65 replies to this topic

[Darian DelFord]

OK, I h ave to ask, I am sure everyone has their own opinions about the placement of the mechs on the Tier list, but I have to ask on what grounds was that list made?

To me it looks to be largely based on how often the chassis is played only and not mainly on the fixes they may need. Just my humble opinion, just curious as to where the list actually originated.

[Hans Von Lohman]

Based on how often the chassis is played? That is about as good a criteria as you can get. We, the players, have voted already on what are good and bad mechs in the game. Their rate of use is super telling.

Not seeing that as a bad thing. In fact, that is exactly how I would have sorted out mechs to get attention myself.

[InspectorG]

Plus, the better comp teams usually post their tier lists, which im sure PGI has looked into.

Use and loadout likely determine the most.

[Zerberus]

My guess would be a mix of the lists the competitive teams themselves put out crossed with PGIs own data about which mechs get used how often in which configuration and by who

[Davegt27]

I wish someone would explain this tier thing to us pugs

is it a good thing or a bad thing?

where do I find the competitive teams lists?

I am worried they are going to make my death trap Jager worse

[White Bear 84]

Simple - mechs which are more competitive and have better durability and alpha strike capabilities are your tier 1/2 mechs.

You generally probably wont see a competitive player using a tier 3 or below unless they are casually pugging...

As for some of the lower tiers, these are probably mechs that really dont get any love, even from casual players.

I dont play with a competitive unit per se, but I can totally agree with this list.

[FupDup]

Davegt27, on 01 October 2014 - 08:23 PM, said:

I wish someone would explain this tier thing to us pugs

is it a good thing or a bad thing?

where do I find the competitive teams lists?

I am worried they are going to make my death trap Jager worse

The tiers aren't a bad thing. They basically are being used to signify how "good" each mech is (PGI hasn't fully described their criteria for "good"). The mechs in Tier 1 are rated as superior to mechs below them, while mechs in Tier 5 are inferior to the others above them. Mechs in Tier 1 will not be receiving any quirk buffs on October 21st. Mechs under T1 will receive buffs based on their tier -- i.e. T5 getting huge buffs while T2 getting fairly small ones.

None of the mechs on the tier list will be nerfed, so your Jagers can rest assured. All Jagers will actually be getting buffs of some sort, since the FB is T2 and the rest are T3.

Edited by FupDup, 01 October 2014 - 08:28 PM.

[Jeb]

The Competitive players know the good mechs for their play style, but outside the highest Elo matches, you won't see the same play styles used... most MWO players are not at the competitive level though.

LRMs for example... any competitive player tends to feel they are crap from what I have seen/read, and easy to avoid... so ECM / AMS becomes less important at that level of play.
In a PUG game though ECM is very important and LRMs can be a huge pain... Just drop on a team with no ECM up against 2-3 LRM boats and you will see the value of ECM and AMS lol...

So yeah, I do hope they don't put too much weight on the competitive players lists and take into account the different play styles used at the competitive levels are not the same as at the lower levels...

[Davegt27]

cool thanks for explaining it

[Stonefalcon]

The irony that the Awesome 8Q is getting a Tier 5 quirk upgrade when lately I've been clocking 1k damage rounds in it rolling against Dire Whales.

FYI @PGI, when is the Awesome getting the texture update to display the actual weapons it's mounting?

Edited by Stonefalcon, 01 October 2014 - 09:24 PM.

[Vassago Rain]

Davegt27, on 01 October 2014 - 08:23 PM, said:

I wish someone would explain this tier thing to us pugs

is it a good thing or a bad thing?

where do I find the competitive teams lists?

I am worried they are going to make my death trap Jager worse

It means that PGI has admitted some robots are better than others. No more 'it's a bottom tier assault avatar.'

It's generally a good thing, because now they'll put in buffs to make bad mechs better.

[Kain Demos]

Hans Von Lohman, on 01 October 2014 - 07:53 PM, said:

Based on how often the chassis is played? That is about as good a criteria as you can get. We, the players, have voted already on what are good and bad mechs in the game. Their rate of use is super telling.

Not seeing that as a bad thing. In fact, that is exactly how I would have sorted out mechs to get attention myself.

But people also tend to gravitate towards mechs that are easier to play well.

Some chassis might actually be better in the hands of a skilled player but due to the higher skill ceiling most people just ignore it.

Usage isn't the best metric to use in my opinion.

[Vassago Rain]

Kain Thul, on 01 October 2014 - 09:50 PM, said:

But people also tend to gravitate towards mechs that are easier to play well.

Some chassis might actually be better in the hands of a skilled player but due to the higher skill ceiling most people just ignore it.

Usage isn't the best metric to use in my opinion.

Usage is the best metric.



So according to this list, made for new players, some characters are easier and stronger than others for less effort. And would you know it, at the world stage, people don't bring the guy in the bottom right corner, but the ones at the top right are very common.

Edit: a wise man once said: "All that is complex is not useful. All that is useful is simple."

Edited by Vassago Rain, 01 October 2014 - 09:58 PM.

[Davegt27]

I think I would have done it differently

Like time in a match would indicate it is good

Alive at the end of a victory

Alive at the end of a defeat

Deaths

Lost components

how many assists were awarded win killed (if it always take 3 mechs to kill this one Mech that would indicate a good Mech but mechs that get one shoted would be a bad Mech)

I picked the Jager because I sucked less in it than the others I picked a heavy Mech because I want to live longer than 2 min in a match

[Vassago Rain]

Davegt27, on 01 October 2014 - 10:39 PM, said:

I think I would have done it differently

Like time in a match would indicate it is good

Alive at the end of a victory

Alive at the end of a defeat

Deaths

Lost components

how many assists were awarded win killed (if it always take 3 mechs to kill this one Mech that would indicate a good Mech but mechs that get one shoted would be a bad Mech)

I picked the Jager because I sucked less in it than the others I picked a heavy Mech because I want to live longer than 2 min in a match

It's not necessary to complicate these things, and a shadowhawk will live longer than a jag due to not being a gigantic AC40 or twin gauss rifle target.

[Sandslice]

My working theory right now is that it's usage, unfiltered for Trial 'Mechs. So variants that have (C) subvariants - that is, the current run of trials - are generally bumped up a bit in tier. This is why, for example, the CTF-3D is assigned top tier despite Firebrand and Ilya; or the 733c somehow stands out among Highlanders.

[Shalune]

Jeb, on 01 October 2014 - 08:53 PM, said:

The Competitive players know the good mechs for their play style, but outside the highest Elo matches, you won't see the same play styles used... most MWO players are not at the competitive level though.

LRMs for example... any competitive player tends to feel they are crap from what I have seen/read, and easy to avoid... so ECM / AMS becomes less important at that level of play.
In a PUG game though ECM is very important and LRMs can be a huge pain... Just drop on a team with no ECM up against 2-3 LRM boats and you will see the value of ECM and AMS lol...

So yeah, I do hope they don't put too much weight on the competitive players lists and take into account the different play styles used at the competitive levels are not the same as at the lower levels...

Accurate observation. But I don't think you have anything to be worried about. The list is a mess as far as objective effectiveness goes as opposed to just 'what pugs like.' For example, several mechs clearly got their tier placement due to ability to carry LRMs (which are indeed horrible.) See AWS-8R vs other AWS variants.

I'm seriously disappointed, but not surprised by the list. We're never going to improve the overall knowledge and skill level of MWO's players by catering balance to popular demand. There's supposed to be a reason we have a dev team instead of democratic balancing.

[Redshift2k5]

Usage is a great metric, and is going to be very close to a much more complicated metric, because we've been 'voting' with our drops on these mechs for a long time. Aside from the Vinidcator these are old mechs and good mechs are going to get a lot more drops than poorer mechs. It's not perfect but it's a great place to start, and Russ said he was open to discussion on some of the finer details.

Looking forward to buffs for nearly all of my mech chassis/variants I own

[Mawai]

You could read Russ' posts ...

"Our first full quirk pass with the new system has taken the input of several players, including competitive team members. This has allowed us to categorize each Inner Sphere 'Mech, from Tier 1 being the best to Tier 5 being the least competitive."

"This was created with great consideration from those that are always looking for the most competitive builds."

Apparently they consulted with a subset of community members in putting the tier list together. They don't mention any other metrics that might have been used but the focus is on competitive play.

[Edustaja]

That list is head and shoulders above anything MWO has had chassis balance wise in a long time.