Jump to content

I Must Be One Extremely Lucky Son Of A Gun. (Nerf Kdk-3 Thread)

Achievements BattleMechs Balance

338 replies to this topic

#261 RestosIII

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 7,322 posts
  • LocationDelios

Posted 27 October 2016 - 10:21 PM

View PostDeathlike, on 27 October 2016 - 10:15 PM, said:


Playing a lot of games isn't the same as playing a lot of quality games, let alone winning games.

PGI leaves metas long overdue than they should, and frankly are not the most trustworthy sources on a lot of things. Balance happens in long intervals (60 to 90 days joke is always applicable here).

Last I checked, I have winning records in Lights consistently since that garbage leaderboard had started.
ARCTIC CHEETAH ACH-PRIME 1,186 795 391 2.03 1,215 568 2.14 340,374 1,678,124 4 days 18:52:51

I would consider myself slightly above average, and have probably more insight about Lights than the average potato that complains about Lights being OP (because, that's silly - died enough in higher levels of play because Lights TTK is a pathetic joke, especially when you're bad).

I don't need people that claim Kodiaks are not OP when I have teammates that have an effing clue AND are running Kodiak-3s. It's undeniable for people that have a clue. You don't wish to have one, so please tell someone that has no clue how much Kodiak-3s are irrelevant. I'm sure they'll listen to your mediocre (or below mediocre) drivel.


Adding onto the "PGI is bad at keeping up with balancing" thing, I have one major example: machine guns. If you think PGI knows what it is doing, and is using data it has to show that the KDK is perfectly fine, does that also mean they have data showing MGs are perfectly fine? Because if they do, I would LOVE to see it. If it isn't showing it, or, surprise surprise, they don't have any data they're tracking? Then they just aren't bothering to fix either one. That is the theory I subscribe to, they just don't care.

Edited by RestosIII, 27 October 2016 - 10:34 PM.


#262 Trollfeed

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 328 posts

Posted 27 October 2016 - 11:04 PM

Oh wow, this is still going on. It's like those guys that kept frothing in WoT that KV-2 was fine in tier 5 with 107mm gun or that IS-4 wasn't op on release.

Can't you really see how much better KDK-3 performs when compared to any other mech? Or that stats from leaderboards overwhelmingly support that notion?

I don't like calling people out in forums but this is so blatant that that only reason I see you defending KDK-3 is because you're not very good at this game and want to continue getting those easy kills.

Edited by Trollfeed, 27 October 2016 - 11:05 PM.


#263 Wil McCullough

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,482 posts

Posted 27 October 2016 - 11:19 PM

bandito, do you still have the original unedited picture?

i'm curious about the 2 other kdk-3s. would be cool if you could post their assault leaderboard stats (black out their names if necessary). this way, there's a direct comparison between their performances in their kdk-3s and their average performances in assault mechs as a whole.

maybe putting out close to 300 damage a match is already a good performance for those players. maybe not.

#264 meteorol

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 2,848 posts

Posted 27 October 2016 - 11:38 PM

Discussing whether the KDK-3 is OP or not based on leaderboard stats doesn't make too much sense, imo. You can check my leaderboard stats all day, you won't be able to make a substantiated claim based on it, simply because i use other assault mechs (especially Spirit Bear and MX90) as much as i use the KDK-3.

Personal stats won't convince anyone either. In the end you can throw around every number you can imagine, people made up their mind. Positions are set, and people are unwilling to consider the opposite. We should probably create a "both sides bring up the same stuff over and over and over again" KDK-3 masterthread instead of someone creating a new thread every few days. There is literally nothing that hasn't been already said multiple times.

I'm pretty sure PGI knows the buzz around the KDK-3 by now. Even if they don't, i believe a single thread behemoth would drag more attention than a new thread every week.

#265 Zergling

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Angel
  • The Angel
  • 2,439 posts

Posted 27 October 2016 - 11:42 PM

View PostTrollfeed, on 27 October 2016 - 11:04 PM, said:

Oh wow, this is still going on. It's like those guys that kept frothing in WoT that KV-2 was fine in tier 5 with 107mm gun or that IS-4 wasn't op on release.

Can't you really see how much better KDK-3 performs when compared to any other mech? Or that stats from leaderboards overwhelmingly support that notion?

I don't like calling people out in forums but this is so blatant that that only reason I see you defending KDK-3 is because you're not very good at this game and want to continue getting those easy kills.


Yep, the arguments I'm seeing from the 'KDK-3 isn't OP!' side of the argument remind me exactly of the Tier 5 KV and Tier 9 IS-4 defenders in WoT.

Similar stuff happened when the Fw 190 A-4 was introduced at BR 3.3 (Tier 8 in WT's old 20 tier system) in War Thunder; it was an extremely overpowered seal clubbing machine with almost identical performance to the Fw 190 A-5 that competed well at BR 5.0 (Tier 13 in the old 20 tier system).
It was the sort of plane that skilled players could achieve 100 to 1 kill/death ratios in, along with absurd numbers of kills per battle, and there were still people that claimed it wasn't overpowered.

That Fw 190 A-4 was the most overpowered thing I've seen in a game for a long time; it'd be equivilant to having a Tier 7 tank in WoT at Tier 4.
And people still claimed it wasn't OP; they actually claimed that they were scoring good in the plane while doing **** in everything else, because every other plane was underpowered, and that only the Fw 190 A-4 showed their 'true skill'.

Edited by Zergling, 27 October 2016 - 11:45 PM.


#266 Duke Nedo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2023 Top 12 Qualifier
  • CS 2023 Top 12 Qualifier
  • 2,184 posts

Posted 27 October 2016 - 11:57 PM

I am sure PGI knows perfectly well how OP the KDK-3 is, but they are probably afraid to nerf the KDK-3 "just after it was released for Cbills" and take another beating for that...

Anyone saying the KDK-3 is not OP. I urge you to do what I did last night and do one single drop in a DWF. Feel that difference! DWF was considered borderline OP for its role (atleast by some) before the arrival of the KDK... suck on that one for a while. Posted Image

#267 SpectreHD

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 183 posts

Posted 28 October 2016 - 12:34 AM

View PostMcgral18, on 27 October 2016 - 10:00 PM, said:


Remove all quirks, to start off

Then torso yaw (not pitch)
Affects firing arc and survivability, but I'd rather not touch pitch (yet)


Yeah, that is why I mention and/or for pitch. I am fine leaving pitch as is.

I personally would like to remove one ballistic slot from each ST. This would diversify the variant in that builds would put more Energy weapons instead of only ballistics. But would still separate it from other variants in that it can carry one more large AC.

This would allow it to keep the quirks because I believe the KDKs aren't very durable as an assault.

I have a KDK-3 but I keep its stock loadout. In this case, it still has its double AC20LBX and some medium lasers. I honestly feel it is very balanced in such a configuration.

Edited by SpectreHD, 28 October 2016 - 12:35 AM.


#268 El Bandito

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 26,736 posts
  • LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.

Posted 28 October 2016 - 12:44 AM

View PostWil McCullough, on 27 October 2016 - 11:19 PM, said:

bandito, do you still have the original unedited picture?

i'm curious about the 2 other kdk-3s. would be cool if you could post their assault leaderboard stats (black out their names if necessary). this way, there's a direct comparison between their performances in their kdk-3s and their average performances in assault mechs as a whole.

maybe putting out close to 300 damage a match is already a good performance for those players. maybe not.


According to their S4 leaderboard Assault stats:

The [CI] guy had 23 matches played with 0.96 WLR, and 1.81 KDR, and 284 average match score.

The [-STS] guy had 46 matches played with 1.70 WLR, and 2.73 KDR, and 384 average match score.

Theoretically they are doing around, or more than 400 damage per match in Assaults. Especially the bottom guy.

Edited by El Bandito, 28 October 2016 - 12:45 AM.


#269 visionGT4

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Formidable
  • The Formidable
  • 313 posts

Posted 28 October 2016 - 01:02 AM

The only effective way to "normalise" the KDK3 with every other mech in game (which it has made obsolete over night) is to lower the torso ballistic hard points to waist or lower chest height.

pokeBear is full ret4rd in the right hands.

Edited by visionGT4, 28 October 2016 - 01:03 AM.


#270 Widowmaker1981

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Widow Maker
  • The Widow Maker
  • 5,032 posts
  • LocationAt the other end of the pretty lights.

Posted 28 October 2016 - 01:23 AM

View PostvisionGT4, on 28 October 2016 - 01:02 AM, said:

The only effective way to "normalise" the KDK3 with every other mech in game (which it has made obsolete over night) is to lower the torso ballistic hard points to waist or lower chest height.

pokeBear is full ret4rd in the right hands.


That will literally never happen, though, so lets look at other options. PGI are not going to move the hardpoints (and TBQFH if they did all that would happen is everyone would switch to Gauss / PPC - the first two hardpoints were always going to be where they are, and they are cockpit level). Yeah, id prefer if the 2nd two were lower, but done is done.

#271 visionGT4

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Formidable
  • The Formidable
  • 313 posts

Posted 28 October 2016 - 03:36 AM

View PostWidowmaker1981, on 28 October 2016 - 01:23 AM, said:


That will literally never happen, though, so lets look at other options. PGI are not going to move the hardpoints (and TBQFH if they did all that would happen is everyone would switch to Gauss / PPC - the first two hardpoints were always going to be where they are, and they are cockpit level). Yeah, id prefer if the 2nd two were lower, but done is done.




Remove clan tech? The combination of hard points and superiority of clan tech takes the OP'ness to full ret4rd level's of absurdity.

Everyone has switched to Goose & Peeps which is why removing/moving 2 of the hard points wont help.

#272 Widowmaker1981

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Widow Maker
  • The Widow Maker
  • 5,032 posts
  • LocationAt the other end of the pretty lights.

Posted 28 October 2016 - 04:00 AM

View PostvisionGT4, on 28 October 2016 - 03:36 AM, said:


Remove clan tech? The combination of hard points and superiority of clan tech takes the OP'ness to full ret4rd level's of absurdity.

Everyone has switched to Goose & Peeps which is why removing/moving 2 of the hard points wont help.


Removing Clan tech is also not going to happen, and isnt needed for balance anyway, since before they went around giganerfing all the IS assault/heavy mechs IS were actually a bit stronger than Clan in FP (or at least, i averaged about 500 more dmg in FP games when we were IS)

Its fairly easy to balance the KDK-3:

Remove all quirks. reduce torso arc to 60 degrees. Use that as a baseline, buff other assault mechs to compete. Nerf weapon damage if needed. done.

#273 Mawai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,495 posts

Posted 28 October 2016 - 05:07 AM

View PostDee Eight, on 27 October 2016 - 09:20 AM, said:



Not to mention MM balances by mech category primarily and then attempts to match overall team tonnages if possible, but you can often see up to a 100 ton imbalance from one team to another and more so during leaderboards/new mech releases when they relax the sorting system to allow more of whatever weight class is being promoted.

...



Just to correct your statement.

In the Quick play queue, the MM ONLY does weight class matching and PSR matching. There is NO tonnage matching whatsoever. So it is quite possible to tonnage imbalances simply due to random chance since one side could have three awesomes and the other three atlases.

It would be nice if the MM had additional balance algorithms but it does not.

Second, in the group queue, PSR is the only balance factor considered by the MM. Each group has an average PSR for all members and teams are matched on skill. Depending on the group size, there is a maximum tonnage (there may also be a maximum number in each weight class) that the group can drop with. Groups of 2 can have up to 200 tons. In group queue, you could get 12 Kodiaks in 6 2-man groups vs a 12 man in all locusts :) (if they don't max tonnage).

#274 Y E O N N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 16,810 posts

Posted 28 October 2016 - 05:09 AM

View PostMcgral18, on 27 October 2016 - 10:00 PM, said:


Remove all quirks, to start off

Then torso yaw (not pitch)
Affects firing arc and survivability, but I'd rather not touch pitch (yet)


It has some crazy good pitch. If you want to be able to shoot up or down, you have arm mounts to take care of that. No free lunches for 'Mechs dedicated all torso weapons. The Mauler certainly can't aim up and down as well.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 28 October 2016 - 05:11 AM.


#275 Mawai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,495 posts

Posted 28 October 2016 - 05:14 AM

View PostDee Eight, on 27 October 2016 - 02:26 PM, said:


I optimize my mechs for my own needs, and not those of others. I also have no interest in seeing mechs constantly nerfed because some folks think they have to be lest they lose their advantage over others.


LOL.

It is now clear why he is in this thread ...

"I also have no interest in seeing mechs constantly nerfed because some folks think they have to be lest they lose their advantage over others."

He is here because he doesn't want to "lose the advantage over others" provided by the KDK-3. He is fighting back against "some folks" in order to avoid losing the advantage (as if PGI pays even the slightest attention to what goes on in the forums).

It is nice to see someone being honest, admitting that the KDK-3 is OP but that it means so much to them that they will fight against a nerf so as not to lose the advantage over others.

#276 Mawai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,495 posts

Posted 28 October 2016 - 05:17 AM

View PostMcgral18, on 27 October 2016 - 03:13 PM, said:


It's also Potato land


Please remember that potatoes are the key ingredient for french fries and poutine ... without potatoes, where would all the other vegetables in this game go to shine? How would they stand out? Don't denigrate potatoes ... instead celebrate them ... help them develop into more enjoyable forms of spuds.

#277 Mawai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,495 posts

Posted 28 October 2016 - 05:22 AM

View PostUnofficialOperator, on 27 October 2016 - 05:42 PM, said:



OMG have you read & understood my previous posts???? That is exactly what I'm saying and what you have written proves my argument again for me!!! You cannot cherry pick stats from a single battle because it is anecdotal! I keep saying, take all the data as a whole, data we do not have. And do you not see how ridiculous it is to show data which contradicts itself in the same screenshot as per OP??? And as previously posted, I can bring up absurd stats like the 50 WLR light pilot to show how you should nerf light mechs instead!

And your opinion that playing 1 mech improves your skills across all mechs. How do you know that to be true across the board? And you can't prove it. The way you play lights and mediums are vastly different. And this is easily disproved by raising WLR and KDR once I play exclusively in light mechs (accounting for weight difference). Perhaps I will do it in November when I got the time Posted Image (btw my light mech matches are 9% of my assault, med mechs are 3%, i.e. a total of 65 matches in meds, heavies are also at 9%. Do you realise how ridiculous low that med number is and doesn't prove anything about anyone's competence in any chassis).

You claim that we shouldn't cherry pick stats and yet you cherry pick stats from certain players to "prove" your argument. Again contradicting your own stance.


You want stats ... here is a link to my post in this thread giving the stats from leaderboard events showing the effectiveness of the Kodiak. It is not one player ... it is many. It is not one match ... it is many.

It may not be perfect data ... but it is what we have ... and it shows that the Kodiak is the most effective assault mech by about 15% over the Dire Whale and 20% over any other assaults (60% over the Victor (poor thing)).

http://mwomercs.com/...50#entry5451650

#278 Mawai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,495 posts

Posted 28 October 2016 - 05:49 AM

View PostUnofficialOperator, on 27 October 2016 - 08:49 PM, said:


You like many others are missing the point that we are trying to make. We are showing that it is exactly illogical/irrational to base balancing on the stats of a few. You want to balance, then base it on all the data of all players in all tiers.


Actually, I think you are partly missing the point the point as well.

The individual leaderboard entries cited show incredible W/L records and prove nothing.
- it does not indicate what mech or mechs were involved.
- it does not indicate whether it was solo or group queue and I can GUARANTEE that these numbers were most likely put up by folks playing on organized competitive 12-man teams.
- you can see similar numbers looking at the assault W/L ratio leaderboards.
- they are not really statistically significant sample sizes since the number of matches is small.


AND ... I actually agree with you ... balancing should be done based on data for all players in all tiers.

However, we don't have comprehensive data ... we have the results of large leaderboard events (which show the Kodiak outperforming the rest of the assaults) and we have anecdotal data from individual players (with sufficient matches to make it statistically significant) that the Kodiak performs better than other assaults that they have used.

However, a mech that performs better than average in one tier is very likely to perform better than average for players in ANY tier. It will NOT post the same numbers for players in ANY tier ... but the mech is likely to perform better for anyone than the other choices available.

Based on the data currently available to the community, it seems that the KDK IS more effective than other assaults and as a result, its overall numbers should be reviewed by PGI and assuming that they reach the same conclusion some changes should be made to bring the KDK in line with other assaults.

Finally, there are a lot of folks who may be wondering why the KDK has not been nerfed already ... personally, I think it is related to the Mechcon competition. Making a significant change to the KDK balance after the competition started could require all the competitive teams to revisit builds and team composition (though I realize that the competition uses a different client so that may not be an issue). However, if folks buy Kodiaks based on watching them perform in the competition then PGI would be sabotaging sales by nerfing it before the competition was over.

I suspect that PGI would hold off on major individual mech balance changes until after Mechcon. What out for January, 2017 though :)

#279 Mawai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,495 posts

Posted 28 October 2016 - 06:12 AM

View PostDee Eight, on 27 October 2016 - 09:33 PM, said:

I never claimed they were stellar but I am satisfied with them. Again though I'm not a stat chasing tiertard which apparently you have to be to have any authority in a discussion. If I posted selected mech results...I'm cherry picking. When one of you others do it... you're not. Do you not grasp the hypocrisy on your own ?


No. Anyone can contribute but be prepared if you don't have a solid basis for your opinion beyond ... "It seems to me ..."

All that these folks have said ... other than the insults that appear to have started flying is the following.

"Based on our individual experiences and the numbers we can show over a statistically significant number of matches, the KDK appears to outperform any other assault mech for us. " ... and there are quite a few who agree and can show numbers to support this.

"Based on a much larger sample size from leaderboard events, the Kodiak performs better than any other assault"

All you have said is ... NO, this is NOT true ... you have tried attacking their data ... but there is nothing to attack ... the numbers are what they are and without PGI stepping in that is all we have. You have NOT presented numbers that indicate that in general or for specific individuals other than yourself that the the KDK-3 under performs.

Perhaps you are so adamant because the KDK does not perform well for you. I have a bunch of mechs that other folks seem to be able to get to jump through hoops that I can't even get to crawl .. so it isn't surprising that good mechs don't work for everyone.

Anyway, the bottom line is that the available data appears to support the conclusion that the KDK is the best and most effective assault mech at the moment (replacing the Dire Whale in that position).



P.S. I'd also like to add one caveat ... tier does make some difference. LRMs can be a very effective route to high match score and high damage in some tiers. At higher tiers, folks do a better job of taking cover and minimizing opportunities to earn match score using LRMs. This can cause a shift to preferred direct fire builds with some LRM support since (at least in my experience) LRMs are great at suppressing opposing fire and helping to break up or slow an opposing push ... the sound and noise distraction of being hit by LRMs causes most players to turtle and head for cover. At lower tiers, some folks might find an LRM Warhawk more effective for their playstyle than a direct fire Kodiak. However, that does not change the relative average effectiveness of the Kodiak to the wider player base.

Edited by Mawai, 28 October 2016 - 06:18 AM.


#280 Dee Eight

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 6,271 posts

Posted 28 October 2016 - 08:03 AM

View PostMawai, on 28 October 2016 - 06:12 AM, said:

"Based on a much larger sample size from leaderboard events, the Kodiak performs better than any other assault"

All you have said is ... NO, this is NOT true ... you have tried attacking their data ... but there is nothing to attack ... the numbers are what they are and without PGI stepping in that is all we have.


Yes I've said it isn't true because the principal data being relied on were leaderboards events where there was known wholesale cheating going on, by organised & coordinated groups repeatedly dropping together to farm one another, as well as players using new alt accounts to game the matchmaker to put themselves in lower tiers against less experienced players. There were threads upon threads about it at the time the leaderboards happened and it kept on happening with every leaderboard event. PGI apparently paid attention because the latest one for the huntsman, they took the 1000MC and 5 million Cbill rewards away and POOF... all that magically stopped because it was no longer worth the effort just to get a single cockpit item.

Players in the kodiak leaderboard in particular took advantage of the fact that there was no ghost heat being applied to 3 or more Ultra-10s firing together as there was supposed to be, and even if it had been, it was minimal. PGI corrected that error in the coding already, and also dramatically hiked the ghost heat levels as well. They also apparently added a new bit of code that treats a pair and a single ultra-10, fired close enough together to trigger ghost heat, to also count it as if SIX had fired at once if you double-tapped them too close together, with appropriate ghost heat. So instead of 17 heat twice, you get 87 heat.

Thus it is now much harder, to achieve the results in the mech, that were being put up months ago, under different coding, and without the benefit of deliberately cheating/flaunting of the event rules. But yes, by all means, keep relying on old flawed data to prove your theories.

Additionally...for the first kodiak launch leaderboard... the game was experiencing MASSIVE server wide QP disconnects of entire teams / matches. If you knew it was happening, restarted your client and then re-joined the match, you could often an entire enemy team of standing still targets in their drop zones, who could then be farmed for all the scores you needed to vault up the leaderboard. Since it was happening so often, you could sync drop teams together during off hours, have everyone that was going to be farmed execute a disconnect from match (easy to coordinate over TS chat without any record in the match logs), and then blame it on a server error if PGI looks into it. A few folks have brought up WoT tanks that were OP. Funny how they didn't mention the organized cheating using the exact same methods that went on over on that game during leaderboard events. I've seen server issues since then where that still happens occassionally in QP, though not with the every other game frequency it was during may.

I had this match result from one of those mass disconnect errors in solo QP during that May kodiak leaderboard event. Eventually 5 of 24 players in that game did reconnect, and our team which had a couple revivals first ultimately lost, but even though I was in a kodiak, I stood BEHIND the enemy mechs to kill them quicker with less ammo needed to be used because I wasn't gaming the damage scores to pump my match up, and also I wasn't the only one on my team who'd revived and was trying to take the enemy team out quick also (there was a TBR player with me who managed most of the damage into one of them and killing blowed another which is why its 8 killing blows 1 assist and only 7 solo/kmdd). So my leaderboard score for that fluke game was 538. And yet folks were posting leaderboard results on mechs where they did such scores TEN times in one day. If you look at the August Epic Assaults and WotW leaderboards, there's a distinct group of players who posted standout scores well above the curve that others were producing, and they've consistently done that in many leaderboard events with other mechs. But ohhhh noo...it must strictly be the KDK-3 is overpowered... couldn't possibly be cheaters who skew the results.

Posted Image

Edited by Dee Eight, 28 October 2016 - 08:04 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users