many European counterparts. It is the Blitzkrieg doctrine that had carried the day.

No it happened because France was dumb enough to think Germany was just going to walk through the Maginot line instead of skirting through belgium past their defenses.

Here is a real question, What is the range of a medium laser compared to a Clans?

[Besh]

El Bandito, on 21 December 2016 - 10:10 PM, said:

[...]
Technically German tanks at the start of WWII had many deficiencies compared to many European counterparts. It is the Blitzkrieg doctrine that had carried the day.

Some people are of the opinion that the ingenuitiy and Grit of the Germans where as much a part of the story as equipment and tactics .

Rommel's NorthAfrcia campaign comes to mind, amongst other stuff . Like the attack on Crete .

Edited by Besh, 22 December 2016 - 03:05 AM.

[Sjorpha]

So let me get this straight, you are recording the win/loss ratio of your own matches and using that as your sample.

You do this despite the fact that there is an actual war log giving you a larger sample size, if fact it gives you the full statistics of recent wins and losses between the factions.

You are deliberately using lower quality data while having access to better data, no matter what you're trying to do or prove that makes absolutely no sense.

I agree that the supposed "skill gap" is a pretty bad explanation for the totality of Clan vs IS imbalance, first of all it isn't enough to explain the massively higher clan win ratio, second the skill distribution isn't a coincidence but is caused by the fact that clan mechs are stronger, so the skill gap is in itself a sign of tech imbalance.

A problem with balance is that small objective imbalances, like tech imbalance, cause big imbalances in the metagame. You only need one side to be slightly stronger to see a massively lopsided faction imbalance in a framework like CW. The difference between a competitive mech and a "bad" mech can be pretty small, and yet have huge consequences. Balancing has to be addressed carefully, and PGI aren't careful.

Edited by Sjorpha, 22 December 2016 - 03:06 AM.

[BootyBlaster17]

Quiet Sjorpha, its hurting his narrative.

[Chuck Jager]

Wow I can go to 15 year old history channel ww2 history shows made for the attention span deprived and get a bit more important facts.

It is a metaphor - either read it and state what you assumed the author was trying to convey with the comparison, and then specifically point out why the comparison failed by giving the details that as to why.

It is not a chance to say, hey I know another fact that is related to your metaphor, but I will not take the time to expand upon how it relates to your use of the comparison.

[Jehofi]

And to answer all of OPS burning questions:

With 11 results and a estimated chance IS/Clans being 43/57 (this is what i took to be the real value which it is probably not) you get an confidence interval of 38.86%

Meaning with an confidence level of 99% your results can be 38.86% off. Im sorry to have to quote you but "yea there is a problem here".

Edited by Jehofi, 22 December 2016 - 03:37 AM.

[Novakaine]

Chuck Jager, on 22 December 2016 - 03:09 AM, said:

Wow I can go to 15 year old history channel ww2 history shows made for the attention span deprived and get a bit more important facts.

It is a metaphor - either read it and state what you assumed the author was trying to convey with the comparison, and then specifically point out why the comparison failed by giving the details that as to why.

It is not a chance to say, hey I know another fact that is related to your metaphor, but I will not take the time to expand upon how it relates to your use of the comparison.

You realize Spock's ghost just lol'd you right?

[El Bandito]

Besh, on 22 December 2016 - 02:50 AM, said:

Some people are of the opinion that the ingenuitiy and Grit of the Germans where as much a part of the story as equipment and tactics .

Rommel's NorthAfrcia campaign comes to mind, amongst other stuff . Like the attack on Crete .

Attack on Crete was ultimately wasteful effort though. Malta should have been captured instead, cause Allied naval base there had caused so many shipping losses for the German effort in North Africa.

BootyBlaster17, on 22 December 2016 - 02:10 AM, said:

No it happened because France was dumb enough to think Germany was just going to walk through the Maginot line instead of skirting through belgium past their defenses.

It's both. Without the Blitzkrieg doctrine, Germany never could have overturned the French flanks with ease. The concept of massed armor breakthrough is what enabled Germany beat France.

Edited by El Bandito, 22 December 2016 - 07:35 AM.

[Jun Watarase]

GotShotALot, on 21 December 2016 - 06:59 PM, said:

Wow, Clan player cherry-picks small sample size of battles to show Clans don't have a significant advantage over IS... quelle surprise!

As others have pointed out, OP is either not getting or deliberately misrepresenting the nature of the skill gap. Highly competitive players go where the most advantage is. The most advantage is in a unit or premade drop group, using the most effective tech, against the weakest targets.

When the best tech is Clan, the organized groups go Clan. When the best tech is IS (due to quirks), they switch to IS. The past swings of imbalance have shown this clearly. The most competitive players mostly play in drop groups (not random PUGs) and they choose the most effective mechs to do it with. 85% of the time this has meant Clan mechs.

When you get a bigger sample size or start measuring the results of pre-mades/unit drops of size 6 or larger you might be worth listening to.

Or, you could simply observe the entire history of CW in MWO to spot the obvious. It's not like it's difficult to see.

I have already addressed the small sample size thing. Please read the thread.

The sample size will increase as i play more games. At no point whatsoever have i said the sample size would remain fixed at 11 games.

[GrimRiver]

Maybe because all the clanners got used to playing with crutch meta builds and forgot what real skill looks like.

Jokes aside

But seriously

Nah, I kid again

Seriously though.

Clan has the tech advantage and have more top players on their side, but if they are having trouble beating IS PUG players then yeah it's a huge skill issue.

But a few matches is too small of a small sample size to base anything off of right now, I'll wait for more info.

Edited by GrimRiver, 22 December 2016 - 09:53 AM.