575 replies to this topic

[Iron Lemur]

GamerPro4000, on 29 November 2017 - 03:00 PM, said:

I am one of those guilty of achieving this by scouting, but I want Matt to know the reason why I did it and it's not because it was hard, but its more fun for me)
1) weight class is more fair and manageable.(No assults vs a light. Skills of the pilots are counted more here)
2) the chances of success against a 4 man pre made is way higher then a 12 man I'm.(less chance of getting stream rolled)
3)the battle mode is more fair. (Both sides can choose to play defensively or offensively in engaging the enemy at all times)
4) last but most important, the game play Dynamics are very different. 98% of scout matches will be a close a personal brawl which is very refreshing considering from my experience 85% of invasion and 95% of quick play is the meta poke and alpha game and kills brawler builds.

Matt is not wrong for promoting invasion since it does need more players, but I hope he knows the pros of scouting mode when he is promoting only invasion.

Additional reasons why I did most of my 250s in Scouting:
5. Most Invasion matches tend to go close to the 30 minute mark. Scouting tends to be quick, which means I can mill out more matches.
6. It's easier to get a PUG scouting match. I could get a scouting game almost on demand during the event (even if it meant dealing with the occasional hair-rending PUG team mates).
7. As I alluded to in #5, Invasion matches are a time commitment. And Invasion PUGs are the stuff of nightmares. And once you've found a decent team, the inclination is to ride it for all it's worth. My one multi-game Invasion binge earned me _that_ look from the spouse when I emerged from my office.

[NocturnalBeast]

GweNTLeR, on 28 November 2017 - 09:59 AM, said:

It is true that the event was won by attempts of several merc units, but that is not the case. The case it, that there are some *specific* chassis completely outperforming others. This is a fact. They definitely helped a lot to add some % to the bar. To show it I want PGI to post average K/D mech statistics - they can do it quite easily. Guess who will be the top 2? (hint: 2 clan lights).
And OF COURSE THIS GAME NEEDS BUFFS AND NERFS. Because there ARE some badly balanced weapons - like L/H gauss rifles, IS LBX 2-5-20, IS/CLAN SPL.

I will beat a dead horse here and remind you that in "A BATTLETECH GAME" Mechs are not intended to be equal and some Mechs are supposed to feel outdated and obsolete, because they are. Also in "A BATTLETECH GAME", some Mechs and variants are supposed to be very rare, hero Mechs, for example, are supposed to be unique Mechs modified to the specifications of their original pilot; the only ones of their kind in existence. Instead of further buffs and nerfs, the most "OP" chassis should be considered "rare variants" and the numbers of these chassis per game should be limited to maybe one on a team, or even none, depending on the scenario.

[James Argent]

PUGging to 250 was simply easier in Scouting than in Invasion due to the number of chances you could get at it in the same time period (including wait time) and the greater amount of control an individual had on the match's outcome.

You won't get more people playing Invasion by bumping the score up further, either...you'll get people completely giving up on the events because if they already know they can't score 250 in Invasion matches, what makes you think they'll try to get 300?

[arcana75]

For many players, not being able to get a FW reward via Scouting will not necessarily draw them into Invasion mode. There's a certain level of "pain" associated with Invasion mode, especially Siege Attack, a symmetric mode that should be asymmetric. No sane force sieges an entrenched enemy using the same number of troops. Regardless, I truly wonder how many players find Invasion mode "fun" and how many find it "not fun".

I'm totally in favour of daily events, simple ones. However I have a feeling there's way too many still-manual steps involved in the entire Event process (creation, tracking, rewards) that makes a proper daily Event schedule currently laborious to achieve, I suspect.

Personally I think the idea of a Mech reward should be dropped or reviewed. A Mech reward is too attractive to pass up, and no matter the conditions of an objective to get it, players will try every which way to game it and find the simplest easiest way to achieve it. If the intention is to pull more players into FW, is dangling a Mech hidden behind Invasion FP mode the solution? I don't know the solution, but right now putting it as a reward for any FP mode doesn't seem to be the correct one.

Can FW be made more "fun" and thus draw more players into Invasion FW? I think for a start, if there is a separate queue for solo and groups, can help draw more players from the solo population into Invasion FW. I see many FW players telling solo players not to come into FW if they are not in groups, that sentiment does nothing to help the situation too, because they fail to realise there's no way to start a 12v12 FP Invasion match with strictly only groups, until each group has exactly 12 players, otherwise it's a tall order to do "group tetris" to match groups with groups without solo players to fill the gaps to make 12. Regardless, Invasion needs changes (changes to the people/community, to the way Invasion FW works, to the game itself) to make it more appealing, and dangling rewards is not the solution.

[McGoat]

Still waiting on stats - Luthien stats were released three days after the "results" were published.

[UnKnownPlayer]

So in summary:
People are crying that there was a programming error. - Someone owned up to it and said sorry, it's a game, have some forgiveness.

The event still relies on a final push rather than giving any reward for the previous many days of conflict. - stick to 8 hour cycles and count how many each side wins.

People are complaining about the "monetary value" they COULD have won. - If you got off your high horse and ran some faction games instead of writing forum posts you would already have earned what you think you have missed out on.

Teamwork is OP in faction, it's so unfair! - join TS and find a unit.

Some mechs are unbalanced and are unfair - stop playing meta and start playing counter meta, also apparently teamwork is more OP, go join a team.

Some people went and did scouting for they match score wins. - Why do you even care? Because you didnt think of it? Because you have "more honour"? Change the challenges to invasion only but tbh it doesnt affect affect anyone else when people go scouting instead so I don't see the problem.

Mostly though - this was a free event, it got people playing FP more, YAY! Stop whining.

[Questar]

UnKnownPlayer, on 30 November 2017 - 10:09 AM, said:

So in summary:
People are crying that there was a programming error. - Someone owned up to it and said sorry, it's a game, have some forgiveness.

I can tell you and many other haven't actually read what the issue is. It's not that Matt made a mistake, that happens he is human. It's that there wasn't an announcement of the change in how it would be scored before the event started, then AFTER the event, not during, there were changes made that affected and changed the outcome. Had everything Matt has said since the event was completed been made public before the event, about the changes, this topic would be a non-issue. To everyone, both clan and IS alike, the outcome is "fishy". Yes the clan was "given" the win. Until the final numbers are posted, the entire event will and should be suspect. This isn't about money or C-bills, its about right and wrong and how a company responds to its own mistakes.

[Tarl Cabot]

McGoat, on 30 November 2017 - 08:54 AM, said:

Still waiting on stats - Luthien stats were released three days after the "results" were published.

It does make one wonder how they are going to.. dress up... the stats. As noted belong for me is that Tharkad was meant to be setup COMPLETELY different from Luthien. Again, not minor changes but major changes.

Just to note, I have no issue with Tharkad being awarded the win, primarily because IF MATT had set Tharkad the same as Luthien (minus when the event ended) the Clans would have won since IS would have been short a total of 4 battles at the end of the event. And I will continue to have a problem if PGI intends to set the FUTURE Capitol events to match the REVISED Tharkad parameters, especially the +1 win condition.

Tarl Cabot, on 30 November 2017 - 04:27 AM, said:

There were several issues with Tharkad. It was setup vastly different from Luthien. Each Tharkad drop was worth default 3.3% instead of Luthien's 1%. If it had been set at 1%, the Clans would have won whether or not the conquer threshold was set at 90% or lower. I am not contesting the final Clan win, only how PGI fat fingered the coding in their attempt to set it up like Tukayyid to prevent any sort of tie, which is BS in itself, nor are they looking far enough.

• Set Capitol combat drops = 1% (100 battles per side matter instead of the current 30..)
  
• Set Conquest Mark to 75%- 85%, not the cheesy 1%. Current FP mark set at 90% (or 3.3% if drop valve not changed from default FP)
  
• For Clans attacking a Capitol:
  
  • Clan win-own the Capitol
    
  • IS wins, Capitol can not be attacked again for that season
    
  • Tie - Capitol can be attacked again after another Capitol has been attacked unless it is the last Capitol then Clans can relaunch an attack at a later date.

The Season is setup with 3 possible outcomes, just like the FP tug of war bar, normal/Luthien, not the Tharkad event.:

• Clan wins if they surround then allowed to attack and conquer 3 of 5 IS CAPITOLS
  
• IS wins if they surround then allowed to attack/conquer 1 of # Clan CAPITOL
  
• Stalemate if one side fails the above criteria first.

So say IS prevents another Capitol from being surrounded and contested then progresses to the Clan worlds. If they lose/stalemate the first one, then it is off to the next one, etc. If IS attempts and fails to conquer (stalemate-tie/loss) any of the listed Clan Capitols before the Clans can attempt to conquer 3 IS Capitols, the season is over with, it becomes a Stalemate.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 30 November 2017 - 04:46 PM.

[Commander A9]

You know, in some ways, tug of war makes sense...

It's not outside the realm of possibility to consider that an enemy force, despite being beaten back to its limit, launches a counterattack blitzkrieg breakout to drive a wedge into an enemy formation, retaking lost territory...

Battle of the Bulge was similar circumstances.

[Lyons De Flamand]

You can argument any outcome following such logic. Main problem for me is that if an event runs for four days, the first three days literally mean nothing

[MovinTarget]

Lyons De Flamand, on 01 December 2017 - 03:26 AM, said:

You can argument any outcome following such logic. Main problem for me is that if an event runs for four days, the first three days literally mean nothing

True, but at the same time, if the deficit appears insurmountable after 2 days, less people will show up.. the 7 cities/7 phases makes sense because in a 24hr period, all time zones get a crack at a planet. Better still after each of these phases, have an 4-8 hour rest period beforre the next phase so they end up staggered... so it doesn't always start/end in NA primetime, for example. Each "primetime" gets to be the anchor leg of a few phases...

Edited by MovinTarget, 01 December 2017 - 06:32 AM.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Lyons De Flamand, on 01 December 2017 - 03:26 AM, said:

You can argument any outcome following such logic. Main problem for me is that if an event runs for four days, the first three days literally mean nothing

I am not a big fan of the tug of war. But I get why they are doing what they are doing...they want to keep players playing. The switch to the 51% capture percentage (from what 80% at Luthien) is the attempt to make it work by making it hard to jtie or win it during just the last phase. At 1% increments it would be hard to move from 100% one side to 51% for the other side in just one phase.....flipping the capture.

I have my doubts..and would probably like them to figure something else out....but it seems to be closer to the mark of keeping players engaged, but not making it so easy to flip in a couple of hours.

Edited by Marquis De Lafayette, 01 December 2017 - 12:49 PM.

[Horseman]

Matt Newman, on 28 November 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

250 min match score did get more people in the Invasion Que except those that wanted to try and get 250 in scouting (you know who you are.)

Except many of us did get 250 in scouting.
The time investment (max 10 minutes for scouting, typical 20+ for invasion), smaller required group size, less potential variables (both due to maps and team sizes) and the score penalty for each lost mech in Invasion all made it pretty clear that Scouting was the go-to mode for the goal - all a player needed to do to get their 250 in Scouting was pump out ~500 damage, perfectly achievable with many builds and dead easy with streakboats.

Bottom line, the goal as conceived was badly designed and had a higher expectation of a typical player's combat lifespan and performance than what is actually observed most of the time (in Invasion, a typical scoreboard entry is 4 mechs lost, 0.9-1.4K damage, 160-200 match score). A goal that required a combined match score in Invasion would be a much better solution, as it would be grindable even for those of us who have very bad luck for ending up with awful pug teams

Edited by Horseman, 02 December 2017 - 03:23 AM.

[Groutknoll]

let's see ...
15 matches with >=250 match score, that's a cumulative match score of 3750. let's say that the plan was you would get the match score 50% of your matches, 30 matches to get the 15 match scores. so, say worst case those other 15 matches you got 249 match score, that's an additional 3735 match score, 7485 total.

now what if you changed it from 15 matches 250 match score to a conditional requirement? Play 15 invasion matches 0/15 and get a cumulative match score of 7485 0/7485

you can adjust the formula for #matches wanted to be played in a mode
(# matches * match score) + (((# matches / % of making match score) - # matches ) * (match score - 1))
(15 * 250) + (((15 / 0.5) - 15) * (250 -1)) = 7485 cumulative match score

so 10 invasion matches, 10 match score, 100 % achievable every game (even loss and ghost drop)
(10*100)+(((10/1)-10)* (10-1))=1000 cumulative match score
invasion games 0/10
cumulative match score 0/100

just something for you to chew on Matt

[arcana75]

Groutknoll, on 01 December 2017 - 05:17 PM, said:

let's see ...
15 matches with >=250 match score, that's a cumulative match score of 3750. let's say that the plan was you would get the match score 50% of your matches, 30 matches to get the 15 match scores. so, say worst case those other 15 matches you got 249 match score, that's an additional 3735 match score, 7485 total.

now what if you changed it from 15 matches 250 match score to a conditional requirement? Play 15 invasion matches 0/15 and get a cumulative match score of 7485 0/7485

you can adjust the formula for #matches wanted to be played in a mode
(# matches * match score) + (((# matches / % of making match score) - # matches ) * (match score - 1))
(15 * 250) + (((15 / 0.5) - 15) * (250 -1)) = 7485 cumulative match score

so 10 invasion matches, 10 match score, 100 % achievable every game (even loss and ghost drop)
(10*100)+(((10/1)-10)* (10-1))=1000 cumulative match score
invasion games 0/10
cumulative match score 0/100

just something for you to chew on Matt

Cumulative Match Score in Invasion Mode, plus a minimum number of matches. I LIKE! Seconded!

[MovinTarget]

I like the cumulative match score w/ min # of invasion matches b/c it limits the effectiveness of the sandbaggers that intentionally farm match score by ignoring teamwork to stay alive in their first mech (boosting their ms).

[McGoat]

Stats...

[William Slayer]

Agreed.... Stats?

I know the Steiners pegged the marker to the wall for the first three days... the number of IS wins versus the Clan wins must have been significant... AND that should count for something so that the first few days of an event are not "meaningless"!

[Black Lanner]

@Tarl Calbot, reading your posts, I get the impression that you do not understand that the "Win values" discribed by Matt are computer code.

@William Slayer, the Clans held Luthien for nearly the entirety of that event, and we lost, so we took the lessons learned and applied it to this event. It was a portion of why R79T did so well.

I will reiterate my suggestion on improving event resolution:

So, I as an individual have a suggestion on how it should have gone. PGI, it is my opinion that you should have set a point at which something akin to "Overtime" started. Given at time of, say 4 hours in which, if there isn't already a winner, each side has this time to push the bar. To incentivize everyone to play throughout the event, set up a bonus for whichever side has held the strongest lead throughout the event, to the tug of war bar.

Edited by Black Lanner, 02 December 2017 - 11:54 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Black Lanner, on 02 December 2017 - 11:37 AM, said:

@Tarl Calbot, reading your posts, I get the impression that you do not understand that the "Win values" discribed by Matt are computer code.

snip

(chuckles)..

The win value Matt said he fat fingered by using a 0 instead of 1, which defaulted to the base 27 since 0 setting was tossed out/ did not compute in the coding but did not generate an actual error.

Each side of the standard Tug of War has a default amount of 30 intervals and each combat drop worth 3.3%, one side of each bar worth 99.9% (3.33*30). Depending on HOW the coding is setup, setting it to 1 either meant 1 drop each side of the start point, OR round it to 3.3. Matt setting it at 1 meant that the side with one win on either side of the starting point in the middle of the tug of war wins. THAT would almost eliminate the possibility of a tie UNLESS the final battle that was recorded/counted resulted the event to end where it begun, the starting part in the middle of the tug of war bar.

Right now the normal FP is set at 28 out of 30 to take the cycle (review the war history - 28 a win vs 27 a tie), or a tie at 27 out of 30, each drop worth 3.3%. So to win a cycle on a non-Capitol event the it is 28+ (92.4%+), a tie at 27 (89.1% -). Are most of you actually okay with CAPITOL, be it IS or Clan, to be captured by a just one battle from the initial starting point, the defender whose home and population is fighting for while the attacking force has to bring in equipment and personnel?

My issue is that Matt/PGI is setting up future Capitol battles purely as black and white without any actual gray in between. Notice I am not disputing FINAL result of awarding Clans the win, only expectations of the overall settings that may be used, which are completely different from the Luthien event. Sadly though not as many players are speaking up about the expectation for future events like there were after the Battle of Luthien, many being clan players. I guess that is to be expected.

/shrugs who really gives a frak..?

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 02 December 2017 - 02:55 PM.