27 replies to this topic

[Bud Crue]

So, I was writing this up for the PTS when it occurred to me that this isn't a PTS issue per se, but one merely being exagerated by the PTS:

TLDR: Mechs or individual variants that are already dying and will likely be dead in the future. My take is that short of several bullseyes on the dartboard of balance blessing such mechs with god tier quirks I don't think any sort of Paul necromancy is going to bring them back.

As to the relevance of this to the PTS, first take a look at the nerfs being proposed to both the IS and Clan mechs http://static.mwomer...TS_ISQuirks.pdf And http://static.mwomer..._ClanQuirks.pdf

For the clan some notable standouts of the mostly dead about to be really dead are represented best by the nerfs to the Adder, Ice Fridge, Summoner, Gargoyle and all Kodiaks with remaining performance quirks. For the IS the nerfs are more wide ranging and in many cases even more significant. For example note the overall reduction of weapon quirks across the board: be they PPC velocity, ballistics cool down, enters quirks of all kinds being reduced. While these are pretty clearly intended to prevent an overall increase of weapons performance via the skills tree, a closer examination of the nerfs illustrates that a lot of already under performing mechs are getting hit, and thus they will be dead and buried in a single mech system where there is no reason at all to even consider such underperformers in the first place, let alone in such a system where the quirks that made them viable before have been reduced or removed entirely.

I'm interested to hear from other's what they think are soon to be extinct mechs as well as to hear anyone's take on what PGI could possibly be thinking by nerfing underperformers when the new system won't have any insentive to play such underperformers in the first place.

Some specific mechs that are mostly dead now, that I think will never be seen again in the skill tree system being proposed (it will take a dedicated pokemech-er to invest the time and cbills into leveling any of these when there are objectively superior alternatives):

I'm gonna mostly stick with the IS but I have to take note of the Kodiaks
All Kodiaks other than the 3 and maybe the SB were already only played due to the rule of 3. Absent that and with their remaining quirks being removed, they are gone. I mean seriously why take away what little they had PGI? Lot of complaints and worry over the 2? Your data shows the 5 running the table a lot?

Turning to the IS; here there are too many to consider so I'll just grab one from each weight class as exemplary of what I am getting at:
Locusts; all but the 1E and PB are nearly dead already but cutting or eliminating the energy quirks form the rest makes them all objectively worse than the E and PB. Yes, some are more agile, but since most play locusts with play style of "never stop moving" the extra accel/decel some of them enjoy will not offset their laughable lack of firepower being nerfed even further. Note the S also looses half its missile cool down quirk. Bye.

In the medium class there are already so many marginalized mechs. From the Vindicator to the Kintaro, there is a lot to choose from for best example of the mostly dead that is soon to be irrevocably so. I'd say the winner though is the Trebuchet. Competitive folks kept the 5J an occasional sight, but with the nerfs on the PTS, even that exceptional variant is soon to be gone along with the rest.

Heavies. For me the stand out is and will be the Grasshopper 5J. Even without the proposed PTS nerfs, there is no reason to play this mech over the other Grasshoppers. 6 (5 if you count the 2 CT points as 1) relatively low energy hard points but with super special 2 AMS points and the potential for 2 more jump jets does not make this mech in any way desirable over its chassis-mates. I have never seen one of these in game, I don't expect I ever will.

Assaults. This is a tough one. Victors are having a bit of a resurgence so too Highlanders due to the increase in their armor. So I'd cut them some hope for the future. Thus, as it is, I think the Zeus is likely to be extinct especially given that boating is not the particular forte of any Zeus and with the PTS encouragement of such, I think the Zeus is even more marginalized there.

Your thoughts on the dead and dying? The impact that the PTS will have on such mechs?

Edited by Bud Crue, 13 February 2017 - 03:59 PM.

[Acehilator]

The IS nerf list is once again a shining example of the complete and utter absence of any semblance of clue among the people involved into the desicion making process leading to the publishing of said list.

It should go without saying that all IS nerfs except the velocity quirk nerfs need to go.

[Bud Crue]

Probably Not, on 13 February 2017 - 07:28 AM, said:

In the skill tree system's current state, and without appropriate innate quirk balancing being present, you are absolutely right, yes. There are a lot of mechs destined for the eternal scrapheap.

Anyone got anything...anything at all, for a potential rationale basis for this? I just cannot fathom why PGI continues to go down this path. I mean it would be one thing if they were consistently nerfing what is currently the best and then selling something very similar in a cynical effort to encourage sales of the latest thing. But that isn't what they do (or I should say, that isn't what they always do), rather, they nerf mechs that already suck...consistently and often repeatedly, while better performers are left untouched or nerfed to a similar extent thus guaranteeing that they remain better performers. Mechs that even the most casual of observer can look at and conclude "that mech is objectively worse than all other mechs similar to it" and yet PGI nerf them, and I would really like to understand what possible reasons they could have for doing this.

[Navy Sixes]

Bud Crue, on 13 February 2017 - 07:18 AM, said:

I'm interested to hear from other's what they think are soon to be extinct mechs as well as to hear anyone's take on what PGI could possibly be thinking by nerfing underperformers when the new system won't have any insentive to play such underperformers in the first place.

First off, thanks for the TLDR. I can be a long-poster myself, and always appreciate a summary. As in this case, a good TLDR makes me want to read the post in its entirety to take-in the nuances of the OP's assertions.

Second, I'm no white knight, although I will call out gratuitous and unfounded whining when I think I see it (not the case here). So I'm not really comfortable offering excuses for PGI's direction.

I am wondering about the other big change for 2017, however, that is the timeline advance. I've been thinking about all the new load-out options (especially for IS mechs) and what they might be able to do for the "extinct."

While I don't think "Wait until the timeline advance" is much of an answer to your valid concerns, I think its safe to assume that PGI is developing these two huge design-changes in tandem, and that many of the squirks players have come to rely on (especially in the IS) may not be as necessary in the coming months.

[Bud Crue]

Tycho von Gagern, on 13 February 2017 - 08:11 AM, said:

I am wondering about the other big change for 2017, however, that is the timeline advance. I've been thinking about all the new load-out options (especially for IS mechs) and what they might be able to do for the "extinct."

While I don't think "Wait until the timeline advance" is much of an answer to your valid concerns, I think its safe to assume that PGI is developing these two huge design-changes in tandem, and that many of the squirks players have come to rely on (especially in the IS) may not be as necessary in the coming months.

You may be right, but if they take away squirks to an even greater extent after folks have blown their 9.1 million and near 136500 XP and thus encourage/force respecs; folks are going to go nuts, new tech motivations or not.

As to the new tech, maybe I am just being cynical, but I don't think that tech is going to do much for making crap mechs more viable. I expect rather that not only will we end up with legacy tech, we are going to get legacy mechs, and such mechs are going to be those that are already marginalized.

Edited by Bud Crue, 13 February 2017 - 08:24 AM.

[Oberost]

Tycho von Gagern, on 13 February 2017 - 08:11 AM, said:

First off, thanks for the TLDR. I can be a long-poster myself, and always appreciate a summary. As in this case, a good TLDR makes me want to read the post in its entirety to take-in the nuances of the OP's assertions.

Second, I'm no white knight, although I will call out gratuitous and unfounded whining when I think I see it (not the case here). So I'm not really comfortable offering excuses for PGI's direction.

I am wondering about the other big change for 2017, however, that is the timeline advance. I've been thinking about all the new load-out options (especially for IS mechs) and what they might be able to do for the "extinct."

While I don't think "Wait until the timeline advance" is much of an answer to your valid concerns, I think its safe to assume that PGI is developing these two huge design-changes in tandem, and that many of the squirks players have come to rely on (especially in the IS) may not be as necessary in the coming months.

Sorry, I know you are just trying to find a reason for these nerfs, but the "we nerf this because in the future the new [insert next brilliant idea from PGI] will change everything and you won't need this quirks (or whatever...)" is just BS.

Remember the "Great re-scale"? We will compensate the losers of the re-scale, they said... I don't want to be compensated in the future (if they ever do it...), because from now until this "future" I'm going to be clearly handicaped.

Balance things NOW, not a few months later (if you ever do it).

[Oberost]

Bud Crue, on 13 February 2017 - 08:23 AM, said:

You may be right, but if they take away squirks to an even greater extent after folks have blown their 9.1 million and near 136500 XP and thus encourage/force respecs; folks are going to go nuts, new tech motivations or not.

As to the new tech, maybe I am just being cynical, but I don't think that tech is going to do much for making crap mechs more viable. I expect rather that not only will we end up with legacy tech, we are going to get legacy mechs, and such mechs are going to be those that are already marginalized.

And I add: those already payed.

[jonfett]

...because PGI has no idea what they are doing in regards to balance, other than using their Dartboard of Destiny, as well as making sure the new hotness in mechpacks they are selling are superior to last weeks meta.

[Mystere]

Whether people like it or not, BattleTech is the wrong IP to expect relative 1:1 viability or close to it for all Mechs.

So I say just live with it. The truly competitive types will only ever use the optimal ones, the "Monkey See, Monkey Do" wannabes will just copy pasta them, while the lore folks will use whatever they feel like using -- viable or otherwise.

C'est la vie.

[Ziogualty]

I think that a simple thing like "time passing by" could have doomed some mechs variants, and PGI forgot about it.

Think about the Cataphract: when it comes out it was a real good and funny mech: we did not have Clans at all, and many IS mechs we play today were missing.

It's not a matter of quirks, new 3060 stuff or skill tree only. A lot of early mechs are still fun, but some others (pre-Clans mostly) were fun to play at the times, against the mechs we had at disposal. Now they have just lost their charm.

More, i'm pretty (let's say 100%) sure that PGI will keep injecting new mechs after this change: we want it, they want it.
Probably for new players this is not much of a problem, but i like more to grind and play new mechs, instead of of doing something i already know and already did.
Gosh...if i have to grind (with the new system) new exciting mechs it will be hard even to find enough time to play in order to level up the old ones too!
And we already have Supernova, Roughneck, Assassin and Javelin on our front door.

Not to mention post-Clans mechs that have the same role of their elder cousins but are slightly better: was fun to play the old mechs for reasons quite impossible to reproduce now.

Edited by Attank, 13 February 2017 - 09:43 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Mystere, on 13 February 2017 - 09:33 AM, said:

Whether people like it or not, BattleTech is the wrong IP to expect relative 1:1 viability or close to it for all Mechs.

So I say just live with it. The truly competitive types will only ever use the optimal ones, the "Monkey See, Monkey Do" wannabes will just copy pasta them, while the lore folks will use whatever they feel like using -- viable or otherwise.

C'est la vie.

Don't care about battletech (anymore), I am interested in the health of this game though. I just don't see how PGI's constant nerfing of already marginalized mechs is good for that health. This isn't 1:1 viability...I don't think that is ever going to happen. No, I recognize that some mechs are garbage, but what I don't understand is PGI's consisten efforts to keep such mechs garbage. To me it is their obsession with broad stroke changes that they seek to apply to everything, and by refusing to accept that there are indeed exceptional mechs (good and bad) such strokes guarantee that what is good stays good and what is less than good gets worse. Apropos this is in fact totally contrary to the stated goal of the PTS which is to increase diversity. Instead, it is the effective elimination of many marginalized mechs from play, which is an absolute reduction of diversity.

[JediPanther]

No quirks and lack of skills won't keep me from using the much feared rvn-4x AC20 or the god that is spider 5v. Half the time I use such lesser used mechs just to break 400-600 damage or show off and out damage the assaults/heavies.

[Ziogualty]

Mystere, on 13 February 2017 - 09:33 AM, said:

Whether people like it or not, BattleTech is the wrong IP to expect relative 1:1 viability or close to it for all Mechs.

Just about this:

90% of WW2 battles were "unbalanced" between the contenders: who had better planes, who had better tanks, who had huge numerical superiority. One time was a nation, the year after was another.

Still, WW2 is an amazing source of great videogames. Despite the fact that real history is something a bit harder to bend than a fantasy setup, we have a lot of very successful multiplayer competitive stuff out there.

Better screw those "rules" away (no matter how much solid they are) and make a fun and balanced game: people will love it.

Edited by Attank, 13 February 2017 - 10:33 AM.

[Mystere]

Attank, on 13 February 2017 - 10:09 AM, said:

Just about this:

90% of WW2 battles were "unbalanced" between the contenders: who had better planes, who had better tanks, who had huge numerical superiority. One time was a nation, the year after was another.

Still, WW2 is an amazing source of great videogames. Despite the fact that real history is something a bit harder to bend than a fantasy setup, we have a lot of very successful multiplayer competitive stuff out there.

Better screw those "rules" away (no matter how much solid they are) and make a fun and balanced game: people will love it.

FTFY.

Real balance is an illusion at best, and for some IPs next to if not outright impossible. I'd rather have a fun game over one that goes through constant cycles of severe un-fun moments in pursuit of this never-ending obsession with something that will never come.

Several years after so-called "release", the game is still just an MVP arena game. Maybe that is exactly what PGI intends. If so, then they should just say so already, drop all pretenses, and let the chips fall where they may.

[Jackal Noble]

Mystere, on 13 February 2017 - 09:33 AM, said:

Whether people like it or not, BattleTech is the wrong IP to expect relative 1:1 viability or close to it for all Mechs.

So I say just live with it. The truly competitive types will only ever use the optimal ones, the "Monkey See, Monkey Do" wannabes will just copy pasta them, while the lore folks will use whatever they feel like using -- viable or otherwise.

C'est la vie.

This. Just gooooo with the flowwww

[Lupis Volk]

Probably Not, on 13 February 2017 - 09:32 AM, said:

Christ, the Night Gyr was powercreep exemplified.

Night Gyr? Wasn't the Kodiak the poster boy of powercreep?

[chucklesMuch]

Bud Crue, on 13 February 2017 - 07:18 AM, said:

So, I was writing this up for the PTS when it occurred to me that this isn't a PTS issue per se, but one merely being exagerated by the PTS:

TLDR: Mechs or individual variants that are already dying and will likely be dead in the future. My take is that short of several bullseyes on the dartboard of balance blessing such mechs with god tier quirks I don't think any sort of Paul necromancy is going to bring them back.

As to the relavence of this to the PTS, first take a look at the nerfs being proposed to both the IS and Clan mechs http://static.mwomer...S_ISQuirks.pdf. And http://static.mwomer...ClanQuirks.pdf.

For the clan some notable standouts of the mostly dead about to be really dead are represented best by the nerfs to the Adder, Ice Fridge, Summoner, Gargoyle and all Kodiaks with remaining performance quirks. For the IS the nerfs are more wide ranging and in many cases even more significant. For example note the overall reduction of weapon quirks across the board: be they PPC velocity, ballistics cool down, enters quirks of all kinds being reduced. While these are pretty clearly intended to prevent an overall increase of weapons performance via the skills tree, a closer examination of the nerfs illustrates that a lot of already under performing mechs are getting hit, and thus they will be dead and buried in a single mech system where there is no reason at all to even consider such underperformers in the first place, let alone in such a system where the quirks that made them viable before have been reduced or removed entirely.

I'm interested to hear from other's what they think are soon to be extinct mechs as well as to hear anyone's take on what PGI could possibly be thinking by nerfing underperformers when the new system won't have any insentive to play such underperformers in the first place.

Some specific mechs that are mostly dead now, that I think will never be seen again in the skill tree system being proposed (it will take a dedicated pokemech-er to invest the time and cbills into leveling any of these when there are objectively superior alternatives):

I'm gonna mostly stick with the IS but I have to take note of the Kodiaks
All Kodiaks other than the 3 and maybe the SB were already only played due to the rule of 3. Absent that and with their remaining quirks being removed, they are gone. I mean seriously why take away what little they had PGI? Lot of complaints and worry over the 2? Your data shows the 5 running the table a lot?

Turning to the IS; here there are too many to consider so I'll just grab one from each weight class as exemplary of what I am getting at:
Locusts; all but the 1E and PB are nearly dead already but cutting or eliminating the energy quirks form the rest makes them all objectively worse than the E and PB. Yes, some are more agile, but since most play locusts with play style of "never stop moving" the extra accel/decel some of them enjoy will not offset their laughable lack of firepower being nerfed even further. Note the S also looses half its missile cool down quirk. Bye.

In the medium class there are already so many marginalized mechs. From the Vindicator to the Kintaro, there is a lot to choose from for best example of the mostly dead that is soon to be irrevocably so. I'd say the winner though is the Trebuchet. Competitive folks kept the 5J an occasional sight, but with the nerfs on the PTS, even that exceptional variant is soon to be gone along with the rest.

Heavies. For me the stand out is and will be the Grasshopper 5J. Even without the proposed PTS nerfs, there is no reason to play this mech over the other Grasshoppers. 6 (5 if you count the 2 CT points as 1) relatively low energy hard points but with super special 2 AMS points and the potential for 2 more jump jets does not make this mech in any way desirable over its chassis-mates. I have never seen one of these in game, I don't expect I ever will.

Assaults. This is a tough one. Victors are having a bit of a resurgence so too Highlanders due to the increase in their armor. So I'd cut them some hope for the future. Thus, as it is, I think the Zeus is likely to be extinct especially given that boating is not the particular forte of any Zeus and with the PTS encouragement of such, I think the Zeus is even more marginalized there.

Your thoughts on the dead and dying? The impact that the PTS will have on such mechs?

in a way i'm glad... once I had plans to create my own Pokémech mastery list… but with the direction ST1.0 is going (balance adjustments could not only nerf mechs/weapons etc but be very costly to ongoingly respec to make chassis/variants useful or interesting again)… figure its just fun and or effective mechs going forward. (Especially once Skill Tree goes live).

So roll on ST 1.0 I’m looking forward to playing lots of previously mastered clan mechs.

Edited by chucklesMuch, 13 February 2017 - 01:19 PM.

[JC Daxion]

Acehilator, on 13 February 2017 - 07:37 AM, said:

The IS nerf list is once again a shining example of the complete and utter absence of any semblance of clue among the people involved into the desicion making process leading to the publishing of said list.

It should go without saying that all IS nerfs except the velocity quirk nerfs need to go.

well you know it is very common practice to level the playing field to test the new skill system to see exactly what is going on with Base mechs.. You do that then re-balance after.. It's been done a bunch of times on test..


But as for my mechs.. I will play the ones i like, it's pretty much that simple.. I don't chase meta, or the new so called best.. I play the mechs i like.. For example i played my jester for years.. same exact build i have now.. Pre-quirk, pre pulse laser buff, pre hitbox changes,, pre size change ext.. In fact my most played IS mechs are not the most popular.. but my favs all have my highest KDR... Jester, Dragon, HBK, cataphract... Hardly a list of the best of the best.. But they are my best..

The funny part is.. I do better in them than i do my stormcrow, or timber, or a couple others that are considered "great" mechs by T1 meta folks.. go figure

Edited by JC Daxion, 13 February 2017 - 01:30 PM.

[Garfuncle]

Links are broken

[Acehilator]

JC Daxion, on 13 February 2017 - 01:26 PM, said:

well you know it is very common practice to level the playing field to test the new skill system to see exactly what is going on with Base mechs.. You do that then re-balance after.. It's been done a bunch of times on test..


But as for my mechs.. I will play the ones i like, it's pretty much that simple.. I don't chase meta, or the new so called best.. I play the mechs i like.. For example i played my jester for years.. same exact build i have now.. Pre-quirk, pre pulse laser buff, pre hitbox changes,, pre size change ext.. In fact my most played IS mechs are not the most popular.. but my favs all have my highest KDR... Jester, Dragon, HBK, cataphract... Hardly a list of the best of the best.. But they are my best..

The funny part is.. I do better in them than i do my stormcrow, or timber, or a couple others that are considered "great" mechs by T1 meta folks.. go figure

Re-balance after? You mean like they took half a year to even look at some of the mechs hit hardest by the rescale? And after the whole FP 4.1 tonnage fiasco it should only take a trained chimpanzee to see that not a single IS mech needs a nerf at the moment. And yet somehow PGIs "balance" department felt the need to gut the Hopper, Hammer and Thunderbolt even further, among most other mechs (after already nerfing most of them several times already). That is just plain incompetent. And that is the most euphemistic wording possible.

Regarding Metamechs, I know the feeling. My top five best mechs are my three LRM boats (KTO-GB, AWS-8R, HGN IIC - B , 3x AC2 SHD-2H, and a MAR IIC. But which mechs "click" for you and which don't is not the point. It does not change the fact that not a single (NOT ONE) of the IS nerfs on the PTS list are justified or neccessary.

Edited by Acehilator, 13 February 2017 - 01:47 PM.