Jump to content

Streak Srm Damage Is Much Higher Than Expected [Test Results Inside] - Updated 2013-03-15


691 replies to this topic

#341 HoppinRaven

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 43 posts
  • LocationI'd say behind you, but I'd be lying.

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:23 PM

Uhm, wasn't the splash damage implemented to make the streaks more effective some patches ago? And yes then effectiveness becomes deadly on smaller mechs where the hit areas are smaller and thus close to each other.

#342 Nightcrept

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • 1033 posts

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:26 PM

The patch notes don't go far enough back or they were in a special announcement.

Someone actually noticed it and posted pretty much the ops same observation in dec.

http://mwomercs.com/...-splash-damage/

#343 Amaris the Usurper

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 100 posts

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:30 PM

View PostThontor, on 14 March 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

the less damage to the limbs thing is an unintended, and known issue that is going to be fixed in the next patch

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1969176


OK. I was operating under a memory malfunction and thinking it had already been fixed.

#344 krolmir

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Ironclad
  • The Ironclad
  • 237 posts

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:36 PM

For anyone who would like to repeat the test themselves, go into the Training Grounds on a mech with lasers and SRMS.
Hunchback SP is a good example. 1 SRM6 is supposed to do 15 damage = 3 MLasers , 2LLasers (is slightly higher at 18), 5 SLasers, 3 rds A/C5 , 1 gauss slug, etc.

Target a mech and fire a single volley of SRMs at 100m record the % data, fire your laser/ ballistic equivelant record the % data, move to approximately 50m, and repeat.

By the end of this test you will see for yourself how much extra damage is being done by the splash, and remember that the bug is verified in live game as well.

#345 Amaris the Usurper

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 100 posts

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:47 PM

View PostPhaesphoros, on 14 March 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

AFAIK and IMHO, light mechs in this game have been balanced by being harder to hit. They're fast and small (and I think one of the main reasons of the "weird" relative sizes of mechs in this game is due to hit statistics / survivability). Take a look at the legs of 35 t RVN compared to 40 t CDA.


I was theorizing that the devs introduced splash damage (which disproportionately affects light 'mechs) to compensate for the excessive difficulty of hitting a small and highly-mobile target when dispersion is also taken into account. (We have always had dispersion, to my knowledge.)

It's not confirmed or denied by my experiments; I was just throwing it out for consideration.

#346 Gevurah

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 429 posts

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:48 PM

Until I see a post by the devs which specifically states that splash damage is intended, then I have to logically assume it was not, is not, and is an unintended byproduct of bad code.

#347 Radko

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 66 posts

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:50 PM

View PostVapor Trail, on 13 March 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

Looking frame by frame in my Front Test, it appears that the Commando takes splash damage to EVERY hit location (including rear).

Pic of frame in question:

Posted Image

You can see that in this frame, the side torso weapons have been destroyed, but the CT weapon (the SRM2) is intact.

This says, to me, that the damage it breaching the side torso rear armor, and then destroying the side torsos along with the SRM ammo stored there, which destroys the mech.

In other words: Looks like it's applying 15 damage to every armor area. (Except for the legs, I bet)

Edited by Radko, 14 March 2013 - 12:52 PM.


#348 Postumus

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • 254 posts
  • LocationOregon

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:51 PM

My one suggestion to the devs based on the results of this test, is to develop and put into place the kind of benchmarks that can be periodically run to test for these kinds of basic discrepancies in the game model due to changes made to internal logic and calculations.

This could be as high or low tech as you want to make it - as simple as a test map with target mechs in known positions, and a standard input script logged from a first manual run-through of the test, or as complicated as a time-accelerated, non-rendered equivalent. The latter would be preferable, as long as it could be demonstrated that the results would be the same. This sort of benchmark could be used to periodically test basic assumptions about all manner of game mechanics - damage, movement (on ground and jumpjets), collisions (when they are put back in), heat, etc.

This kind of basic testing was probably discontinued sometime before or during early closed beta in favor of a test regimen determined by reaction to submitted tickets, but the results of the OPs test, if confirmed, make a strong argument for resuming them, as it would appear that changes made to the game model at some point have affected the basic damage mechanics of explosive weapons. Programmers can make very good, educated guesses at how the changes they make in the code will propagate outwards in the system, but they will not envision every contingency, and it make all the sense to set up simple, effective benchmarks that model actual play to check for things like this.

Edited by Postumus, 14 March 2013 - 12:52 PM.


#349 Paul Inouye

    Lead Designer

  • Staff Moderator
  • 2100 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:53 PM

Interesting and very thorough testing by the OP and many kudos for the in-depth write-up.
This problem has 2 levels.

First is that Testing Grounds has quite a few issues when reporting damage and the numbers you're seeing are inflated quite a bit (almost double). We will be addressing this bug and others as Testing Grounds matures over time.

Second, this does NOT eliminate the findings that S-SRMs AND SRMs are doing more damage than intended. This is not due to some top secret, behind your back weapon balancing. It has to do with splash damage, how it was first implemented and the new smaller Mechs coming out.

Posted Image

Here is one of the scenarios described and I've turned on the debug tools to let us see exactly what is going on in terms of hits and damage being done.

The Raven 3L has just fired 1 volley of 2 x S-SRM2 at the Commando 1B. As you can see, the amount of damage done to the Commando does not make sense. There is a total of 51.5 armor being stripped off the Commando. We've been able to reproduce this repeatedly and we're getting an average damage of 12.9 per missile. Quite a bit higher than the intended 2.5 damage per missile plus splash damage.

So what has happened to cause this? Smaller Mechs and more complex geometry than what was available when the splash damage system first went into the game. When SRM splash damage went into the game, there were a total of 4 Mechs available to the playerbase. The Jenner, Hunchback, Catapult and the Atlas. These 4 Mechs have very unique targeting silhouettes and were used to calculate the radius of splash damage per missile. Now what has happened is that the splash damage across smaller Mechs or Mechs with more complex/tighter component positioning are getting hit with more splash damage than intended.

In the image below, you can see how much overlap the damage done to the Commando has and how that it is taking significantly more splash damage than it should.

Posted Image

We are looking at the tuning for these hit locations/splash damage and will update as soon as possible.

#350 Radko

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 66 posts

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:55 PM

View PostGevurah, on 14 March 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

Until I see a post by the devs which specifically states that splash damage is intended, then I have to logically assume it was not, is not, and is an unintended byproduct of bad code.
Do people really think one SRM hitting every armor spot, potentially doing up to 27.5 points of damage, is working as intended?

I would like to add that SRMs are never this strong in the actual game, with most damage inconsistently disappearing into the void.

#351 Nick Carlile

    Clone

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 79 posts

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:55 PM

So basically the problem is inflated by the training grounds, and is worse for tiny mechs and working generally as intended for 50 tonners on up?

I say leave it. F light mechs. :P

#352 Nightcrept

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • 1033 posts

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:58 PM

View PostGevurah, on 14 March 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

Until I see a post by the devs which specifically states that splash damage is intended, then I have to logically assume it was not, is not, and is an unintended byproduct of bad code.


Ask and you shall receive.

#353 Garbagecan

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • 33 posts
  • LocationFace down in a sewer drain somewhere on Outreach

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:59 PM

From reading this thread it looks like some people seem to accept this as a flaw and others seem to be taking it personally. Yes, your streaks are overpowered, your just not that good, :(.

#354 Diplomat99

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 17 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 14 March 2013 - 12:59 PM

This is huge, I am very curious for the devs answer on this. beyond this, I just have to get this off my chest:

View PostTennex, on 13 March 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:


doesn't make sense. 1 missile fired should do 2.5 maximum to 1 section. 2 missiles fired should do 5 maximum damage to one section (even if slashed from another section).

theres some bug thats amplifying the damage. beyond splash. like a respash effect, where the splash damage is also applying splash damage.


So I heared you like splash damage, so I put some splash damage in your splash damage. Or "Splashception"

#355 Thontor

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • 6884 posts
  • LocationChicago

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:01 PM

View PostPaul Inouye, on 14 March 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

Quite a bit higher than the intended 2.5 damage per missile plus splash damage.

We are looking at the tuning for these hit locations/splash damage and will update as soon as possible.


Thank you Paul.

Please just remove splash damage, or make it so that the splash damage is included in the 2.5 damage per missile instead of in addition to it.

Thank you again.

#356 Nick Carlile

    Clone

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 79 posts

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:03 PM

View PostPaul Inouye, on 14 March 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

First is that Testing Grounds has quite a few issues when reporting damage and the numbers you're seeing are inflated quite a bit (almost double). We will be addressing this bug and others as Testing Grounds matures over time.

Second, this does NOT eliminate the findings that S-SRMs AND SRMs are doing more damage than intended. This is not due to some top secret, behind your back weapon balancing. It has to do with splash damage, how it was first implemented and the new smaller Mechs coming out.


Also by the way...LRM's are fine?

View PostThontor, on 14 March 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

Thank you Paul.

Please just remove splash damage, or make it so that the splash damage is included in the 2.5 damage per missile instead of in addition to it.

Thank you again.


But what if their intent is to have it in addition to the 2.5? That's what it sounds like from his post.

#357 Bubba Wilkins

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 688 posts

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:04 PM

View PostPaul Inouye, on 14 March 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

Interesting and very thorough testing by the OP and many kudos for the in-depth write-up.
This problem has 2 levels.

First is that Testing Grounds has quite a few issues when reporting damage and the numbers you're seeing are inflated quite a bit (almost double). We will be addressing this bug and others as Testing Grounds matures over time.

Second, this does NOT eliminate the findings that S-SRMs AND SRMs are doing more damage than intended. This is not due to some top secret, behind your back weapon balancing. It has to do with splash damage, how it was first implemented and the new smaller Mechs coming out.

Posted Image

Here is one of the scenarios described and I've turned on the debug tools to let us see exactly what is going on in terms of hits and damage being done.

The Raven 3L has just fired 1 volley of 2 x S-SRM2 at the Commando 1B. As you can see, the amount of damage done to the Commando does not make sense. There is a total of 51.5 armor being stripped off the Commando. We've been able to reproduce this repeatedly and we're getting an average damage of 12.9 per missile. Quite a bit higher than the intended 2.5 damage per missile plus splash damage.

So what has happened to cause this? Smaller Mechs and more complex geometry than what was available when the splash damage system first went into the game. When SRM splash damage went into the game, there were a total of 4 Mechs available to the playerbase. The Jenner, Hunchback, Catapult and the Atlas. These 4 Mechs have very unique targeting silhouettes and were used to calculate the radius of splash damage per missile. Now what has happened is that the splash damage across smaller Mechs or Mechs with more complex/tighter component positioning are getting hit with more splash damage than intended.

In the image below, you can see how much overlap the damage done to the Commando has and how that it is taking significantly more splash damage than it should.

Posted Image

We are looking at the tuning for these hit locations/splash damage and will update as soon as possible.


Would this not also apply to LRM's as well?

#358 Nightcrept

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • 1033 posts

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:04 PM

View PostNick Carlile, on 14 March 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:


Also by the way...LRM's are fine?



But what if their intent is to have it in addition to the 2.5? That's what it sounds like from his post.


From what i have been reading from searching for splash damage lrms never got splash damage.

#359 Kell Draygo

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 884 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:04 PM

This testing should've been thoroughly done before the terrible ECM was added into the game to balance streaks.

#360 Nick Carlile

    Clone

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 79 posts

Posted 14 March 2013 - 01:05 PM

View PostNightcrept, on 14 March 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:


From what i have been reading from searching for splash damage lrms never got splash damage.


Not based on the complaining from the hordes in this thread.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users