86 replies to this topic

[Jingseng]

The point isn't who is op or who needs buffs.

the point is tonnage limits is a asinine and moronic way to achieve 'game' balance.

[Leggin Ho]

Jingseng, on 24 April 2017 - 05:07 PM, said:

The point isn't who is op or who needs buffs.

the point is tonnage limits is a asinine and moronic way to achieve 'game' balance.

That's my point exactly..............

[Carl Vickers]

While it is a stupid way to balance, it is one of the few ways PGI can balance.

[Deathlike]

Normally I'd care, but the reality is that the Clan vs IS balance isn't there (mostly in favor of Clans). While I'd normally agree to "even tonnage", the discrepancy in tech is generally why this imbalance is needed.

[Tarl Cabot]

Leggin Ho w/merc -OH- currently w/Clans has won 261 out of 293 drops. Leadership board do not break that up between Scouting and FP nor Clans (49 contracts) vs IS(9 contracts). Unit itself has won 704 out of 789 drops.

Jingseng w/loyalist CSJ- 9Liv has won 34 out of 67 drops. See above-no breakdown between Scout/FP.

And to show simply not singling them two out.
Tarl Cabot w/loyalist Kurita-9thSOD has won 108 out of 251. Primarily pug in FP except for few co-op drops on FRR TS when I have more time for more than a few FP drops.

Faction Play
https://mwomercs.com...-tonnage-change
https://mwomercs.com...change-12152016

Faction Scouting
https://mwomercs.com...or-20-dec-2016/

Quote

Design Note: While the forces of the Inner Sphere have at times made decent gains in the Scouting Tug of War during the recent Conflicts, the greater distribution of higher Skill Tiered players on the Clan side, combined with a greater presence of organized, high-tier Units also aligned under the Clan banner, still make Scouting engagements an uphill battle for Inner Sphere forces.

We should stress that Tonnage changes such as this, and the previous adjustments to Invasion Tonnage seen since the December 13th patch, are not intended to be the sole balance mechanic for Clan/Inner Sphere Conflicts.

We are listening to all feedback on this front, and are very much cognizant of the potential avenues for improving Conflict balance. That said, these Tonnage changes do provide us with a 'live' method - not reliant on downtime or patch cycles - to account for dynamic changes in Clan and Inner Sphere populations.

" bandaids are useful while we work..."

Spoiler

Spoiler

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 24 April 2017 - 07:33 PM.

[Leggin Ho]

So looking at your posts from Twitter, is Russ saying that balance does or does not matter depending on where the top units are, because my point is two unit's of equal skill, a 25 ton advantage is usually the deciding factor.

[Deathlike]

Leggin Ho, on 24 April 2017 - 07:25 PM, said:

So looking at your posts from Twitter, is Russ saying that balance does or does not matter depending on where the top units are, because my point is two unit's of equal skill, a 25 ton advantage is usually the deciding factor.

Except, that's vs Clan tech.

IS XL doesn't hold a candle to that... quirks or not.

[naterist]

i recall the reason they gave for changing it was to try and carrot/stick units into taking IS contracts from time to time, because they didnt want the falcons 'operation roflstomp steiner' of 3.0 to carry over into 4.1

[Jingseng]

Tarl Cabot, on 24 April 2017 - 07:04 PM, said:

Leggin Ho w/merc -OH- currently w/Clans has won 261 out of 293 drops. Leadership board do not break that up between Scouting and FP nor Clans (49 contracts) vs IS(9 contracts). Unit itself has won 704 out of 789 drops.

Jingseng w/loyalist CSJ- 9Liv has won 34 out of 67 drops. See above-no breakdown between Scout/FP.

And to show simply not singling them two out.
Tarl Cabot w/loyalist Kurita-9thSOD has won 108 out of 251. Primarily pug in FP except for few co-op drops on FRR TS when I have more time for more than a few FP drops.

Faction Play
https://mwomercs.com...-tonnage-change
https://mwomercs.com...change-12152016

Faction Scouting
https://mwomercs.com...or-20-dec-2016/



" bandaids are useful while we work..."

Spoiler

Spoiler

I.... ok? I don't know what the purpose of that data is meant to show. I should note that there is a further discrepancy not revealed in such statistics - 9liv (the lucky cats) is a 1 pilot unit. It's just me (also, on the mechbay tour, although decided to go for rank 6 after the banner). That means I only ever do pug drops (in qp, in fp). I've done a total of maybe 6? (in any event, less than 10 matches total) drops with my previous unit FuBB that actually had members. As any experienced pilot ought to be able to appreciate I think, that results in very different win/loss/etc numbers.

But it also highlights a further point in "quoting stats has no real purpose". Certainly, not getting what purpose you were driving at here?

As your own tweets point out, the tonnage differences were NOT to balance TECH differences (despite that being the justification cited by all prior posts). They were used as INCENTIVE to shift player POPULATION (namely, highly skilled, organized, large member count units).

In short, they were intended (without any sort of evidence or testing or follow up) to overpower IS through tonnage allowances and cripple clan (through tonnage allowances)... so much so that players would voluntarily switch sides and stay switched.

However, such a one dimensional view of players and game play soon showed that this was no solution (or even bandaid) of any sort. When those teams switched to IS, they rolled (which, by the way, tends to put the lie to tech disparity causes imbalance, at least in terms of being the majority reason for imbalance). When they switched back a week later, they rolled again. The rolling went with whichever side those units switched to for the week. Meaning:

1) tonnage differences did not achieve stated goal of influencing population shifts - units did whatever the hell they pleased

2) imbalance primarily linked to allegiance/distribution of players (as noted in the original justification for tonnage differences) and not tech imbalance.

Meaning tonnage differences are not achieving tech balance (side goal), and are not achieving player skill distribution (main goal).

So it's a shite means of balancing because it is not balancing anything.

As I stated then, as I am stating now, this is an arbitrary change that doesn't fix anything (by the way, 4 months is a hell of a long time to keep a bandaid on, don't you think?). If your goal is balance of tech, then you need to establish a baseline and then work from there (or better yet, find a way to diverge in different directions/ability rather than just numbers). If your goal is to address the distributions of certain players, you can do that DIRECTLY. You can also do that by changing the system of FP (as I previously stated in threads regarding balancing tech and rewards... in short, you don't need to. It's a waste of time. QP doesn't bother with it, neither should FP... with civil war, just set the 6 houses against each other again, introduce 2 new clans, and align one clan with each house... allow clan and is mechs to fight side by side, with different status and rewards depending on the tech base you choose to use).

But instead, we have a crappy 'solution' that doesn't actually 'solve' anything. Like clan placeholder autocannons. But four months on, the scouting and invasion tonnage differences are less a bandaid and more a Cast... and its either never coming off, meaning you lose the use of that limb anyway, or it's coming off too late after atrophy... and you lose the use of that limb anyway.

[Tarl Cabot]

Leggin Ho, on 24 April 2017 - 07:25 PM, said:

So looking at your posts from Twitter, is Russ saying that balance does or does not matter depending on where the top units are, because my point is two unit's of equal skill, a 25 ton advantage is usually the deciding factor.

And now you know one of the reasons why Russ prefers twitter - difficulty on getting him to narrow things down. All of that was right before Winter holidays. He had made other twitts but he appeared confident this was the way to go for the time being. Is the tech differences the primary reason that Clan mercs rotate back to Clans? It is one of the reasons, the other being IS likely has a larger population of active Loyalist PUGS vs Clan Loyalist pugs. Better to club seals than to have ghost drops.

Personally, I would not expect PGI to do anything about the tonnage difference until after the new tech/skill tree has been delivered. The weight adjustments came within a week of FP 4.1 going live, where Clans were already gobbling up IS systems and most of the PGI was going to be gone for the holidays.

Will the new tech make a difference? imho not as much as some think it will, at least as long as the isXL remains in its current fragile state, as the LFE will simply be a bandaid. The upcoming engine decoupling will have a harsher effect, more so for IS mechs trying to spread incoming damage to delay that ST w/isXL check.

[Tarl Cabot]

Jingseng, on 24 April 2017 - 08:04 PM, said:

I.... ok? I don't know what the purpose of that data is meant to show. .....
snip...

The purpose was a quick pov based on a person's status, their POV, whether it be from a PUG POV vs a team/unit that is rolling their opponent. Others who have posted stating their reasons why the tonnage differences should be be reset to default, their POV have seen them on the winning Clan side. They see the IS tech shortcomings. It is not the only shortcoming, since lack of Team cohesion is trumps that. At least for IS, dying to the loss of one ST w/isXL engine prevents a player from trying to equip his mech will a more appropriate payload in their attempt to be on a more playing field discourages players/units from trying to do their best, or even from trying, as they have an arm strapped behind their back.

For other parts of your post, I agree, as would others. But FP is not and has not been PGI centerpiece. Generally they are slow to react and then it takes forever for any actual changes to be made. And now with the announcement in Dec of MW5 being in development for release tentatively in 2018, PGI focus will be split. 2018 is also the year that PGI contract for the MW IP is coming up for renewal. Regardless of what is occurring w/MWO, getting MW5 released for at least one more major payout will be on PGI mind, and will likely the make or break of MWO+MW5 DLC and renewal of the IP.

Quote

1) tonnage differences did not achieve stated goal of influencing population shifts - units did whatever the hell they pleased

2) imbalance primarily linked to allegiance/distribution of players (as noted in the original justification for tonnage differences) and not tech imbalance.

Meaning tonnage differences are not achieving tech balance (side goal), and are not achieving player skill distribution (main goal).

So it's a shite means of balancing because it is not balancing anything.

Russ did reply that the weight difference was also a bandaid primarily due to unit allocation but also to the tech differences, and yes, that bandaid has been on a long time but then PGI has not made any major changes since then. And IS loyalist units are not lining up to fight Clan mercs, so we are left with loyalist pugs.

With the way things are right now, what would you expect to happen if PGI were to reset tonnage back to equal tonnage for both sides, seriously? Initially Clans would take more planets even quicker, discourage/removing the allusion for IS pugs that they have a fighting chance, causing even more to stop dropping, leading to long wait times and Clan ghost drops, Clan pugs/units then reducing or stop playing FP, etc, it becomes a vicious cycle.And with FP 4.1 there is no way to tell now how many people are actually playing.

Just as a reminder, from appearances PGI/Russ uses Twitter so there can not be any real heavy discussions like this with PGI, currently it is between the player base on the forums using the VERY limited information PGI have provided. And what I have posted is my POV, my attempt at providing some sort of reasoning based on the limited info Russ/PGi has provided, the result of the current setup, and the possible ramifications of a reset to default settings. /shrugs

If I was dropping primarily as a Clanner, my POV would not change because PGI has created an imbalance, not with the tonnage difference but with the base foundation, the difference between isXL and cXL. After that it is a snowball effect as PGI makes other changes, quirks, etc in their attempt to overcome that difference. Would that make a huge difference atm? It would be a start, and may be the emphasis to encourage more IS players/units to become more involved w/FP, especially when the new tech is added. It would be that illusion an IS mech becoming more durable while being able to equip a more decent payload while not being a slow pug or dying to the loss of one ST.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 24 April 2017 - 09:24 PM.

[Jingseng]

Tarl Cabot, on 24 April 2017 - 09:03 PM, said:

The purpose was a quick pov based on a person's status, their POV, whether it be from a PUG POV vs a team/unit that is rolling their opponent. Others who have posted stating their reasons why the tonnage differences should be be reset to default, their POV have seen them on the winning Clan side. They see the IS tech shortcomings. It is not the only shortcoming, since lack of Team cohesion is trumps that. At least for IS, dying to the loss of one ST w/isXL engine prevents a player from trying to equip his mech will a more appropriate payload in their attempt to be on a more playing field discourages players/units from trying to do their best, or even from trying, as they have an arm strapped behind their back.

For other parts of your post, I agree, as would others. But FP is not and has not been PGI centerpiece. Generally they are slow to react and then it takes forever for any actual changes to be made. And now with the announcement in Dec of MW5 being in development for release tentatively in 2018, PGI focus will be split. 2018 is also the year that PGI contract for the MW IP is coming up for renewal. Regardless of what is occurring w/MWO, getting MW5 released for at least one more major payout will be on PGI mind, and will likely the make or break of MWO+MW5 DLC and renewal of the IP.




Russ did reply that the weight difference was also a bandaid primarily due to unit allocation but also to the tech differences, and yes, that bandaid has been on a long time but then PGI has not made any major changes since then. And IS loyalist units are not lining up to fight Clan mercs, so we are left with loyalist pugs.

With the way things are right now, what would you expect to happen if PGI were to reset tonnage back to equal tonnage for both sides, seriously? Initially Clans would take more planets even quicker, discourage/removing the allusion for IS pugs that they have a fighting chance, causing even more to stop dropping, leading to long wait times and Clan ghost drops, Clan pugs/units then reducing or stop playing FP, etc, it becomes a vicious cycle.And with FP 4.1 there is no way to tell now how many people are actually playing.

Just as a reminder, from appearances PGI/Russ uses Twitter so there can not be any real heavy discussions like this with PGI, currently it is between the player base on the forums using the VERY limited information PGI have provided.

I would say stats do not show POV accurately if at all... for example, those stats neglect that as a merc, I played both sides, and even managed to convince my old unit to change to IS for a week... once =p... There are things stats can reveal, but as far as something as multi factored and complex as a perspective... I am skeptical to say the least =p

As for FP... yeah it's not a mantelpiece. It needs fixing. But the bandaid is an excuse to not fix it. That is why I say it must come off. What do I think will happen? Nothing. Because it didn't change anything in the first place. The dominant factor is still where the elite units congregate, and where they congregate is still arbitrary - tonnage differences didn't entice them to switch, so undoing them isn't going to entice them to ... not un switch? The speed at which planets fall:

1) is irrelevant, because honestly, who cares. Do we get even a decal? Are we lore-accurate at all (not even remotely no)? Is there a prize or some sweeping change? Does one group of players suffer as a result (no... you might debatably make a claim regarding MC from planet ownership, but let's be real... no one has cared about that, and with units able to switch sides, it's a bit lacking in teeth as arguments go)

2) is still going to be the same, because it is time gated to a set number every 8 hours. There is a predefined limit to the maximum speed at which there can be a changeover.

3) is still going to be determined by the presence or absence of aforementioned units.

4) is not going to make a difference at all with how things are now anyway... clans still winning in general. And one side is going to 'win' anyway.

But instead, there are real negative effects - the devaluing of clan mechs/mech purchases, player engagement and satisfaction (fun factor), and above all, as long as the bandaid is there, no actual fixing or balancing or changing will occur. Worse would be if balancing or changing occurs in the CONTEXT of that bandaid.

If it's not accomplishing anything, least of all its primary and secondary goals, it really ought to go. It does more harm than good.

And I agree, PGI is being remarkably arrogant and close minded in using twitter to avoid communication. And thinking. And frankly, improving. It is trump-like in it's purposeful and intentional ignorance.

[justcallme A S H]

Jingseng, on 24 April 2017 - 08:04 PM, said:

I.... ok? I don't know what the purpose of that data is meant to show. I should note that there is a further discrepancy not revealed in such statistics - 9liv (the lucky cats) is a 1 pilot unit.

And -OH- is a 2 member unit, from memory. So what is the purpose of what you are trying to say? End of the day Tarl is pointing out that your piloting ability, and thus win rate, isn't great using Clan tech yet -OH- / Leggin's is when using clan tech. So is the tech the problem?

FP is all about working as a team. Get into a team, work as a team, improve your play. Simple.

The tonnage difference NEEDs to be there right now, to try to balance some of the inherent imbalance that PGI refuse to address when all things are even (teams, well, even as it gets). It's a very basic/simple concept to understand and if you can't/won't understand it then that is OK, but it won't change.

PGI have not ever acknowledged the IS XL issue, even if it is the one talked about the most. I believe once they release LFE then they will 'claim' it fixes it, yet it actually will do very little because mechs needing IS XL will still need it.

[Wing 0]

justcallme A S H, on 24 April 2017 - 09:42 PM, said:

And -OH- is a 2 member unit, from memory. So what is the purpose of what you are trying to say? End of the day Tarl is pointing out that your piloting ability, and thus win rate, isn't great using Clan tech yet -OH- / Leggin's is when using clan tech. So is the tech the problem?

Actually it was a 3 man group but 1 of our guys left due to the ******** competency of PGI's decision making so now its just a 2 man group who are still actively playing.

[Lovas]

Ahh PGI, your proposed skill tree....

So, with the lost of most weapon and all mobility quirks for IS....and good clan mechs now able to get some quirks it didn't have before...how many more tons will the clans drop? Go down to 220, 200??? Place your bets now!

[justcallme A S H]

#ISgoingfor300T


But yeah, the PTS, a debarcle for IS mechs. FP will be way clan heavy within the week of that patch dropping, cause imbalance is about to super-heavy favour clan.

[Marius Romanis]

The tonnage difference is their to make the 12 v 12 Faction play mode as balanced as possible, to stop one side winning all games.

Their is inherent flaws in this (people never take planets for RP/MC(lol), never get to play siege mode, and it doesn't factor in / get adjusted by RUSS / PGI at all when big units move around / timezone.

If they actually wanted the tonnage bar to work they would make all modes available at all stages of the bar and make tonnage change on the fly depending how far along the bar a side had got.

To the people talking about mech balance: -
Facts: -
- IS HAS MORE TERRIBLE MECHS THAN CLAN.
- IS HAVE XL ENGINES THAT YOU NEED IN MOST GOOD IS MECHS to make them good vs clan.
- MOST GOOD IS MECHS HAVE GOOD SIDE TORSO ARMOR/STRUCTURE QUIRKS. which is what makes them good IS mechs and nullify's the IS XL insta death problem, but all variants without decent ST armor/structure suffer.
- Latest Clan side torso loss heat mitigation penalty was overkill.
- Mechs are the closest to balanced they have ever been (until skill tree removes all IS offensive quirks makeing the few good IS mechs even less in number).
- PLAYERS SKILL is not balanced
- Players co-ordination, willingness and ability to work together is not balanced.

The biggest factor is Players not mechs and it is the biggest reason people leave this game and the biggest reason player population is so bad. no decent matchmaking system. before I get the "we dont have numbers to support matchmaking" response. NO **** we dont..... because we dont have matchmaking is the very reason we dont have numbers to support it.... PGI needs to add a GOOD matchmaker at the same time as something happens in this game that will bring a lot of people back to try the game again / see if it has got changed / better / addressed the seal clubbing problem. Until then people try the new thing for a while the leave again.

The Civil war weapons update is probably PGI's last chance to stop the revolving door and get people to stay.
Making FP solo queue or group queue would go a long way to addresing that issue as well. and before people say that was tried in 3.1 no it was not. unit and non unit queue is nothing like solo and grouped queue.

To futher elaborate on its the players not the mechs.

If you get 12 v 12 5 year old kids not communicating at all with store loadouts Clan will win 100%
If you get 12 v 12 people with telepathic levels of communication and co-ordination in the best IS mechs with the best builds for 400 meter or less brawling I WOULD have said IS would win 100% but the maurauder IIC A and scorch change that, but you cant fit many of those in a clan mech deck at current tonnage without gimping your 3rd and 4th waves...... so at telepathic level i would say IS win 80%. before people "but Tournaments everyone plays clan mechs" 6v6 and 8v8 is very different from 12v12 for brawl pushing.

Edited by CadoAzazel, 26 April 2017 - 06:13 PM.

[Leggin Ho]

This amused me, please take a look. And I've seen teams from both sides attempt to use the tactic in this thread......

https://mwomercs.com...nage-advantage/

[Lovas]

Yea I read it. When I've seen it done it usually weak teams trying to counter stronger teams. It has been done on and off since I've been playing at least. I don't think it has anything to do with tonnage.

Sunstruck (the OP of that thread) might be bringing it up because so many clanners (or mercs who almost exclusively play clan tech) are complaining of the tonnage difference recently.

[Leggin Ho]

I've played both IS and Clan tech as a Merc, and I still say 25 tons is too much when you are basically giving one side a extra mech's tonnage to play with. I've ran planetary leagues and there is no reason to bump one side that much.