23 replies to this topic

[XX Sulla XX]

Interesting results from the challenge. Does PGI need to rethink the tier one rating of the Victors and Griffins? I wonder if the comp teams playing them have confused personal bias and how they can do well in any mech with the true level of these mechs. Looks like the tourney makes pretty good case for Victors and Griffins being moved down at least tier two. But maybe removing the large number of Victor negative quirks will help it enough.

I think at the very least PGI needs to give us the Victor Energy boat.
Victor Li The custom Victor used by Tai-sho Li Dok To in the Fourth Succession War, this variant removed all the standard weapons and replaced them with a single LRM-15 and ten Medium Lasers. Armor and movement profiles remained unchanged, but it carried a total of nineteen heat sinks. BV (2.0) = 1,625^{[18] http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Victor}

http://www.reddit.co...e_some_intense/

Edited by XX Sulla XX, 26 October 2014 - 01:28 PM.

[Sjorpha]

Don't know about the griffin, but the tier 1 ranking of victors is their expected performance after removing their negative quirks, not their current performance.

Personally I'm not sure if they'll be tier 1 even then, since a lot of that was PPC+AC jumpsniping that isn't a dominant strategy anymore after the big JJ and PPC nerfs. But on the other hand I have never piloted a victor before the nerfs.

[Mcgral18]

After the JJ and PPC nerf, Victors will probably be tier 2, since those were the most powerful aspects.

It will still be a good brawler, though the Cbill ones are pretty easily disarmed. I guess the ballerina aspect will help that particular issue.

[XX Sulla XX]

Well I think removing the quirks will help the 9s brawling a lot. But seems the limited hard points compared to clans really hurt it at mid and long range since the PPC etc nerfs.

[Vassago Rain]

The victor was amazing before they made it less agile than an atlas with a 300 engine.

[Adiuvo]

These tournaments can't be used for determining anything, be that player skill or mech validity. Since Elo is still being used there's no real competition here, and the mech ratings depend on who is playing them.

Look at the mechs that have scores around 2300. Are an Atlas, Banshee, Battlemaster, Highlander, Jenner, Timberwolf, and Warhawk all similar in ability? No. Are a Stormcrow and Daishi the same? No.

Read this thread for further points as to why these tournaments are pointless except for fun.

[XX Sulla XX]

Quote

These tournaments can't be used for determining anything, be that player skill or mech validity. Since Elo is still being used there's no real competition here, and the mech ratings depend on who is playing them.

Look at the mechs that have scores around 2300. Are an Atlas, Banshee, Battlemaster, Highlander, Jenner, Timberwolf, and Warhawk all similar in ability? No. Are a Stormcrow and Daishi the same? No.

Read this thread for further points as to why these tournaments are pointless except for fun.

I agree over all that what we can know from these tournaments is limited. It does not mean we cant learn anything at all.

[Mcgral18]

Vassago Rain, on 26 October 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:

The victor was amazing before they made it less agile than an atlas with a 300 engine.

I do like how the WubShee is more agile than even the Dragon Slayer with a 400 XL, because of that 20% nerf.


It won't be as good as it was in the past, with the HoverJets™ that only the K can overcome, and that's the bad variant.
It will still be pretty good, though. I have no doubt it will still be better than a quirked Awesome.

[Mothykins]

Locust Gets there.

[Adiuvo]

XX Sulla XX, on 26 October 2014 - 01:47 PM, said:

I agree over all that what we can know from these tournaments is limited. It does not mean we cant learn anything at all.

You can learn how well an average player is at the mech... with PGI's data. You can't with the top 15, nor can you learn what a mech's peak performance is.

[Deathlike]

XX Sulla XX, on 26 October 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

Hmmm... the mech at the bottom of the list. How shocking!

Then again, I'm competing (not very well) in the bracket next to the very bottom.

Exciting days ahead!

[Mechteric]

The tiers have also have a lot to do with competitive play, where things are much different when you have 12 players on the enemy team that communicate and may actually have a plan. You just can't compare it to PUGland's results.

[XX Sulla XX]

Quote

The tiers have also have a lot to do with competitive play, where things are much different when you have 12 players on the enemy team that communicate and may actually have a plan. You just can't compare it to PUGland's results.

I know that was part of my point. Because they do a very limited number of things well in comp play does that really mean they deserve the tiers they have.

[DocBach]

Adiuvo, on 26 October 2014 - 01:57 PM, said:

You can learn how well an average player is at the mech... with PGI's data. You can't with the top 15, nor can you learn what a mech's peak performance is.

Yep, just looking at the outliers on the top doesn't really give good representation of how a mech actually stacks up in general play. Pgi has access to see all of the data from all the Players, would be interesting if they released how many players each chassis had and what the average amount of drops and score was for each of them.

[Zolaz]

It would be nice if you could see the score of your own drops as they count towards the tournament.

[Lily from animove]

Adiuvo, on 26 October 2014 - 01:44 PM, said:

These tournaments can't be used for determining anything, be that player skill or mech validity. Since Elo is still being used there's no real competition here, and the mech ratings depend on who is playing them.

Look at the mechs that have scores around 2300. Are an Atlas, Banshee, Battlemaster, Highlander, Jenner, Timberwolf, and Warhawk all similar in ability? No. Are a Stormcrow and Daishi the same? No.

Read this thread for further points as to why these tournaments are pointless except for fun.

a SCR and daishi? they are equally strong in the hands of the right pilot, hell, SCR is an amazing mehc to play and it can outplay a daishi depending on the terrain. The list abov gives very much an well indicator how good specidfic chassis are in the hands of good pilots. kilsl and assists are not what really in the end makes the big scores, the true big scores come from a well amount of kills (which are still very random) and also having a good amount fo damage. A TBR is easy to pull between 600 and 900 damage. but yet in my Nova its hard to esceed 600 regulary. Because I don't have the cooling for many damage. The SCR is the perfect counter example of how that differs. its easy to rakc up damage, and therefore a lot more easy to gather kilsl as well.

the only thing in the list I hardly cna agree are the fats IS lights, they currently can just shine with a nearly non existent hitreg. if they actually take the damage a pilot cna see on his screen, then they would be a lot lower in said. I shot 9 CERML in a non movign raven. without me moving either, not even a section blew off, it ran away with orange armor in the sidetorso, but its ok, ravens usually have those 120 ST armor.

[Brody319]

The thing is, you cannot use this to say how good a chassis is. People who want MC rewards want to pick the best mech to get them it. So they are likely to pick a bad mech chassis so they don't have to score as many points in order to get the MC. The best PGI can do with this data is determine what mechs were played the most. But it would allow them to quite easily to get a KAD score for mechs to see which are getting more kills, assists, and deaths.

[Fuggles]

as said already, tournament results dont really prove viability or not. to be honest i think theres alot of people going out of their way with mechs like the awesome and locust to prove themselves in underperforming chassis.

the griffin is a solid mech. it has good speed, good hitboxes, more jumjet capability than all other mechs besides the spider (tied with quickdraw and wolvie) and decent hardpoints. it makes a great SRM brawler and LRM skirmisher.

i dont think the griffin is setup well to get high scores in the tournament however, simply based on the scoring system rewards.

the victor im pretty supprised by. its not a bad mech but its almost like everyone gave up on it.

[UrsusMorologus]

Interesting that most of the mediums are clustered at the bottom of the hill, and no medium is in the upper half

Some of it is probably skill curve--experienced (good) players are less likely to use bad mechs, so the people using them are worse on average. Even that reinforces the argument that the mechs are bad, nobody with any sense uses them.

[Ultimax]

Mcgral18, on 26 October 2014 - 01:24 PM, said:

After the JJ and PPC nerf, Victors will probably be tier 2, since those were the most powerful aspects.

This is basically what happened.

1 huge, direct nerf. (Laughably bad torso twist speeds)
2 significant, indirect nerfs. (JJ nerfs, PPC nerfs).



I think people forget this is still an 80 ton mech with 80 ton mech bottom of class issues - what it had going for it was a combination of JJs (nerfed), good hit boxes (no direct change, but much easier to hit STs due to poor torso twist) and could use a top tier load out (PPCs were nerfed, changing that).

It's unable to boat lasers, and heavier load outs force it into XL engines or going very slow and having truly awful torso twist (try this with a 300STD, it's really bad).


People talk about how it's hitboxes are amazing, they are amazing...for an assault mech. If you compare the actual size to other non-assault mechs, they are pretty large and easy to hit - especially with that bad twist rate.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 26 October 2014 - 03:45 PM.