44 replies to this topic

[McGoat]

Only making another thread because.. Damn.
How 'bout them stats, PGI?

[Johnathan Tanner]

McGoat, on 03 December 2017 - 11:05 AM, said:

Only making another thread because.. Damn.
How 'bout them stats, PGI?

Suppressed for your own good.

[Tarl Cabot]

They will say Mechcon is taking up their time but shouldn't they had already created and have in place something to draw those numbers from, breakdowns, etc?

Or maybe the issue is their narrative they are trying to concoct?

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 03 December 2017 - 01:20 PM.

[Davegt27]

I did not realize Tharkad was lost

I thought there was a tie so it would be nice to see some stats

[Tarl Cabot]

Davegt27, on 03 December 2017 - 02:56 PM, said:

I did not realize Tharkad was lost

I thought there was a tie so it would be nice to see some stats

Yeap. Matt set up the event so all that needed to happen was for the winning side to win by ONE battle from the starting point. The initial setup though did not reflect that since he had entered 0, which did not compute and set the default to 27 out of 30 instead of 1 out of 30... It was not until AFTER the event he posted what had occurred and awarded the event to the Clans. The only way for there to be a tie is if the final battle to be accepted happened to push the tug of war bar to the center, the starting point.

My issue is not that they awarded Clans the win, my issue is that Matt/PGI appear to be setting up future Capitol events will be determined by only one battle pass the starting point. If Tharkad had been set it up the same as Luthien (drops worth 1%), the Clans would have won since the IS would have been short 4 battles.

Spoiler

Tarl Cabot, on 02 December 2017 - 12:34 PM, said:

(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..?

Tarl Cabot, on 02 December 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:

(nods)

And, with that missing gray area for a possible tie to hold off the invader, even if it was temporary, what reason would the current losing side have to actually show up if the bar is all the way on one side, especially after an active merc unit gone loyalist deserts and goes loyalist for the other faction?

Many had assumed that Battle of Luthien would have been treated like the previous Tukayyid events. But Tukayyid, even in lore was not about total domination, it was about Comstar preventing the seven represented Clans from taking two [color=#000000]assigned objective cities. [/color] ilKhan of the Clans conceded victory to ComStar. Of the Clans, only the Wolves had successfully gained control of both target cities, with the Ghost Bears earning a marginal victory for holding Spanac but failing to take Luk, and the Jade Falcons achieving a draw based on inflicting far greater losses than they took. So of 14 target cities, only 3 were taken while CJF vs Comstar was considered a tie with heavy loses on both sides.

Again, stressing that Capitols planets should not treated like proxies like Tukayyid, nor should each drop count as 3.33%. If PGI believes 1% is too extreme then try 2% (50 battles each side) while setting actual Victory Condition to 82% (41 out of 50) instead of the default 92.4% (28 out of 30). But setting it to 3.3% (1 out of 30) is plain wrong for a Capitol Planet (Clan or IS).

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 03 December 2017 - 03:27 PM.

[Tahawus]

Offer to PGI... Give me (and other folks with an analytics fetish, [Taragato comes to mind]) access to the full data, and we'll give you a meaningful report.

[Davegt27]

Tarl Cabot, on 03 December 2017 - 03:25 PM, said:

Yeap. Matt set up the event so all that needed to happen was for the winning side to win by ONE battle from the starting point. The initial setup though did not reflect that since he had entered 0, which did not compute and set the default to 27 out of 30 instead of 1 out of 30... It was not until AFTER the event he posted what had occurred and awarded the event to the Clans. The only way for there to be a tie is if the final battle to be accepted happened to push the tug of war bar to the center, the starting point.

My issue is not that they awarded Clans the win, my issue is that Matt/PGI appear to be setting up future Capitol events will be determined by only one battle pass the starting point. If Tharkad had been set it up the same as Luthien (drops worth 1%), the Clans would have won since the IS would have been short 4 battles.

Spoiler

thanks for the info

[Alexandra Hekmatyar]

Johnathan Tanner, on 03 December 2017 - 12:01 PM, said:

Suppressed for your own good.

Let the truth come out!

[McGoat]

"We don't want them to see that IS had indeed won a vast majority of the event, give away MC for just doing a drop and shooting a couple mechs."

Russ to Matt when it became glaringly obvious that the IS "should" have won had there been no tug of war or coding errors.

Tharkad stats, please

Edited by McGoat, 05 December 2017 - 10:09 AM.

[Johnathan Tanner]

McGoat, on 05 December 2017 - 10:08 AM, said:

"We don't want them to see that IS had indeed won a vast majority of the event, give away MC for just doing a drop and shooting a couple mechs."

Russ to Matt when it became glaringly obvious that the IS "should" have won had there been no tug of war or coding errors.

Tharkad stats, please

Lol the cover up is real.

[naterist]

Sam Ael, on 05 December 2017 - 11:07 AM, said:

Still no stats? Smells like conspiracy

Edited by naterist, 05 December 2017 - 11:16 AM.

[Tiewolf]

I am curious myself about the event data. If Matt is too busy at the office with events, mechcon etc. the professional analysts in the community will gladly offer you help to analyze the data properly this time. You just have to give us the raw data.
At least we wouldn`t mix up numbers with different base values in our report like in the Luthien stats and give a fair summary of the situation.

[McGoat]

They don't like what I have to say

draiocht, on 05 December 2017 - 02:37 PM, said:

Greetings McGoat,

In reference to your post in Mechwarrior Online Advent Event:

Quote

"We don't want them to see that IS had indeed won a vast majority of the event, give away MC for just doing a drop and shooting a couple mechs."

Russ to Matt when it became glaringly obvious that the IS "should" have won had there been no tug of war or coding errors.

Tharkad stats, please

Per the Code of Conduct, it is forbidden to purposely cause disturbances in forum threads, such as making nonconstructive or off-topic responses or sending communications for the purpose of causing unrest. For this reason, your post has been moderated.

Further infractions may result in additional penalties.

Please help us make the forums a positive experience by contributing to discussions in a constructive way.

Regards,
draiocht
Volunteer Moderator

[C E Dwyer]

McGoat, on 06 December 2017 - 06:14 AM, said:

They don't like what I have to say

It is a cover up

[Davegt27]

McGoat, on 06 December 2017 - 06:14 AM, said:

They don't like what I have to say

yeah I have received the same type of threatening e-mails

from said e-mailer

it was about telling people they don't like bringing back old threads

sometimes its a slow day in mod-vill

[Hal Greaves]

McGoat, on 06 December 2017 - 06:14 AM, said:

They don't like what I have to say

WE'VE GONE PEAK ALEX JONES

Edited by Hal Greaves, 06 December 2017 - 07:24 AM.

[Doomfist]

Can I haz stats plox?

[Djinnhammer]

But all you'll get us "clanzop" screamed over and over😎

But all you'll get us "clanzop" screamed over and over😎

[Cato Zilks]

Have any of you asked Matt Newman for the Stats?

[McGoat]

Reply from Matt..

Matt Newman, on 07 December 2017 - 09:21 AM, said:

It will have to be after Mech_Con.

Edited by McGoat, 07 December 2017 - 09:58 AM.