36 replies to this topic

[Tarogato]

Last time I ran this survey was 2018, when heatsinks were reworked and engine heatspike was added. Changes to the game since then have not been significant, but the meta has shifted over time and I think we'll get vastly different results now. Let's do another run before the game receives its next slew of updates!

---

---> Here is the survey! <---

- some simple instructions inside, please read them carefully!
- takes between 4 and 8 minutes to fill out
- you don't need to be an expert, all I want is you to share your opinion
- if you really need to, you can skip an entire weightclass if you're super unsure about it. But I'd rather you give it your best shot!

---

Results!

As people submit to the survey, these sheets will automatically populate. If you replied in the first day of the survey, please check back later after there has been time for more people to submit. I usually get around 400 responses, let's make it that far!

- Basic Results (average scores)
- Boxplot version! (more detailed)
- Comp vs Casual comparison
- Clan vs IS loyalists
- Solo Queue vs Groups vs FP etc.
- High Avg Matchscore Players vs Low Expect infrequent updates, I have to do this one manually
- Chronicle of 2016 vs 2017 vs 2018 vs Present

[Lucky Noob]

Awesome statistics, made me think about some Mechs.

[FupDup]

One flaw I can see is that for some mechs, the "power level" variability between different variants of one chassis can be pretty high, such as the IV-4 being a god but the C-Bill Quickdraws being among the worst heavies available (but this survey is already ranking the entire chassis as top-tier despite that not being the case).

It would be too much work to separate it by variant though so I'm not asking you to actually change anything, rather just to read it with a pinch of salt.

[Brauer]

FupDup, on 14 March 2021 - 08:10 AM, said:

One flaw I can see is that for some mechs, the &quot;power level&quot; variability between different variants of one chassis can be pretty high, such as the IV-4 being a god but the C-Bill Quickdraws being among the worst heavies available (but this survey is already ranking the entire chassis as top-tier despite that not being the case).

It would be too much work to separate it by variant though so I'm not asking you to actually change anything, rather just to read it with a pinch of salt.

The IV4 is far from a god. It farms well, but it's not that great of a mech if you actually want to win (outside of the smallest formats - 1v1, 2v2). That and the 5K is a fine mpl mech.

[Gagis]

FupDup, on 14 March 2021 - 08:10 AM, said:

One flaw I can see is that for some mechs, the "power level" variability between different variants of one chassis can be pretty high, such as the IV-4 being a god but the C-Bill Quickdraws being among the worst heavies available (but this survey is already ranking the entire chassis as top-tier despite that not being the case).

It would be too much work to separate it by variant though so I'm not asking you to actually change anything, rather just to read it with a pinch of salt.

The survey text says you should answer based on the strongest variant, so urbie is for the K9 and so on.

[FupDup]

Gagis, on 14 March 2021 - 08:32 AM, said:

The survey text says you should answer based on the strongest variant, so urbie is for the K9 and so on.

The other Urbies are at least good, even if not as good as the K-9.

[Tarogato]

FupDup, on 14 March 2021 - 08:10 AM, said:

One flaw I can see is that for some mechs, the "power level" variability between different variants of one chassis can be pretty high, such as the IV-4 being a god but the C-Bill Quickdraws being among the worst heavies available (but this survey is already ranking the entire chassis as top-tier despite that not being the case).

It would be too much work to separate it by variant though so I'm not asking you to actually change anything, rather just to read it with a pinch of salt.

Yiisss, I'd love to do per-variant breakdowns, but it's just too much time for people to fill out the survey, assuming I had time to even build it.

Reality is, most people when thinking of a chassis, are most likely to think of the best or most popular variant or build on that chassis first, so it's easy to conceptualise. And anybody who's been around and knows the game well enough, can understand what variants are driving ratings upward and extrapolate where and why other variants don't hold up.

This survey focuses on the peak performance achievable by a chassis, in hopes that the other variants could be brought up to that level, and also to identify if anything is too-strongly overperforming.

FupDup, on 14 March 2021 - 08:41 AM, said:

The other Urbies are at least good, even if not as good as the K-9.

But alas, the K9 does stand out noticeably, hence why I used it as the first example.
Many people consider it in contention for best light in the game, an accolade the other variants are not afforded.

[JediPanther]

Not surprised the jenner jr-7 and spider are the two worst lights in the game. Even the lct is ranked higher. I was expecting the pnt to be a lot higher since it is the second tank-ist light is have.

Other than lol factor of stats I doubt pgi will use the results for anything or flat out say 'our internal data set and testing prove you wrong' without ever giving evidence of such.

[Gas Guzzler]

I'm surprised the higher level voted that the MAD II was better than the NSR.

[Heavy Money]

Great project! Looks like my general perceptions line up pretty well with the average ratings.

This data is a good place for PGI to start looking at weaker mech variants. Of course, even below average rated ones will often have most of their variants being even worse than that. But more studies/polling could be done about specific variants once they decide what chassis to improve.

[Heavy Money]

Lockheed_, on 14 March 2021 - 02:18 PM, said:

My fear regarding this survey, especially since it does not specify variants, is that someone like Chris sees it and with no current game play expertise whips out the nerf hammer and goes to town and then PGI claims they were listening to community feedback, leaving us with a broken game again.

Yes PGI, despite Matt and Daeron being really engaged in improving the game, I currently do not trust that the game will not be screwed up in a different way. Way too many bad memories of past 'nerfs' and 'balance passes'. I wish you all the best, but I need to see more proof of actual improvements.

Yeah. I think they know to be careful though.

I hope that what they'll do is implement the Gulag changes as a start, and then pick 2 chassis of each weight class per balance update and go through a process of feedback and discussion of each variant of those chassis. It'd also be great if they could share any data they have about performance of said chassis.

[XX Sulla XX]

Hmm I seem to remember mentioning something about how bad the Timber Wolf is now. Seems I am not the only one that thinks so. Although what I expect is just a big nerf hammer to any mechs that is performing well because "balance" is more important than fun. Although I hope I am wrong I honestly do.

Edited by XX Sulla XX, 14 March 2021 - 10:53 PM.

[The pessimistic optimist]

Lockheed_, on 14 March 2021 - 11:11 PM, said:

Also too many people's mindset is about rather bringing good things down, then lifting up what's struggling. It's all over our mediocre society.

What he said

[XX Sulla XX]

Lockheed_, on 14 March 2021 - 11:11 PM, said:

Also too many people's mindset is about rather bringing good things down, then lifting up what's struggling. It's all over our mediocre society.

I agree bringing things down has not made the game better.

[PocketYoda]

Awesome survey thanks.

Lockheed_, on 14 March 2021 - 11:11 PM, said:

Also too many people's mindset is about rather bringing good things down, then lifting up what's struggling. It's all over our mediocre society.

I agree many many mechs need assistance, but i feel a few mechs do dominate etc. Hopefully one day the poorer stuff will get lifted.

Who knows maybe the weapon pass might help.

It didn't help

Edited by Samial, 15 March 2021 - 08:30 PM.

[jjm1]

There's all these mechs that suck but have that one OP chassis. It hurts to rate them higher than they are.

[Coffeeghoul]

Thank you very much, that's fantastic.
It would be nice to see more than 3 groups on the table for high vs low average players. The difference between 230 and 340 is HUGE.
Maybe 5 groups instead of 3? 200 and lower, 201-250, 251-300, 301-350, 350+ ? Just my thought on that.

Edited by Coffeeghoul, 15 March 2021 - 02:22 AM.

[Valdarion Silarius]

Lockheed_, on 14 March 2021 - 02:18 PM, said:

My fear regarding this survey, especially since it does not specify variants, is that someone like Chris sees it and with no current game play expertise whips out the nerf hammer and goes to town and then PGI claims they were listening to community feedback, leaving us with a broken game again.

Yes PGI, despite Matt and Daeron being really engaged in improving the game, I currently do not trust that the game will not be screwed up in a different way. Way too many bad memories of past 'nerfs' and 'balance passes'. I wish you all the best, but I need to see more proof of actual improvements.

This times a thousand. If anything, the higher rated mechs should be an excuse to buff under performing mechs instead of nerfing them. Leave the good mechs alone, go back to the drawing board and buff the mechs that need help the most.

[The pessimistic optimist]

Arnold The Governator, on 15 March 2021 - 03:11 AM, said:

This times a thousand. If anything, the higher rated mechs should be an excuse to buff under performing mechs instead of nerfing them. Leave the good mechs alone, go back to the drawing board and buff the mechs that need help the most.

Problem is it's always easier to nerf something back down to everyone else's level then to bring things up to it's level. Sadly most of the time it's the path of least resistance in most game design and things get nerfed

Edited by SirSmokes, 15 March 2021 - 03:19 AM.

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie]

As much as I applaud your hard work with surveys like this, I fear all it is good for is
a) to be completely ignored by PGI, as per usual
b.) it gets an half-ars*d read, they implement something entirely different to whatever the survey is pointing at, and use it as a scapegoat.*


god, I miss piloting mechs. I'm also being reminded why I quit that game, though.
guess I'll have to play some Battletech again, sometime soon



*the year is 2021, and we STILL can't do an a) c) without b getting screwed up. another case of Lostech.

Edited by Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie, 15 March 2021 - 04:12 AM.