647 replies to this topic

[Warrax the Chaos Warrior]

Matthew Craig, on 14 March 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

Just a note to say we've been looking into this and should have a full response later today.

If I might be so bold, it would seem that removing the blast radius entirely might be the best solution. HEAP rounds don't work like that anyway.

I'm not sure if that would be hard to do, or if it's something that could be easily hotfixed. Either way, I don't see how splash damage is even necessary on what is already essentially a shotgun-style weapon.

[Yankee77]

Nightcrept, on 14 March 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

This mainly identifies the game mechanics for the missile weapons in game.
Hopefully though this isn't a bug and is simply by design.

Because if it is a bug we are looking at major game re-balancing. Especially srm's and lrm's will need adjusted to bring them back up to balance.

That is a very good point, and we should not lose sight of this.

However, I think that it is a problem to have light mechs take more damage from AOE weapons than larger ones, simply because there are more hit locations within the AOE. Sounds a bit unfair to me.

[Nick Carlile]

My question is. Lets say 3 months ago. Did anyone think an LRM 15 by itself, or even two LRM 15's. Or an SRM 6? Or an SRM 4? Or a couple of them? Were broken?

I understand Streaks. And I understand 6 SRM 6 Splatcats.

But if this is a bug, and it gets fixed. You have to do a complete overhaul on every missile system.

[7c Nickel]

I'd like to add that I took my COM-2D into the training grounds and fired on the stock Commando from the front with 3 SSRM2s. It didn't quite kill it in one shot like an SRM6 to the chest has been shown to do. This seems to confirm the testing that someone else did that indicated splash damage actually does more damage than the direct hit itself. Stuff is messed up.

[Xendojo]

Nick Carlile, on 14 March 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

My question is. Lets say 3 months ago. Did anyone think an LRM 15 by itself, or even two LRM 15's. Or an SRM 6? Or an SRM 4? Or a couple of them? Were broken?

I understand Streaks. And I understand 6 SRM 6 Splatcats.

But if this is a bug, and it gets fixed. You have to do a complete overhaul on every missile system.

Not quite...just on the splash damage modifiers. But there have been changes made on top of numbers gleaned with a faulty splash damage mechanic...so yes there is significant work to be done because of this discovery.

EDIT: Also...very hard to judge these things in the heat of battle. The advent of the testing grounds is really what led to this fault being *able* to be discovered. Only in a controlled environment could we really begin to pick apart the damage...even the end of game screen didn't really allow us as testers to fully dissect the damage we were taking in game.

Edited by Xendojo, 14 March 2013 - 09:47 AM.

[HighTest]

To everyone that has contributed to the research in this thread so far, brilliant work! And extra props to the OP for noticing this initially.

Two possible 'fixes' to the problem (of many, I'm sure) that I think would be fair/suitable/whatever:

1. Remove splash damage entirely. BT and MW never had the concept, so I'm not sure why it makes sense here. Each SRM or LRM did a fixed amount of damage to one location. This makes it very easy to normalize the damage for these weapons as ( # or missiles hit x damage per missile = total damage ). So if 1 SRM hits the CT, 2.5 damage to the CT and no more.

2. Keep splash damage, but prorate it over the locations hit UP TO the maximum damage per missile. So each missile will do it's stated damage, but over multiple locations. For example, a single SRM at 2.5 damage that hit 60% CT and 40% LT would do 1.5 damage to the CT and 1.0 damage to the LT. Depending on the way this is coded, you might need to be careful that if splash actually spread over to a non-part of the mech, you risk a missile doing LESS than the stated damage. (ie. 60% LA and 40% nothing = 1.5 damage to LA + 0 to nothing = 1.5 damage for that missile). In this instance you could allocate that all 100% damage goes to the LA, if desired.

I have no preference, really, except that I think that either would be a perfectly serviceable solution. I would be curious as to what others would think as far as option 1 vs option 2 goes.

[Nick Carlile]

Xendojo, on 14 March 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

Not quite...just on the splash damage modifiers. But there have been changes made on top of numbers gleaned with a faulty splash damage mechanic...so yes there is significant work to be done because of this discovery.

EDIT: Also...very hard to judge these things in the heat of battle. The advent of the testing grounds is really what led to this fault being *able* to be discovered. Only in a controlled environment could we really begin to pick apart the damage...even the end of game screen didn't really allow us as testers to fully dissect the damage we were taking in game.

I agree about the heat of battle and such.

I guess my big issue is. When I'm running around in my dual LRM15 Centurion, I have never though "F**k yeah, these suckers are overpowered, look at me blowing s**t up".

Now there are games where dumb people stand still and I murder them. But I can do that with ER PPC's and Gauss Rifles too.

So it makes me wonder.

[Nightcrept]

Itkovian, on 14 March 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

That is a very good point, and we should not lose sight of this.

However, I think that it is a problem to have light mechs take more damage from AOE weapons than larger ones, simply because there are more hit locations within the AOE. Sounds a bit unfair to me.

I understand what your saying. But if current balance is to be kept then 1 srm-6 must have its damage raised so that it can still core a com-2d if a full volley hits it.

So your looking at removing splash damage and narrowing srm spread and raising it's damage by a full point or more to get the same in game effect.

[Warrax the Chaos Warrior]

HighTest, on 14 March 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

To everyone that has contributed to the research in this thread so far, brilliant work! And extra props to the OP for noticing this initially.

Two possible 'fixes' to the problem (of many, I'm sure) that I think would be fair/suitable/whatever:

1. Remove splash damage entirely. BT and MW never had the concept, so I'm not sure why it makes sense here. Each SRM or LRM did a fixed amount of damage to one location. This makes it very easy to normalize the damage for these weapons as ( # or missiles hit x damage per missile = total damage ). So if 1 SRM hits the CT, 2.5 damage to the CT and no more.

2. Keep splash damage, but prorate it over the locations hit UP TO the maximum damage per missile. So each missile will do it's stated damage, but over multiple locations. For example, a single SRM at 2.5 damage that hit 60% CT and 40% LT would do 1.5 damage to the CT and 1.0 damage to the LT. Depending on the way this is coded, you might need to be careful that if splash actually spread over to a non-part of the mech, you risk a missile doing LESS than the stated damage. (ie. 60% LA and 40% nothing = 1.5 damage to LA + 0 to nothing = 1.5 damage for that missile). In this instance you could allocate that all 100% damage goes to the LA, if desired.

I have no preference, really, except that I think that either would be a perfectly serviceable solution. I would be curious as to what others would think as far as option 1 vs option 2 goes.

Either one could work.

I prefer option 1. I think it would be easier to implement, and might have less room to cause additional bugs. That's just speculation on my part though.

[Nightcrept]

Start by removing the splash damage.

Increase missile speed.
Decrease reload times.
Increase missile damage by a full point.
Decrease missile spread.

That is a good start to counter balance removing splash damage.

[WardenWolf]

Nightcrept, on 14 March 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

So your looking at removing splash damage and narrowing srm spread and raising it's damage by a full point or more to get the same in game effect.

Why do we need to get the same in-game effect, though? If there is a bug (and I can't see having different effects on different mechs as anything but a bug) then why not simply fix it, rather than fix it and then balance damage to be the same?

What you propose would actually be a massive boost in SRM damage against larger targets, where the splash damage is less noticeable It would make splat-cats and the like more deadly against large targets, and honestly if anything they need to be less lethal against *everyone*... especially once S-SRM6 gets in during the Clan invasion.

Nightcrept, on 14 March 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

Start by removing the splash damage.

Increase missile speed.
Decrease reload times.
Increase missile damage by a full point.
Decrease missile spread.

That is a good start to counter balance removing splash damage.

I disagree - I think they should just remove splash and see how that is for a patch or two. Or, *maybe*, drop splash damage to something like 10-20% of the main missile damage instead of whatever it is at now... but honestly, I don't think splash damage is needed at all. It wasn't there in TT or other MechWarrior games...

[Nick Carlile]

Nightcrept, on 14 March 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

I understand what your saying. But if current balance is to be kept then 1 srm-6 must have its damage raised so that it can still core a com-2d if a full volley hits it.

So your looking at removing splash damage and narrowing srm spread and raising it's damage by a full point or more to get the same in game effect.

This is the part I don't quite think people are understanding.

[Amaris the Usurper]

Nightcrept, on 14 March 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

I understand what your saying. But if current balance is to be kept then 1 srm-6 must have its damage raised so that it can still core a com-2d if a full volley hits it.

So your looking at removing splash damage and narrowing srm spread and raising it's damage by a full point or more to get the same in game effect.

Why should we expect a single SRM 6 volley to core a Commando?

In tabletop, the COM-1B has 8 armor and 8 structure in the CT, but an SRM 6 only does 12 damage per shot (maximum). We would have to get very lucky and have all missiles hit and all missiles strike the CT to remove even 3/4 of the total HP there.

SRMs have traditionally been a "sand blaster" type weapon. Their ability to slaughter light 'mechs in MWO is a mistake induced by the broken (and unnecessary) splash damage mechanic.

[Nick Carlile]

WardenWolf, on 14 March 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

Why do we need to get the same in-game effect, though? If there is a bug (and I can't see having different effects on different mechs as anything but a bug) then why not simply fix it, rather than fix it and then balance damage to be the same?

What you propose would actually be a massive boost in SRM damage against larger targets, where the splash damage is less noticeable It would make splat-cats and the like more deadly against large targets, and honestly if anything they need to be less lethal against *everyone*... especially once S-SRM6 gets in during the Clan invasion.


I disagree - I think they should just remove splash and see how that is for a patch or two. Or, *maybe*, drop splash damage to something like 10-20% of the main missile damage instead of whatever it is at now... but honestly, I don't think splash damage is needed at all. It wasn't there in TT or other MechWarrior games...

If the game has been balanced for the last 4 months with this happening. Then yes.

Do you feel that currently in game when you are using them, that an SRM4 is overpowered? Or does too much damage?

Or when you shoot an LRM15 that it's way too uber?

I would wager if you asked anyone that right now. They'd say no they are fine.

So if you fix the bug you have to buff them.

Amaris the Usurper, on 14 March 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

Why should we expect a single SRM 6 volley to core a Commando?

In tabletop, the COM-1B has 8 armor and 8 structure in the CT, but an SRM 6 only does 12 damage per shot (maximum). We would have to get very lucky and have all missiles hit and all missiles strike the CT to remove even 3/4 of the total HP there.

SRMs have traditionally been a "sand blaster" type weapon. Their ability to slaughter light 'mechs in MWO is a mistake induced by the broken (and unnecessary) splash damage mechanic.

This isn't about tabletop, but actual weapon use in the game.

Do you feel that an SRM 6 doing a lot less damage and having it be spread is going to be worth taking?

[Lege]

I've been saying for months that missiles are making energy slots useless.
Missiles do almost everything better, only since long range energy weapon heat reduction are they even competitive.
Medium range lasers still need their heat reduced, because now the long range have better damage/heat ratios.
Missile slots are the most power hard point right now and have been for months.
Let's see I can load a SRM-6 and it lists at 15 damage for 4 heat, show me any energy weapon that is even close to that for damage/heat.
So they are saying SRM-6s are doing even more than 15 damage with all the splash damage?
I mean the 25% damage buff to SRMs and 70% damage buff to LRMs was already over the top and unbalancing.
It's not chance that the strongest builds out there right now include at least 3x SRM-6.

[HighTest]

I think the point most people here are trying to make is that they DON'T want the same in-game effect.

IMHO, a single SRM6 volley should not be able to core a Commando. If it could, why would anyone ever run 3 MLASes? Or a PPC? Or a Gauss?

The intent is to reduce missile damage to something more in line with the weight/heat/slot costs of other weapons, as opposed to just having everyone running around boating LRMs and SRMs (like they seem to be doing now).

[Nick Carlile]

HighTest, on 14 March 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

I think the point most people here are trying to make is that they DON'T want the same in-game effect.

IMHO, a single SRM6 volley should not be able to core a Commando. If it could, why would anyone ever run 3 MLASes? Or a PPC? Or a Gauss?

The intent is to reduce missile damage to something more in line with the weight/heat/slot costs of other weapons, as opposed to just having everyone running around boating LRMs and SRMs (like they seem to be doing now).

Does an SRM 6 in practice now, in a real game, ever really core a commando in one shot though? I don't think i've ever seen that.

I can't even kill a commando with 30 LRM's in one shot.

[Gevurah]

Nick Carlile, on 14 March 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

If the game has been balanced for the last 4 months with this happening. Then yes.

Do you feel that currently in game when you are using them, that an SRM4 is overpowered? Or does too much damage?

Or when you shoot an LRM15 that it's way too uber?

I would wager if you asked anyone that right now. They'd say no they are fine.

So if you fix the bug you have to buff them.



This isn't about tabletop, but actual weapon use in the game.

Do you feel that an SRM 6 doing a lot less damage and having it be spread is going to be worth taking?

Just because the game is what you're used to doesn't mean it's how it's supposed to be.
Sorry dude, but SRMs are going to take a hit.
Commandos aren't going to die in one shot anymore.
And you're going to have to live with that.

[stjobe]

Nightcrept, on 14 March 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

I understand what your saying. But if current balance is to be kept then 1 srm-6 must have its damage raised so that it can still core a com-2d if a full volley hits it.

So your looking at removing splash damage and narrowing srm spread and raising it's damage by a full point or more to get the same in game effect.

No, this is incorrect.

A SRM-6 should do 15 damage, it should NOT core a COM-1B in one hit. That it can do so currently is exactly what this bug is about and it should NOT be rebalanced to that.

Current balance is OFF, at least in part due to this bug.

[WardenWolf]

Nick Carlile, on 14 March 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

If the game has been balanced for the last 4 months with this happening. Then yes.

Do you feel that currently in game when you are using them, that an SRM4 is overpowered? Or does too much damage?

Or when you shoot an LRM15 that it's way too uber?

I would wager if you asked anyone that right now. They'd say no they are fine.

So if you fix the bug you have to buff them.

This isn't about tabletop, but actual weapon use in the game.

Do you feel that an SRM 6 doing a lot less damage and having it be spread is going to be worth taking?

I absolutely feel that SRM damage is overpowered, across the board. There is a reason those 6 x SRM6 cats are so darned popular! I can even feel it in one of my Atlas D-DC variants with 3 x Streak SRM2 - they seem to do more damage that specs would indicate... and now I know why.

I'm not sure about LRMs, but I am also not convinced that they are doing anywhere near the same level of splash damage. Most of the stuff on this thread, and all of my personal testing, has been limited to SRMs.