62 replies to this topic

[DAYLEET]

Vxheous Kerensky, on 06 May 2017 - 01:22 PM, said:

Half the battle of invasion is having multiple dropdecks set up for multiple ranges/conditions based on map. Many players that do not routinely play Invasion do not have such decks set up (yes there are jack of all trades decks, butvmore often than not, they will lose out to a specialized deck based on map)

Because specialised deck only work with a group who can use you and a pilot who can make it happen. In pug you can't go "ok this mode/map is those mech" because its gona be fkin useless without any sync with the rest of your team. People in FW right now want 400 match score and a mid range LL/LPL is your best bet all around. Sit back, get as much damage your best two mech and hope you get roll'd quickly after that so you can rinse and repeat. Ive yet to see a IS team with a group on it and much less any leading from anyone who knows what hes doing. There's no point in trying or going full meta because we're just there for the "participation presents".

[Clownwarlord]

Wait!!!

Facts:

Faction Warfare is BROKEN!!! And it always has been because of imbalance, and will be until it can be resolved.

That is it.

[Lily from animove]

naterist, on 06 May 2017 - 01:34 PM, said:

OP, i they said they changed it so that each battle is 1 percent movement

hmm, ok, but this still has the same effect just needs more cycles then

627, on 06 May 2017 - 01:51 PM, said:

What exactly are you trying to say here? That IS is the moral winner? That the IS will Hillary this home?

Inner sphere sucks and loses baaaaddd. but at least you're doin not *that* bad?

it's about undertsanding the system, even if we have near balance as long as 1% is off, the current way of the bar will reach 100% after enough games. The 100% clan and 0% IS just says nothing about how much the balance is off.

[BumbleBee]

I played 16hrs yesterday with a few breaks.
What I noticed was an almost complete lack of coordination on the IS side. In almost every match we won, IS would take down 1 gate and walk through 1 at a time, straight into the firing line. If there were brawlers set up just inside the gate, once again, 1 by 1 past the 2 lances of brawlers, almost never turning around, so we had free shots on their backs, one IS Mech at a time. Complete with "Clam OP nerf NAO!" over chat.

Some were great games BTW, nice and close We lost just as much as we won on those, and some games we got rolled by the IS.

Any games like the first example will skew any actual balance assessment, and unfortunately, they were the majority of the games

[Valhallan]

Vxheous Kerensky, on 06 May 2017 - 01:22 PM, said:

I suspect the ratio to be pretty close. Keep in mind that IS can bring an extra 20 tons per person into Invasion. Those players that win in scouting will also typically win in invasion, while those that lose at scouting will also typically lose ay invasion. The only real difference is you can get away more with bringing a derpy mech to scouting than bringing a derpy mech to invasion.

Half the battle of invasion is having multiple dropdecks set up for multiple ranges/conditions based on map. Many players that do not routinely play Invasion do not have such decks set up (yes there are jack of all trades decks, butvmore often than not, they will lose out to a specialized deck based on map)

Except 20 tons is really only 5 tons per mech, and unlike scouting the upgrade is questionable at the higher tonnage levels, can a BLR-2C beat a poptart ngyr? can a fatlass beat a scorch? speaking personally (as a pug) i win scouting a lot more often than invasion, in-fact i completed the 8 win challenge fairly quickly (and will do the dailies in scouting since i can finish it in 1 good match or in half an hour if all 3 are losses), i only won 1 invasion out of 20 though and only 4 of those were against organized units (for some reason my scouting ac20 cent still performs well in invasion, at times better than my blr-2c ).

[Bishop Steiner]

Lily from animove, on 06 May 2017 - 09:11 AM, said:

so clans have 100%? well how does the system work? the system does +3.3% per win right?

now lets imagine clans would win 55% of it's games. and lets say we have 20 games running at the same time (could be more)

then clans win 11 games and Is only 9 this means the bar already shifts by 6.6 % in favor of the clans, now you can estimate (or calculate) after how many games the clans go to own 100% In fact not many.

So just because you see such huge 100% doesn't means the clans are winning everything.
It is a kind of weakness in the system and how it handles wins and losses towards palnetary ownership..

For it to be 100% Still shows an overwhelming bias in favor of the Clans power level (and of course, which side the big names are likely playing for because of it), no matter how you want to sugar coat it.

I don't see you embracing your inner IS for the event. Hmmmmm?

[Lupis Volk]

Bishop Steiner, on 06 May 2017 - 02:30 PM, said:

For it to be 100% Still shows an overwhelming bias in favor of the Clans power level (and of course, which side the big names are likely playing for because of it), no matter how you want to sugar coat it.

I don't see you embracing your inner IS for the event. Hmmmmm?

I'd go IS but.....forumites ruined it for me.

[AEgg]

Bishop Steiner, on 06 May 2017 - 02:30 PM, said:

For it to be 100% Still shows an overwhelming bias in favor of the Clans power level (and of course, which side the big names are likely playing for because of it), no matter how you want to sugar coat it.

I don't see you embracing your inner IS for the event. Hmmmmm?

100% is 50 games advantage (or maybe 100 games advanatage, depends on PGI's math) if each game is worth 1%. It doesn't even matter how many games were actually played. Sure, that 50 game advanage is huge if only 60 games were played. If 6,000 games were played, however, it's basically meaningless.

That bar really, really should just be a win/loss ratio.

[Fox the Apprentice]

Lily from animove, on 06 May 2017 - 02:05 PM, said:

hmm, ok, but this still has the same effect just needs more cycles then



it's about undertsanding the system, even if we have near balance as long as 1% is off, the current way of the bar will reach 100% after enough games. The 100% clan and 0% IS just says nothing about how much the balance is off.

It won't reach 100% after 120 minutes of the event being active, however. And that WAS the case.

[xSleeZyx]

Just wanna chime in, i've had 6 out 6 losses now tonight, 3 pugs and 3 BT matches.
So like i said in a previous post, it's majorly due TEAMPLAY coordination that's why clan TEND to win because all top tier units are CLAN atm, most of em anyway.

But pugging, IS is just as good.
I mean i even faced a team with all 0 units, and i tried to lead / suggest where to go due noone wanted to use coms or anything.
That match IS won aswell due they pushed us hard, while my team did nothing to respond.

So yea..

Staying on that hill 2000 km away shooting ur PPC and / or LRM won't HELP...

Tho i've to say BT has realy bad manners, keep mocking due our loss when they faceroll a pug i think they lost 4 mechs in total where i killed 3 of em. Me and rest of our team got slaughtered.

On the other side of the coin is golden matches though.
Faced HHOD premade as fully pug, yet we won over them.

Well anyway i'm so tired of OP this OP that.

Reason IS is down atm is due lack of coordiated UNITS playing. Clans has far more units playing atm.

[Bishop Steiner]

Lupis Volk, on 06 May 2017 - 02:32 PM, said:

I'd go IS but.....forumites ruined it for me.

funny, that's how I tend to feel about Clans...

[Kubernetes]

FallingAce, on 06 May 2017 - 11:42 AM, said:

I don't know why everyone is hung up on the Battlemaster 2c. It may be good on quickplay maps, but it's a bad choice for siege.

Uh, what? The 5LPL BLR-2C is the IS FW mech par excellence. It became popular precisely because it's one of the few mechs capable of beating off a wave of Kodiaks and MAD-IICs.

Also, the IS is competitive at range with ERLLs on the BLR-1G or a Grasshopper 5P. IS can defend Boreal with ease with just those two chassis.

[Bishop Steiner]

Kubernetes, on 06 May 2017 - 03:36 PM, said:

Uh, what? The 5LPL BLR-2C is the IS FW mech par excellence. It became popular precisely because it's one of the few mechs capable of beating off a wave of Kodiaks and MAD-IICs.

Also, the IS is competitive at range with ERLLs on the BLR-1G or a Grasshopper 5P. IS can defend Boreal with ease with just those two chassis.

problem is, even with IS having more drop deck tonnage....once you run out of tons for those chassis, your fallback Medium and Light IS chassis don't remotely stack up to the Clams (well, maybe the Locusts.. though they still splat pretty dang easy). So you are on even-ish footing for what...half your dropdeck?

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 06 May 2017 - 03:44 PM.

[Vyx]

They have had the ability to fix this for years. They simply wont. I believe they lack the skill.

The Matchmaker should:
1) Make teams of -only- Clan mechs and teams of -only- IS mechs.
2) A team of Clan mechs is 2 groups of 5 (2 "stars") -- totaling 10 mechs.
3) A team of IS mechs is 3 groups of 4 (3 "lances") -- totaling 12 mechs.

The Matchmaker would then:
A) Pit two IS teams to fight (12 on 12, try to balance weight-class/tonnage/PSR on equal footing), or
B ) Pit two Clan teams to fight (10 on 10, try to balance weight-class/tonnage/PSR on equal footing), or
C) Pit mixed teams to fight (Clan vs IS, 10 on 12, try to balance tonnage/PSR)

Conditions A and B would be very much closer to balanced teams due to "apples to apples" comparisons.

Condition C would be balanced as much as possible, but a slight edge would be given to the IS team by them simply fielding more mechs.

Done.

Edited by Vyx, 06 May 2017 - 03:55 PM.

[Tordin]

Clan "just" 60% now. No time to rest though...

[Kaeb Odellas]

Vyx, on 06 May 2017 - 03:47 PM, said:

They have had the ability to fix this for years. They simply wont. I believe they lack the skill.

The Matchmaker should:
1) Make teams of -only- Clan mechs and teams of -only- IS mechs.
2) A team of Clan mechs is 2 groups of 5 (2 "stars") -- totaling 10 mechs.
3) A team of IS mechs is 3 groups of 4 (3 "lances") -- totaling 12 mechs.

The Matchmaker would then:
A) Pit two IS teams to fight (12 on 12, try to balance weight-class/tonnage/PSR on equal footing), or
B ) Pit two Clan teams to fight (10 on 10, try to balance weight-class/tonnage/PSR on equal footing), or
C) Pit mixed teams to fight (Clan vs IS, 10 on 12, try to balance tonnage/PSR)

Conditions A and B would be very much closer to balanced teams due to "apples to apples" comparisons.

Condition C would be balanced as much as possible, but a slight edge would be given to the IS team by them simply fielding more mechs.

Done.

We've been over why asymmetrical team sizes won't work. More people would go Clan because who the hell wants to be cannon fodder?

[Ruar]

Vyx, on 06 May 2017 - 03:47 PM, said:

They have had the ability to fix this for years. They simply wont. I believe they lack the skill.

The Matchmaker should:
1) Make teams of -only- Clan mechs and teams of -only- IS mechs.
2) A team of Clan mechs is 2 groups of 5 (2 "stars") -- totaling 10 mechs.
3) A team of IS mechs is 3 groups of 4 (3 "lances") -- totaling 12 mechs.

The Matchmaker would then:
A) Pit two IS teams to fight (12 on 12, try to balance weight-class/tonnage/PSR on equal footing), or
B ) Pit two Clan teams to fight (10 on 10, try to balance weight-class/tonnage/PSR on equal footing), or
C) Pit mixed teams to fight (Clan vs IS, 10 on 12, try to balance tonnage/PSR)

Conditions A and B would be very much closer to balanced teams due to "apples to apples" comparisons.

Condition C would be balanced as much as possible, but a slight edge would be given to the IS team by them simply fielding more mechs.

Done.

I'm not sure a two mech advantage would be enough to overcome the range/mobility advantage.

I think the most effective solution involves making the IS XL engine so it can survive a side torso loss and modifying the maps/modes to limit range advantages. Changing those two items might not be enough, but it would be a good starting point.

[Fox the Apprentice]

Ruar, on 06 May 2017 - 05:13 PM, said:

I'm not sure a two mech advantage would be enough to overcome the range/mobility advantage.

I think the most effective solution involves making the IS XL engine so it can survive a side torso loss and modifying the maps/modes to limit range advantages. Changing those two items might not be enough, but it would be a good starting point.

After the new tech drop, I'm thinking IS would have the advantage in a set like that.

[Novakaine]

Lupis Volk, on 06 May 2017 - 01:41 PM, said:

To all IS cry babies i think your in a dire need of some gitting gud, Davions and lurms aren't the way to victory and neither is crying on the sideline, adapt and overcome.

Clanners........

[Lupis Volk]

Novakaine, on 06 May 2017 - 06:35 PM, said:

Davions........

ftfy

keep chugging the custom made kool-aid dezgra.

Edited by Lupis Volk, 06 May 2017 - 08:00 PM.