229 replies to this topic

[Appogee]

Good, useful original post.

While I don't agree with all the specific recommendations/ratings, directionally I believe they will be a big help to new players.

Edited by Appogee, 06 December 2013 - 05:05 AM.

[Itsalrightwithme]

If we are to continue to argue whether a particular mech/variant is good because good pilots can bring them and deal xxxx damage and yyyy kills in a match, I am starting to think that we all need to have a discussion on tonnage and battle value. Not that everybody has to be aware of this, what with MM not putting priority on tonnage nor class matching, but it gives a fuller perspective of "why bring X when I can do as well in Y".

[Appogee]

If/when battle values or tonnage limits are introduced, it will change the nature of the game very significantly.

However, experienced and enlightened players already think in terms of ''effectiveness per class'' or ''effectiveness per role'' and are already building their skills across the weight classes. The usefulness of a chassis is already relative to its specific mission.

But that's the next iteration of thinking about ''what's a good mech'', and outside the scope of this thread, which is oriented to beginners.

Edited by Appogee, 06 December 2013 - 05:49 AM.

[Itsalrightwithme]

@Appogee: AMEN!

[sneeking]

more fun has been had in sdr-5kc and cn9-ynl than anything pgi has to offer, im sorely disappointed with everything els I see and practically everything els except those two has left me contemplating un installing the game and cutting my losses.

[BlackJackRaider]

Interesting post, Vic. I'm choosing to take it as an attempt to help new/newish players, but I have a few suggestions for how you might lay out your description of what you are doing with the list to make it more clear how the list works. To me, the ratings look like good suggestions for a newish player who wants to join a unit that runs 12 mans and maybe even comps.

There are definitely fewer viable chassis/variants/loadouts in comp play than there are in pugs or even pick up 12 mans. Also, the higher up the ELO scale you go, the more often you will run into players who are able to exploit weaknesses. By the time you are in top level ELO for a class, anything below the top level (4-5 star mechs on your listing, I would say) means that you are taking a very sub-optimal mech and probably hurting your team. For instance, I agree with the claim that top level players never use YLW over Cent-A. In fact, every other medium AC20 chassis sees more comp play than the YLW.

However, that is a long way off for your average new player. At mid to lower tier ELOs (which is where I am at for heavies, but high tier for mediums and lights) a lot more builds will be viable/do well. This is where you find the anecdotal screenshot of the Awesome pulling 1100 dmg, where an Awesome would be doing really well to get to 300 in an comp match. Perhaps there might be more sense in giving two different ratings--one for mid-level play (where Dragons can be viable, for instance) and one for comp/organized 12 man play?

Also, there is one rating in particular I think you need to change: the Locust. To give this pile of unarmored and flimsy {Scrap} a half star is an insult to other one star builds. It deserves to fall down to the zero star rating to keep the Golden Boy company.

[Victor Morson]

I keep hearing the argument "You can get away with subpar equipment, so why not suggest newbies consider it as well? It runs fine in pug games so it should be alright." I even hear "It will help build 'skill' by making them cover their flaws."

But my line of thinking is if there's something clearly better in the game, newbies should at least know about it. What the best gear is should not be a "best kept secret." I also want to help make sure they don't get muddy or bad information; tons of terrible recommendations going around to mislead them.

So yeah, they might be able to do well in a Dragon in a pug match, but they will be able to do better in a Shadow Hawk, and I think they should have the information to make that call ahead of time instead of grinding dead end paths.

[luxebo]

@king artur I can't do very well oftenly either, and when I do have really spectacular games, I end up failing to save them. I'm not saying I can achieve that either, but I'm saying that some of your pics are a bit (how should I word it) short on backing up your points in your text. Any mech can be consistently scoring over 1k damage if the pilots good (which definitely ain't possible for me). Victor often says that he scores highly, which is why I would like to see the F8L vs Blazing Aces match. If I can get a few 1k matches tonight I might post them if I remember to screenshot them. Sometimes I get very large losing matches for an extended period of time. Once again sometimes I get higher than 1k matches mass-murdering many mechs and hitting almost all of them, but sometimes I get matches that can't reach the triple digits (and potentially a couple that just end up in complete slaughters and me scoring two digits. Those are {Scrap}.) Maybe I can get a couple awesome games, maybe. Pugging sometimes doesn't work for me and 12 mans isn't possible in the little time I have.

Edit: pfft didn't see the 12 hour notice that I already fail because of sleeping and working...

Edited by luxebo, 06 December 2013 - 04:31 PM.

[luxebo]

Victor Morson, on 02 December 2013 - 04:02 PM, said:

Insert Guide here.

I think after reading over a few times on Victor's topic, I might want to comment on specific things.

For the Stalker, I think it's a 4.5 along with the Atlas, mainly because they both are very easy to use well. They don't have JJs, which has their own disadvantages, such as less manueverability, but also benefits, like one less thing to have to handle/remember, and more weight for pure destruction. The only problem with both are they are usually focused on. The Battlemaster should also be 4, because it can tank damage well. The problems though are the amount of focus on the energy hardpoints. The Awesome I would've placed as 1.5-2.0, somewhere around there, as it can do a bunch of damage depending on variants, but are just simply inferior and hard to use for a newer player. But us veterans can use it as well as a Battlemaster if used right. (Also, Awesomes are pretty expensive, especially 9M and PB.)

I personally would also consider pricing on the board, and that's why I would've placed Cataphract as a 4.9. The 3D along with 2 more chassis pretty much force you to have to play it for a long time. The Jagermech I would've placed as 4.5, due to the better locations of weapons. Who said you needed an XL? You can put in easily a STD engine. How are the Thunderbolt and Orion hitboxes bad? I think they are not the best start, but you ranked them really low. I think Dragon shouldn't be so pushed down because of it's ability to fight, but the cost on those things. (XL 300=large setback, not to mention DHS, Endo, and Ferro.)

Shadow Hawk and Cent should both be on par with each other, around 5. They both are very awesome when used well. If you put cost in as well, I think Blackjack, Cicada, Treb, and Hunch should all be around 4-4.5 because although Hunch isn't the best, it's very very cheap. Blackjack, Cicada, and Treb pretty much mandate XLs, which is a large cost drawback. Kintaro I guess I agree with you.

Pretty much I think the lights are the only one category I can't argue with. Commando, Raven, and Spider should maybe have a higher rating. Locust is, well hardcore for those that really want to go for that.

The heroes should at the minimum get all 1, because they are heroes after all, with camo and c-bill bonus. I can't say much on specific variants because I don't have any, but I don't agree with all of them.

In short, I don't agree with everything Victor posted, but the general aim of it is good.

[Blind Patcher]

Thank you so much, as a new player this really helps me to buy my first mech.

[luxebo]

When you put in the Oxide, can you answer some of my questions?

[Victor Morson]

luxebo, on 08 December 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

When you put in the Oxide, can you answer some of my questions?

Sure, which questions?

I'd posted the Oxide already but it's a bit of enigma with some wildly varying opinions; hard to give it a firm standing. I'll probably say as much in the review, but it seems like a great pug 'mech with a possible niche as an enforcer in a light lance in serious games, but it's still open to debate.

[luxebo]

Basically all the ones I put above. I listed a large post as questioning on a few of the ratings. (I was also saying a few things like consider price of mechs and other things involved, like forward experience with gaming or battletech experience, usability, handling of the mechs, etc.) I think main one's I've in question are Battlemaster, Stalker, Jagermech, Thunderbolt, Orion, and Hunchback. They all aren't low tier but I think some of your ratings are a bit low for what they can do. (Battlemaster and Stalker are both powerful assaults with good torso twisting, but aren't top tier, but why are they rated so low? Jager is very powerful and far less squishy without XL, I think you judged them all with XL, what about without? Thunderbolt and Orion are mentioned with bad hitboxes, how are they now? Hunchback is cheap and thats the only thing going for it, but it seems underrated in my opinion.) Stuff like that. Lastly, I asked much earlier and I'll ask again, have you considered rating variants separately or is it too time consuming? Once again thanks for the work on the guide!

[Alaskan Nobody]

luxebo, on 09 December 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

Battlemaster and Stalker are both powerful assaults with good torso twisting, but aren't top tier, but why are they rated so low?

Because in his eyes, everything is either the absolute top, or absolute bottom
They are not the absolute best mechs in the game, therefore they are bottom tier.
(yes I know he rates things in between, but ask his opinion on a build, and that is the answer he gives)

[luxebo]

I guess we'll see when he responds. I don't think he directly believes that and there is sorta a middle from good to absolutely terrible, but then again he is always talking about competitive gameplay. I don't think I've seen Victor judge by casual gameplay, then again in that case then a lot of things are widely acceptable and very few things would be absolutely terrible. (Basically judging from like half team have trials with other half team with trials as well.)

[Alaskan Nobody]

luxebo, on 09 December 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:

I don't think I've seen Victor judge by casual gameplay,

In his words:
Pug games do not count, because anything can happen.


Ergo:(to me at least) the results from the casuals do not matter.

[luxebo]

Well he did say a few times that Pug games are best to use the same as competitive games. I personally think Pug games can allow much more flexibility over 12v12 premades. Basically saying it's fine to substitute a Jager/K2 over Cataphract 3D/IM in a Pug match which won't have any effect/little effect on the fight itself, but in 12v12 it would effect the game more.

[Alaskan Nobody]

luxebo, on 09 December 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

Well he did say a few times that Pug games are best to use the same as competitive games.

And therein lies part of the bee in his bonnet: and a large part of the defining portion of his ratings.
They are all 12v12 oriented (and according to Koniving at least) several patches out of date.

Can you link me to where he said the above?

luxebo, on 09 December 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

I personally think Pug games can allow much more flexibility over 12v12 premades. Basically saying it's fine to substitute a Jager/K2 over Cataphract 3D/IM in a Pug match which won't have any effect/little effect on the fight itself, but in 12v12 it would effect the game more.

They do offer more flexibility, if only because you have no idea what your opponent is bringing
(whereas in a 12v12 they are almost guaranteed to be bringing the current 'meta')

My big gripe with him is currently he disagrees with your statement - every time I have mentioned any of my builds he has jumped down my throat:
quoth he

Victor Morson, on 03 December 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

Shar Wolf builds bad 'mechs.

Just saying. If you want to know what the best 'mechs are, this really is a pretty accurate list.

Ergo: bring the meta (his list) or don't play.

[luxebo]

I actually can't find where he did say it, but I remember he was arguing about Centurions with arms and saying something like "All Cents who use arms are useless besides AL and even in Pug matches I insta-destroy all their arms in the two seconds they bring them out". Something related to that idea.

To that last quote, I think he said the same to Koniving before, which is something I don't agree with. Everyone has the option to build their own mechs. Unless you're recommending beginners to go build a 40 kph light with no armor then you should have the right to speak about the builds you're recommending. This guide is only really for those who are barely starting out or on the fence of getting something new afterward (hero or chassis to master). This guide also shows a little about 12v12 premade games, but I think Victor should focus on the usability, price issue, and powerfulness of each mech and rate by that rather than how it does with competitive supportive teams.

[Victor Morson]

Ah. OK then..

luxebo, on 06 December 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

I think after reading over a few times on Victor's topic, I might want to comment on specific things.

For the Stalker, I think it's a 4.5 along with the Atlas, mainly because they both are very easy to use well. They don't have JJs, which has their own disadvantages, such as less manueverability, but also benefits, like one less thing to have to handle/remember, and more weight for pure destruction.

The Stalker, outside of the Misery, was absolutely neutered after Ghost Heat. if you want to ask me a good configuration for an assault right now, it's going to include a ballistic every time - which again, only the Misery can bring. The Stalker can still bring acceptable firepower to a pug fight but why bring "acceptable firepower" when you could bring far better in the same tonnage range right now?

luxebo, on 06 December 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

The only problem with both are they are usually focused on. The Battlemaster should also be 4, because it can tank damage well. The problems though are the amount of focus on the energy hardpoints.

The last statement is the reason they are so low. If Ghost Heat goes away, everything changes.

luxebo, on 06 December 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

The Awesome I would've placed as 1.5-2.0, somewhere around there, as it can do a bunch of damage depending on variants, but are just simply inferior and hard to use for a newer player. But us veterans can use it as well as a Battlemaster if used right. (Also, Awesomes are pretty expensive, especially 9M and PB.)

I'm rating the 'mechs for their tonnage. The Victor absolutely blows the Awesome away in every way, shape and form. The others score much higher.

Keep in mind I am biased towards the Awesome. I absolutely loved when it rocked, briefly, in closed beta. It's my favorite 'mech in the franchise. But here, it's terrible.

luxebo, on 06 December 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

I personally would also consider pricing on the board, and that's why I would've placed Cataphract as a 4.9. The 3D along with 2 more chassis pretty much force you to have to play it for a long time. The Jagermech I would've placed as 4.5, due to the better locations of weapons. Who said you needed an XL? You can put in easily a STD engine. How are the Thunderbolt and Orion hitboxes bad? I think they are not the best start, but you ranked them really low. I think Dragon shouldn't be so pushed down because of it's ability to fight, but the cost on those things. (XL 300=large setback, not to mention DHS, Endo, and Ferro.)

Going with a subpar chassis for the want of a few million more is a silly idea. As a starting 'mech a Cataphract is absolutely superior to a Jagermech. In serious games that's pretty much the case in most situations, too.

luxebo, on 06 December 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

Shadow Hawk and Cent should both be on par with each other, around 5. They both are very awesome when used well.

Centurion used to be 5. Shadow Hawk bumped it down. It is flat out superior to the Centurion, lowering the Centurion's value. That said the Centurion is far from awful and 4.5 isn't exactly a bad rating.

luxebo, on 06 December 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

If you put cost in as well, I think Blackjack, Cicada, Treb, and Hunch should all be around 4-4.5 because although Hunch isn't the best, it's very very cheap. Blackjack, Cicada, and Treb pretty much mandate XLs, which is a large cost drawback. Kintaro I guess I agree with you.

Why convince people to start with either harder to use, more niche, or simply subpar 'mechs because of a tiny cbill difference? If someone wants a 'mech on the cheap and sees I've rated it a 3.5 you get what you pay for. I'm not rating it up based on cost.

luxebo, on 06 December 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

Pretty much I think the lights are the only one category I can't argue with. Commando, Raven, and Spider should maybe have a higher rating. Locust is, well hardcore for those that really want to go for that.

The Locust is awful. Nothing competes with the Jenner; if a Jenner ever got ECM the Spider & Raven would go down even another notch. Spider you could argue with me on though, some people still swear by them as being a little better than that.. but everyone agrees they're no Jenner.

luxebo, on 06 December 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

The heroes should at the minimum get all 1, because they are heroes after all, with camo and c-bill bonus. I can't say much on specific variants because I don't have any, but I don't agree with all of them.

While I rated the other 'mechs for their weight, I've rated the heroes for their usefulness. The Golden Boy is an awful hero that nobody should ever buy, because they are paying in on a lemon. You are spending money on a 'mech that's worse than the free 'mechs, but gets a bonus, when you could spend for a 'mech that's really good instead.

luxebo, on 06 December 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

In short, I don't agree with everything Victor posted, but the general aim of it is good.

Peaceful disagreements are always the best, I hope I can convince you on some of this stuff too. heh