647 replies to this topic

[Nightcrept]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 17 March 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

That, we clearly agree on.

.

These two statements seem contradictory to me:

If they are not OP to most players (assuming light pilots are not "most players"), then how are they "nerfed to hell" to "most players" (assuming that "most players" don't use missiles mostly against light mechs).

So a small slice of the community getting crushed by missiles is OK, but a wide swath of the community having one weapon system tweaked for balance in certain situations is not?

This is one of those rare occasions when I think "it is Beta" is a somewhat appropriate response ... they are still making major changes to the game, whether that's adding new content or making major balance tweaks.

Maybe you're right that splash damage was supposed to be in addition to impact damage ... if so, then while they fix splash damage, maybe buff impact damage slightly ...

For the sake of simplicity the number 2,5 has been a typo. It should have said 6.4 or so. So we have been balancing the game against srms dealing 6.4 damage.
So suddenly making the srms deal the displayed damage would drop the in game damage by 3.9 approx.

But then in the future they will reinstall splash damage raising the damage again.

It's just a needless headache. Fix it and replace it. Srms will still get a nerf but not to the same amount.

Unless that is the point. Drop it all of a sudden let people scream and then add the new system raising the damage and making the new system seem like more of a buff then it is? But if so how many players will we lose this time?

Edited by Nightcrept, 17 March 2013 - 07:44 PM.

[Nightcrept]

In simpler terms.

Dropping splash damage cold turkey will cause a noticeable nerf effect against all mechs. Then when they patch in the new system it will be a noticeable buff.

If they waited until they had the replacement working it would be less noticeable and only really then against the smaller targets.

[PapajIGC]

Nightcrept, on 17 March 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:

But in this case we are dealing with a damaged mechanic that isn't doing as much harm in the actual game as the outright removal without a replacement will do. AT least in my opinion.

What the...I don't even...it's a good thing opinions can be wrong.

Nightcrept, on 17 March 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:

We have balanced all new mechs and the other weapons systems against this broken mechanic.

[Redacted] Show me one instance where the Devs have balanced another weapon system or a new mech release around the fact that SRMs do upwards of 5x their normal damage in some cases. Don't even try wasting your time trying, because that would require a showing proof that a Dev said "Well we need to adjust these hardpoints or this weapon's damage because SRMs are broken currently."

I know for a fact the later of those two has not happened (with the exception of buffing missile damage after the double armor change) and I'm willing to bet that they have never explicitly removed or added hardpoints to a mech because of the excess SRM damage. Can you go back under your bridge now?

Nightcrept, on 17 March 2013 - 07:47 PM, said:

If they waited until they had the replacement working it would be less noticeable and only really then against the smaller targets.

So we're supposed to live with completely broken aspects of the game for god only knows how long until the guys at PGI figure out how to do their jobs? It's bad enough they're waiting 2 weeks to even remove the broken mechanic that is clearly impacting the mech building meta and a lot of people's enjoyment of the game.

Edited by Egomane, 18 March 2013 - 08:00 AM.
Removed CoC violation

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Quote

... For the sake of simplicity the number 2,5 has been a typo. It should have said 6.4 or so. So we have been balancing the game against srms dealing 6.4 damage. ...

... and there, we clearly disagree.

[Haitchpeasauce]

Imagine if SRMs really were listed as doing 6.4 damage per missile. SRM2 listed as dealing 12.8 official damage ... a single SRM6 listed as dealing 38.4 damage... that's almost as much as twin ac/20s. Let's boat six of them for 230.4 damage.

Best value-for-tonnage weapon ever! Do you see why Splatcats are so popular?

Nightcrept I do believe you are not thinking through anything you say.

But seriously, this "nerf" is necessary - this is what is called a "fix". It will be a significant change, but I foresee LRMs and SRMs still playing the role they are designed for, just at fair damage values as weapons of the same tonnage.

Or have you forgotten how devastatingly damaging the 3L Ravens are because they mount two ssrm2 with ECM?

Edited by Haitchpeasauce, 17 March 2013 - 10:06 PM.

[Aratan Aenor]

Based on my weapon stats, my SRM4s+Artemis only average 1.19 damage per hit, but my SRM6s without Artemis average 3.36 damage per hit. My 4x SRM6 splatcat has 22 kills and 3 deaths with 9419 damage done, my 6x SRM4+Artemis splatcat has 7 kills and 16 deaths with 2832 damage done.

[One Medic Army]

Honestly I can't think of any good reason why missile damage should vary based on how many hitboxes it splashes, it's bad design.
I can understand missiles doing a set amount of damage spread over multiple components, but having more hitboxes affected=more damage just punishes mechs with smaller hitboxes. Mechs with smaller hitboxes tend to be the mechs with less armor, they don't need to be taking even MORE damage.

[shotokan5]

Did they not say that it was going to not be as powerful in the future?

Edited by shotokan5, 18 March 2013 - 05:20 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

Lonestar1771, on 17 March 2013 - 07:20 PM, said:

I thought you were supposed to ADD features to betas, not remove them? PGI doing what they do best.

Unintended inflation of one weapon system's damage against certain chassis moreso than others is a 'feature' is it?

[Lonestar1771]

Gaan Cathal, on 18 March 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

Unintended inflation of one weapon system's damage against certain chassis moreso than others is a 'feature' is it?

Don't be stupid, of course that's not a feature, that's the effect of a system not working. Splash damage is a feature though and they are removing it.

[Gaan Cathal]

Lonestar1771, on 18 March 2013 - 05:33 AM, said:

Don't be stupid, of course that's not a feature, that's the effect of a system not working. Splash damage is a feature though and they are removing it.

If a feature is bad, then removing it is the right decision. Given the (granted, marginal) dominance of missiles I don't personally think they need damage splash on top of their impact damage, however given that the splash damage coding is apparently complicated enough that we have to wait until the 2^nd for implementation, it seems sensible to disable the feature and assess the resultant effect on the game - we know SRMs and SSRMs will decrease in effectiveness, but how much? Additionally, this isn't a situation where lessening the amount of splash damage, or sacrificing some impact damage for it, will help. As long as there is splash damage, dense-hitbox mechs will be suffering disproportionate damage.

Removing the system is the correct solution, even if it is later re-implemented in some fashion that can removes hitbox bias.

[Lonestar1771]

Gaan Cathal, on 18 March 2013 - 05:48 AM, said:

If a feature is bad, then removing it is the right decision. Given the (granted, marginal) dominance of missiles I don't personally think they need damage splash on top of their impact damage, however given that the splash damage coding is apparently complicated enough that we have to wait until the 2^nd for implementation, it seems sensible to disable the feature and assess the resultant effect on the game - we know SRMs and SSRMs will decrease in effectiveness, but how much? Additionally, this isn't a situation where lessening the amount of splash damage, or sacrificing some impact damage for it, will help. As long as there is splash damage, dense-hitbox mechs will be suffering disproportionate damage.

Removing the system is the correct solution, even if it is later re-implemented in some fashion that can removes hitbox bias.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I don't care about splash damage and how it's supposed to work. I'm just here to point out that removing features instead of adding them is PGI's modus operandi. They cut corners and now it's biting them in their collective butts. Now we as players are affected due to PGI's ineptitude.

[Gaan Cathal]

Lonestar1771, on 18 March 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

I think you are misunderstanding me. I don't care about splash damage and how it's supposed to work. I'm just here to point out that removing features instead of adding them is PGI's modus operandi. They cut corners and now it's biting them in their collective butts. Now we as players are affected due to PGI's ineptitude.

In this case though, it needs removing. It seems the wrong example to raise the point with (although I can't off hand think of any other examples of deleted features, but then I'm a relative newcomer).

Edited by Gaan Cathal, 18 March 2013 - 06:04 AM.

[Lonestar1771]

Gaan Cathal, on 18 March 2013 - 06:03 AM, said:

In this case though, it needs removing. It seems the wrong example to raise the point with (although I can't off hand think of any other examples of deleted features, but then I'm a relative newcomer).

They removed collisions last year with no idea when it will be back, and it completely changed the dynamic of the game. It was pretty much the only balancing factor for lights and allowed them to dominate the battlefield.

[Gaan Cathal]

Lonestar1771, on 18 March 2013 - 06:09 AM, said:

They removed collisions last year with no idea when it will be back, and it completely changed the dynamic of the game. It was pretty much the only balancing factor for lights and allowed them to dominate the battlefield.

a: They removed knockdowns, not collisions.
b: Lights do not currently dominate the battlefield, especially since Host State Rewind was implemented for Lasers.
c: Knockdowns being central to light mech combat is a ridiculous norm, and I've never understood why people think that re-introducing 'bean right at the enemy light and hope your team is more efficient at killing sitting ducks' is going to make light mech piloting suddenly require skill.

Knockdowns, as they were, are not longer a feature that is required since they've fixed the core cause of it being needed by implementing the netcode fix and host state rewind (features, I guess).

[stjobe]

Lonestar1771, on 18 March 2013 - 06:09 AM, said:

They removed collisions last year with no idea when it will be back, and it completely changed the dynamic of the game. It was pretty much the only balancing factor for lights and allowed them to dominate the battlefield.

Correction: They removed knock-downs, which were very poorly implemented and a death-sentence to any light that got knocked down.

Collisions and collision damage are still in the game, I got my little Spider 5K killed by collision damage just the other week. It even said on the death screen "Killed by collision damage".

[Nightcrept]

PapajIGC, on 17 March 2013 - 08:00 PM, said:

What the...I don't even...it's a good thing opinions can be wrong.



[Redacted] Show me one instance where the Devs have balanced another weapon system or a new mech release around the fact that SRMs do upwards of 5x their normal damage in some cases. Don't even try wasting your time trying, because that would require a showing proof that a Dev said "Well we need to adjust these hardpoints or this weapon's damage because SRMs are broken currently."

I know for a fact the later of those two has not happened (with the exception of buffing missile damage after the double armor change) and I'm willing to bet that they have never explicitly removed or added hardpoints to a mech because of the excess SRM damage. Can you go back under your bridge now?



So we're supposed to live with completely broken aspects of the game for god only knows how long until the guys at PGI figure out how to do their jobs? It's bad enough they're waiting 2 weeks to even remove the broken mechanic that is clearly impacting the mech building meta and a lot of people's enjoyment of the game.

[Redacted]

Let me make this very very simple for your small mind.
This bug has been around for more then six months. Six months.
Every mech and weapon has been play tested and adjusted for six months with a BROKEN weapons mechanic that affects not just one but three entire weapons trees.

So if you know jack about balance and the ways this game has been balanced you know that each weapon system has it's own set of advantages and draw backs balanced against the other weapon tress to make them all viable.

THE NUMBERS ARE THE TOOL WE USE TO BE ABLE TO BALANCE THE IN GAME EFFECTS WE SEE.AND WANT.

So just because we discover the numbers have been displayed wrong for the last six months that doesn't suddenly and magically make Anything op. (SSrm's are op but this won't fix that.)

(Enter splatcat is op argument).
(Don't go there because we don't balance a weapons system because of boating. We balance the boat.)

[Redacted]

The heat, reload times, range, power of each weapon tree is balanced against the others.
If you make drastic changes to any of them they naturally throw off the others.

AND A REDUCTION OF HALF TO 3/4THS DAMAGE IS A HUGE CHANGE.



Now your going to say. "But but but the numbers said 2.5 and they dealt more damage so they are op and we are fixing them".
[Redacted]

The numbers listed are the tools we use to balance the in game effects. They are NOT the in game effects.

So for the last six months we've been balancing the in game strengths and weaknesses of pps, lrms etc against srms and ssrms and their in game effects.
NOT THEIR NUMBER SCORE. We only USE the numbers as a tool for modifying the in game effects.

Edited by Egomane, 18 March 2013 - 07:55 AM.
Quote Clean up and removal of CoC violation

[Nightcrept]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 17 March 2013 - 08:41 PM, said:

... and there, we clearly disagree.

That's the bug though. The damage modifier listed is not the damage we have been getting in the game for the last six months or so. When we balance we do it because the affect in game is too much or little. The devs could keep the numbers hidden from us and that wouldn't make a difference to balancing the in game effects.

So basically they lied to us for the last six months. Not literally of course.

Like a blind taste test. We said when we thought things were too strong or weak and them they said "surprise this is the real number you have been using"

So what I was saying was that in game the actual damage has been 6.4. So when we have been saying that ppc's need to deal more damage or have a longer range to balance out the short range power of srm's we have been basing that on in game experience based on a faulty mechanic.

[Gevurah]

The big problem here is that if you've noticed they've had a lot of trouble balancing the game. Hence the introduction of 'quirks'.

Also it seems like they balance the new mechs as they come out, but not necessarily the old mechs. Hence the commando dying so quick. At the time it came out, the game conditions were different. They changed. What was an issue before may not have been known because the meta had changed from long range LRM to SRM/SSRM. LRMs overwhelming damage in volleys make sense. SSRMS taking down an atlas from a raven do not. Neither does the splattapults absolutely obscene damage of upwards of 200+ dmg per alpha or instagibbing light mechs with even a glancing blow. Bear in mind after the bug fix they will still obliterate a light mech with a straight shot. And glancing blows will be marginally survivable. But this is a far cry from the vast "I hit him with two outlying missiles and ripped off half his torso" that the game currently has. I contend it was never designed this way and the devs support this with their own statements about it being beyond what was intended.

You on the otherhand assume that because they balanced off a broken mechanic that it was balanced. I contend this is not the case - if it was, they'd have just left it broken.

Put another way... The big difficulty with your argument is you assume that it's balanced in the current meta when it's not. They might have TRIED to balance it, but that's akin to trying to make a racecar out of a vehicle with 1 flat tire. Sure, you might make it go fast, but you keep trying to figure out why it just keeps flopping over. Turns out that 4th tire is important after all.

What you're saying is basically the same as "well all the adjustments made to the car will require new adjustments to keep it the same once the problem is fixed." Obviously they don't want the car flopping over, so why would they adjust the car after fixing the tire to make it do that again?


This is *PARTIALLY* true. What makes your argument a logical fallacy though is that you are saying that they are going to have to rebalance it to where it is now.

This is NOT true. That's what makes it a logical fallacy.

Example (fictional example for purposes of illustration).

Target = 4 damage.
Listed damage = 2.5 damage.
Actual damage varies widely from ~3 to 15, with an obvious bias towards certain chassis.

Remove problem, all damage is a flat 2.5.

Which is closer? 2.5 or the 3-15 range? Answer - the 2.5 as it will average closer. If they need to buff the damage, it's a smaller order task to do in the later end.

Moreover you're also inferring that the chassis bias is not only accepted but intended.

This is true and false again. The armor values take care of this - NOT the missile splash damage. The secondary effect of the missiles was such overkill it was making them truly absurdly easy to kill (specifically commando and spider variants). *THAT* is NOT (stupid dyslexia) what is intended and is easily inferred from the core mechanics of the game. Correlation can be found in developer statements.

Find me ONE statement which supports your argument that they intended for light mechs to be 1-2 shottable by SSRMS or SRM6 volleys in SMALL quantities, let alone boats like the splattapult.

Edited by Gevurah, 18 March 2013 - 08:01 AM.

[Egomane]

This is a friendly reminder to post without insulting each other. If you are not sure you are able to do it: Don't post! Take a deep breath! Relax! Rethink what you would like to communicate!