Daggett, on 18 October 2016 - 10:58 AM, said:
Please don't forget that PGI has access to data from thousands and thousands of matches which may indicate other truths than those we perceive. They should know exactly how each mech and weapon performs across all game-modes (For instance, what could be merely viable in FW could be OP in QP).
And it always takes some time to gather and analyze those data. So even if something clearly is OP from our perspective PGI often has to support it with their data to prevent premature changes as good as possible.
So you can assume that they don't nerf/buff Mechs without some reason just to piss IS or Clan players off.
All our feedback is just a part of their balancing input and the whole forum can never speak for the majority of silent players out there. For example i don't share the view of many here that PGi makes this game worse. It may be shocking to some of you, but in my opinion the game gradually gets better. The process is slow and takes some detours, but it's there.
I respect your view but I think it is wrong. Historical evidence supports the position that PGI most certainly does make changes in an arbitrary manner, and has often rushed to make those changes in some cases and ignored others that demand attention. To wit:
The cumulative data of the last years leader boards post re-scale and post initial nerf of the Kodiak (3), show that it is consistently and literally off the charts performance-wise, as compared to all other mechs in the game. Yet PGI, under your view is still collecting and/or analyzing data? Hogwash. If this is true how do you explain their comparatively rapid nerf of the Cheetah's structure after its initial release? Did they just have hunch in that case? Certainly they did not have time to collect data to the extent necessary to make a logical and well thought out adjustment (note too that the Cheetah is still the top light in the game despite its initial and fairly substantial nerf of its structure) then if they can't do it now.
How about the Grasshopper? The 5P was the Meta choice of the chassis both before the rescale and after. It is the version version most often seen in MRBC matches and favored consistently by top tier players. Yet it was left untouched following the rescale whereas ALL of the other versions of the mech, including the fairly lame J variant were all nerfed. Do you really think the data showed that the most played version of the mech, the version with the best hard points, and the best existing structure bonuses of the chassis, was some how LESS deserving of a nerf than its objectively inferior counterparts? If so please explain how that can possibly be.
Don't even get me started on the out of left field nerf to the Jester, or what they have done to my Quickdraws. Unless they provide the data that you believe they have and use, I simply refuse to believe that what they do is based on rational or even comparative analysis based on what ANYONE experiences in the game or what the leader boards show. Examples like the above, especially when viewed through the lens afforded to us by the actual data of the leader boards, makes it crystal clear that if they have other data, they are most certainly
not using it to better the game or improve balance. Do also keep in mind that per Paul's own statement every mech in this game, down to the variant level, is supposed to have an equivalent value regardless of their role. Think about that, and tell me how a recently nerfed Shadow Hawk is in any way equivalent to a Kodiak 3 and what data could possibly exist to support nerfing the former while leaving the latter alone.
3
