54 replies to this topic

[Tarogato]

Lupis Volk, on 25 October 2017 - 09:08 PM, said:

I'm sorry but as some said people would still challenge the validity of the data and we only need one Alex Jones in this life time, this forum wouldn't be able to handle any sort of Alex Jones wannabe.

Not very much in the way of bad could come from the transparency of this data

If the data shows that the Shadow Cat ^[example] is overperforming but the community agrees almost unanimously that it is not overperforming, then we have the opportunity to learn a few things.

A: the method for gathering data could be flawed
B: the method for analysing the data could be flawed
C: the mech is capable of putting up impressive numbers while simultaneously not being very effective and thus must be treated specially



What bad could come from it?

A: people see what the best performing mechs are and flock to them
B: people see that PGI's data does not match the communities consensus, and attacks PGI for poor data analysis instead of actually being reasonable and constructive human beings about it

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Snazzy Dragon, on 25 October 2017 - 08:41 PM, said:

No no no, you've got it all wrong!

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...b#i=205&l=stock

That's fair, but mine is technically super stock, bringing the classic into a new era!!!

[VirtualRiot]

I don't think PGI will ever release that information.

The data exists, best we can do is conduct our own studies.

Here is the link to the results of my most recent study about Mech performances that I did back in Aug.

https://mwomercs.com...-stats-results/

[davoodoo]

ForceUser, on 25 October 2017 - 10:04 AM, said:

If it doesn't conform to what the community believes is the truth then no one will believe it regardless if it's true or not.

You know how I know this? Because PGI has given us stats for mechs in the past and no one believed them. Reactions ranged from "PGI is lying" to "PGI is manipulating the statistics" to "PGI has made every single number up because Dev A was killed that one time by that one mech using that one weapon despite us saying that the devs never play this game."

Also nerfs and buffs are based on those stats and, again, no one believes PGI.

But sure, I'd love to see chassis average performance just to see how the community reacts.

The problem with those stats i found in the past is pretty simple.
Average score is average, the more popular the mech is the more it will draw in worse players which will draw poor players in along with good which leads to fairly smooth performance curve, "dead" mechs which nobody uses are actually used by few players who got extremely good with them and are thus pulling higher average numbers despite mechs being absolute crap and given better machines these players would score higher.

Tbh i would rather see average, median and mode performance for each mech as these 3 together would better reflect reality.

Also theres matter of builds, crap i see ppl running would turn even best mechs into silly jokes.
Finally third, statistics of what exactly?? lrms pull pretty good numbers on paper, tons of damage assists and even kmdd. But all missiles do is spread damage over the mech and regardless of what ppl claim you cant twist out most dmg.

Edited by davoodoo, 26 October 2017 - 09:35 AM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

ForceUser, on 25 October 2017 - 10:04 AM, said:

If it doesn't conform to what the community believes is the truth then no one will believe it regardless if it's true or not.

You know how I know this? Because PGI has given us stats for mechs in the past and no one believed them. Reactions ranged from "PGI is lying" to "PGI is manipulating the statistics" to "PGI has made every single number up because Dev A was killed that one time by that one mech using that one weapon despite us saying that the devs never play this game."

Also nerfs and buffs are based on those stats and, again, no one believes PGI.

But sure, I'd love to see chassis average performance just to see how the community reacts.

Quoted for truth.

PGI said they had statistics the indicated that one of the major reasons for the perceived Clan/IS imbalance was the simple fact that the Clans seemed to draw in more of the higher skilled player base and the community turned it around by saying that the reason this was the case was that the higher skilled players gravitated to the Over Powered Clan mechs and that became on of the IS purists rallying cries.

Point is, no matter what PGI posts, someone is going to find a way to twist to mean something else or if they can't twist it to mean something else, they find a way to twist some other statistic to disprove the statistics provided by PGI. That is if they just do flat out dismiss them as a lie.

[Gas Guzzler]

Viktor Drake, on 26 October 2017 - 12:38 PM, said:

Quoted for truth.

PGI said they had statistics the indicated that one of the major reasons for the perceived Clan/IS imbalance was the simple fact that the Clans seemed to draw in more of the higher skilled player base and the community turned it around by saying that the reason this was the case was that the higher skilled players gravitated to the Over Powered Clan mechs and that became on of the IS purists rallying cries.

Point is, no matter what PGI posts, someone is going to find a way to twist to mean something else or if they can't twist it to mean something else, they find a way to twist some other statistic to disprove the statistics provided by PGI. That is if they just do flat out dismiss them as a lie.

Why would the high skilled, tryhard, players gravitate towards one side do you think?

[MischiefSC]

Tarogato, on 26 October 2017 - 02:16 AM, said:

Not very much in the way of bad could come from the transparency of this data

If the data shows that the Shadow Cat ^[example] is overperforming but the community agrees almost unanimously that it is not overperforming, then we have the opportunity to learn a few things.

A: the method for gathering data could be flawed
B: the method for analysing the data could be flawed
C: the mech is capable of putting up impressive numbers while simultaneously not being very effective and thus must be treated specially



What bad could come from it?

A: people see what the best performing mechs are and flock to them
B: people see that PGI's data does not match the communities consensus, and attacks PGI for poor data analysis instead of actually being reasonable and constructive human beings about it

My suspicion is that in QP against mid/low tiers the wall-hiding ERLL SCat does good damage (even if it creates poor win/loss) and as such skews its metrics. I'm always happy to see a wall-hiding enemy mech; it means they're functionally already one down in the relevant parts of the battle. However things like that can skew data collection as those are really, really popular in mid/low tiers.

Viktor Drake, on 26 October 2017 - 12:38 PM, said:

Quoted for truth.

PGI said they had statistics the indicated that one of the major reasons for the perceived Clan/IS imbalance was the simple fact that the Clans seemed to draw in more of the higher skilled player base and the community turned it around by saying that the reason this was the case was that the higher skilled players gravitated to the Over Powered Clan mechs and that became on of the IS purists rallying cries.

Point is, no matter what PGI posts, someone is going to find a way to twist to mean something else or if they can't twist it to mean something else, they find a way to twist some other statistic to disprove the statistics provided by PGI. That is if they just do flat out dismiss them as a lie.

Except I can tell you from experience that's WHY most the good units in FW go Clans. I either drop with those teams or members of those teams come to KCom TS to drop when their teammates are not around and I've heard this consistently since the major set of IS nerfs that started it. At the time KCom was in IS and we were clearly and significantly at a disadvantage against good teams in Clan mechs.

Which kills me, because in the end I have more fun in IS mechs. I'd love IS/Clan balance to be better as I'd be happier in IS mechs on any given day. However the analytics of team metrics and team v team metrics were pretty clear and the consensus between all the teams in question was pretty clear.

Plus, well, the math. The math on why Clan mechs are better isn't hard to find, I've posted it a lot of places as have many others. Mostly people just want balance comparable to what we had before the nerfs that happened around the KDK release.

[Kin3ticX]

Gas Guzzler, on 26 October 2017 - 12:45 PM, said:

Why would the high skilled, tryhard, players gravitate towards one side do you think?

Uhhh, well gee I dunno. Probly becuz day R da ebil Murcs? In mah lore da Clanz dun really use da Murcs so why day have to plot to force PGI nerf mah Clans. In mah batteltak Clans R better but the IS has more robits and use dishonibru dezgra tactics like da maylay but dis game no has maylay so I dunno. If only PGI did the CW 12vs10 it would be purfect (((balance))) already.

Checkmate tryhard

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Kin3ticX, on 26 October 2017 - 01:15 PM, said:

Uhhh, well gee I dunno. Probly becuz day R da ebil Murcs? In mah lore da Clanz dun really use da Murcs so why day have to plot to force PGI nerf mah Clans. In mah batteltak Clans R better but the IS has more robits and use dishonibru dezgra tactics like da maylay but dis game no has maylay so I dunno. If only PGI did the CW 12vs10 it would be purfect (((balance))) already.

Checkmate tryhard

I feel like this was tedious just to type out completely.

[Lupis Volk]

Gas Guzzler, on 26 October 2017 - 12:45 PM, said:

Why would the high skilled, tryhard, players gravitate towards one side do you think?

To get away from the toxic, self defeatists that bully everyone who dares to have a difference of opinion.

I mean just look at you lot. Even when you win you turn it into a defeat because of your mentality.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Lupis Volk, on 26 October 2017 - 01:34 PM, said:

To get away from the toxic, self defeatists that bully everyone who dares to have a difference of opinion.

Huh?

Lupis Volk, on 26 October 2017 - 01:34 PM, said:

Even when you win you turn it into a defeat because of your mentality.

You realize this attitude isn't conducive to being a good player right? There is a big difference between understanding a sloppy win (and learning from it) and treating a sloppy win as a loss.

Edit: I'm not sure I read the tone of your post correctly...

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 26 October 2017 - 01:46 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Lupis Volk, on 26 October 2017 - 01:34 PM, said:

To get away from the toxic, self defeatists that bully everyone who dares to have a difference of opinion.

I mean just look at you lot. Even when you win you turn it into a defeat because of your mentality.

My lot? I'm not sure what you are talking about, I don't really align with either faction, and I don't even do Faction Play. Yes, zOMG, my sig has a dragon in it because I like black and red. My unit has played the field since CW, and I was part of the comp focused part of my unit, that doesn't give a **** about what mech came from what faction. If you look back to the brief point when IS mechs WERE stronger you will see me on these very forums arguing with people that were trying to say "Clans OP" when they clearly weren't.

Nowadays, I bask in the glory of my Clan assaults. Hell, I'll even be sad if any of them get nerfed, because nothing follows up a bad game like delivering 1200 damage and 5 kills effortlessly to unsuspecting pugs. But, the truth is undeniable, sorry. When it comes to reliable strategies that work the majority of the time and aren't heavily dependent on team participation, Clan mechs have it down, especially in the Heavy/Assault classes.

[Lupis Volk]

Gas Guzzler, on 26 October 2017 - 02:07 PM, said:

My lot? I'm not sure what you are talking about, I don't really align with either faction, and I don't even do Faction Play. Yes, zOMG, my sig has a dragon in it because I like black and red. My unit has played the field since CW, and I was part of the comp focused part of my unit, that doesn't give a **** about what mech came from what faction. If you look back to the brief point when IS mechs WERE stronger you will see me on these very forums arguing with people that were trying to say "Clans OP" when they clearly weren't.

Nowadays, I bask in the glory of my Clan assaults. Hell, I'll even be sad if any of them get nerfed, because nothing follows up a bad game like delivering 1200 damage and 5 kills effortlessly to unsuspecting pugs. But, the truth is undeniable, sorry. When it comes to reliable strategies that work the majority of the time and aren't heavily dependent on team participation, Clan mechs have it down, especially in the Heavy/Assault classes.

My remark is not aimed at you but rather that statement and those who both of us know champion it. Oddly they tend to often be either from the FRR or Clan House Davion. I'm well past the point of frustration with this forum and the IS forum warriors. I was an IS loyalist but changed to Clan not due to tech but rather lore and to see how green the grass was on the other side.

We full well know that if PGI released the stats these people would do their tired song and dance to claim that everything the Clans has is OP and that there is no way for them to overcome the tech imbalance, which we know is bull. Scouting proves that.

I'm am done being the jokingly condescending, snide clanker. I want to be able to post without some jagoffs coming around and encircling me screeching "Clan apologists" because i beg to differ from them. I want there to be balance but you can't balance when you have people going out of their way to give flawed data to further their agenda.

Edited by Lupis Volk, 26 October 2017 - 02:40 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Lupis Volk, on 26 October 2017 - 02:36 PM, said:

Oddly they tend to often be either from the FRR or Clan House Davion.

You forgot Clan Wolf, even though most of those players seemed to have jumped ship (don't see any CWI, CWDG, or SWOL players at all anymore). Not that they are necessarily pertinent to the conversation, but anytime someone mentions Clan Davion I feel Clan Wolf needs to be brought up given they are the exact same thing just on opposing sides.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 26 October 2017 - 02:54 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 26 October 2017 - 02:53 PM, said:

You forgot Clan Wolf, even though most of those players seemed to have jumped ship (don't see any CWI, CWDG, or SWOL players at all anymore). Not that they are necessarily pertinent to the conversation, but anytime someone mentions Clan Davion I feel Clan Wolf needs to be brought up given they are the exact same thing just on opposing sides.

Indeed.

Even though I don't claim to be loyal to an IS house or anything, Clan Mortal Combat was never a huge offender. Other than of being ******** anyway.