647 replies to this topic

[Nightcrept]

Gevurah, on 18 March 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

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.

First let me say your one of the more pleasant players to debate with.

The commando came out after the faulty game mechanic. So when they play tested the commando it was being play tested against the srm and ssrm splash bug. So I am drawing the conclusion that if they watched it getting killed by srms and ssrms (which they definitely use) then they balanced it accordingly. If they did not want the com to be killed by x ssrms then why did they not balance it out during play testing?

The mechanic is broken. Pure and simple. It should not cause disproportionate damage. It should cause a steady amount of damage across all mech ranges. So I do not think they need to raise the damage to it's current levels. But I do think re-balancing is going to be necessary.

My biggest problem is with the way they are fixing the problem.

According to the math though aren't cheesesplats going to b able to one shot a com even after the nerf?

Egomane, on 18 March 2013 - 08:02 AM, said:

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!

ok ok. lol....buttttt dad he started it...lol.

[Fiveironfrenzy]

haha anyone else notice?

7,8,10 ravens in drops?

i think PGI did a quick temporary bandaid by matching all ravens against each other.

smart if they did.

[Phaesphoros]

Regarding the issue of balancing SRMS:

This thread has started with an observation, that is, quantifying what probably some people (not necessarily all) have complained about - OPness of SRMs. The big difference to other threads (like this one predating Amaris' thread by 10 days) is that it's far more accurate, describes methodology and so on - it's somewhat scientific, there is data which disproves 2.5 dmg per missile.

Now there are claims mechs have been balanced against this kind of damage, the devs not being aware of the damage anomalies. To argue "fix it will break the balance" actually needs proof the devs have (implicitly) taken anomalous damage into account. I don't mean you need to proof they knew of this bug and used it to balance mechs. We don't know how they balanced mechs/weapons, therefore we cannot say if this anomaly had any effect on balancing.

Gevurah, on 18 March 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

Put another way... The big difficulty with your argument is you assume that it's balanced in the current meta when it's not.

^ this is indeed another important issue. Surely it will change the balance, but we do not know the impact. Maybe you'll not even notice it (hit lights with SRMs?). Additionally, we don't know whether it'll be better or worse afterwards. All we can say is that SRM damage is going to be less random and less varying with mech chassis.

[Nightcrept]

Phaesphoros, on 18 March 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

Regarding the issue of balancing SRMS:

This thread has started with an observation, that is, quantifying what probably some people (not necessarily all) have complained about - OPness of SRMs. The big difference to other threads (like this one predating Amaris' thread by 10 days) is that it's far more accurate, describes methodology and so on - it's somewhat scientific, there is data which disproves 2.5 dmg per missile.

Now there are claims mechs have been balanced against this kind of damage, the devs not being aware of the damage anomalies. To argue "fix it will break the balance" actually needs proof the devs have (implicitly) taken anomalous damage into account. I don't mean you need to proof they knew of this bug and used it to balance mechs. We don't know how they balanced mechs/weapons, therefore we cannot say if this anomaly had any effect on balancing.


^ this is indeed another important issue. Surely it will change the balance, but we do not know the impact. Maybe you'll not even notice it (hit lights with SRMs?). Additionally, we don't know whether it'll be better or worse afterwards. All we can say is that SRM damage is going to be less random and less varying with mech chassis.

I can agree with that.

But they say they are going to rework splash damage and eventually put it back in. So aren't they making more drama then need be by removing it then just waiting until it is fixed.

Either way we can't balance anything until the mechanic is ready.

We all know once missiles get nerfed on the 2nd the flood of players to the forums screaming is going to be monumental.

[stjobe]

Nightcrept, on 18 March 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

The commando came out after the faulty game mechanic.

No. The Commando was introduced in February 2012, way before there was even thoughts about splash damage.

Edit: Mea Culpa. The commando was *announced* in Feb. 2012, not introduced.

Edited by stjobe, 18 March 2013 - 08:52 AM.

[Nightcrept]

stjobe, on 18 March 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

No. The Commando was introduced in February 2012, way before there was even thoughts about splash damage.

Huhh?

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

[stjobe]

Nightcrept, on 18 March 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

Huhh?

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

You might well be correct about that, I was confusing the introduction with the announcement. Mea culpa.

[Nightcrept]

Well, regardless all we can do it sit back and wait to see what the devs do and what the results will be.

My personal bet is that they will have the mechanic fixed by the 2nd and just swap them out.

If not and they do have to remove it I'll bet you the QQ from players on the forums will be epic.

[Blark]

Please consider removing splash damage ASAP (not in 2 weeks), or disable ssrm temporarily (or lower the damage considerably).

This problem has become common knowledge, and now we see drops like this quite often: 1x3l, 2x2D, 1xA1 (streakcat).
It is a major problem now. (at least if you actually are silly enough to try and play any non ecm light).

Edited by Blark, 18 March 2013 - 02:52 PM.

[aniviron]

Something is for sure wrong with SSRM damage. Looking at my stats, I get the following:



If SSRM damage were 2.5 per hit, as advertised, then I would have dealt 912.5 damage. I instead did 1210 damage, for an average of ~3.315 per hit.

Oddly enough, my SRM6 damage is actually below 2.5 per hit, sitting at ~2.43 per missile right now. Weird.

[Haitchpeasauce]

Even if 1 out of the 6 missiles hit the target, it's a hit.

Wow you fire a lot of SRM!

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

Haitchpeasauce, on 18 March 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

Even if 1 out of the 6 missiles hit the target, it's a hit.

I'm not certain, but it makes the most sense that stats for missile launchers are actually on a "per missile" basis.

i.e.: in the above example, 1 match with LRM 10, 160 times fired ... makes sense that this is 16x 10-missile volleys, 37 missiles hit for 57 damage (1.54 per missile).

[aniviron]

Haitchpeasauce, on 18 March 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

Even if 1 out of the 6 missiles hit the target, it's a hit.

Wow you fire a lot of SRM!

It's on my three favourite loadouts. :]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 18 March 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:

I'm not certain, but it makes the most sense that stats for missile launchers are actually on a "per missile" basis.

i.e.: in the above example, 1 match with LRM 10, 160 times fired ... makes sense that this is 16x 10-missile volleys, 37 missiles hit for 57 damage (1.54 per missile).

Yeah, I am pretty sure it works this way as well. The one match the LRM 10 was from was the one I mentioned with the trial dragon, which only has one ton of LRM ammo. Definitely not 160 volleys.

[Haitchpeasauce]

However, 7,618 shots fired from SRM6 can't be 7,618 individual missiles ... it's not divisible by 6. Hence shots fired and hits is a count of times the SRM6 weapon fired.

But to be honest, looking over my own stats page, I don't know how PGI calculate the damage for missiles.

You're right, it's kind of hard to fire that many shots in 80 games. It must be per missile. But that doesn't explain the 7,618 shots fired from an SRM6.

Check this out:
SRM 2
Matches: 1
Fired: 18
Hit: 6
Damage: 8

So that's at most 1.3 damage per missile.

Dear PGI please explain how your damage stats works .......

Edited by Haitchpeasauce, 18 March 2013 - 07:01 PM.

[aniviron]

Haitchpeasauce, on 18 March 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

However, 7,618 shots fired from SRM6 can't be 7,618 individual missiles ... it's not divisible by 6. Hence shots fired and hits is a count of times the SRM6 weapon fired.

But to be honest, looking over my own stats page, I don't know how PGI calculate the damage for missiles.

You're right, it's kind of hard to fire that many shots in 80 games. It must be per missile. But that doesn't explain the 7,618 shots fired from an SRM6.

Check this out:
SRM 2
Matches: 1
Fired: 18
Hit: 6
Damage: 8

So that's at most 1.3 damage per missile.

Dear PGI please explain how your damage stats works .......

I agree that there are weird things going on. I'm guessing the SRM6 anomaly from my page comes from one of my mechs that fires from a hardpoint with less than six tubes, where something interrupted it (death/component destruction).

As far as the SRM2 doing low damage goes, if you read the thread data it shows that sometimes missiles do less than they should, and sometimes they do more. While the chances are heavily skewed towards it doing more, having such a small sample size has probably meant that the 6 times you hit you were just unlucky.

[Zyllos]

Haitchpeasauce, on 18 March 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

However, 7,618 shots fired from SRM6 can't be 7,618 individual missiles ... it's not divisible by 6. Hence shots fired and hits is a count of times the SRM6 weapon fired.

But to be honest, looking over my own stats page, I don't know how PGI calculate the damage for missiles.

You're right, it's kind of hard to fire that many shots in 80 games. It must be per missile. But that doesn't explain the 7,618 shots fired from an SRM6.

Check this out:
SRM 2
Matches: 1
Fired: 18
Hit: 6
Damage: 8

So that's at most 1.3 damage per missile.

Dear PGI please explain how your damage stats works .......

Maybe there was a single time where he only had 2 or 4 SRMs to fire out of the SRM6?

But the damage thing is an issue.

[Haitchpeasauce]

I should test it by putting an SRM6 into a NARC tube and firing it once, then wait for the stats to update.

[Michael Costanza]

If Paul's feedback is the case, then shouldn't damage be working "as intended" versus an Atlas?

[Michael Costanza]

Zyllos, on 18 March 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

Maybe there was a single time where he only had 2 or 4 SRMs to fire out of the SRM6?

But the damage thing is an issue.

You only get credit for damage dealt, so if your SRM missile destroyed a part, the overflow damage doesn't go to your stats. That's why you see things like AC20s doing less than 20 damage.

[paladin yst]

Amaris, I just wanted to tank you from the bottom of my heart for all the hard work u put into investigating this. You have my thanks and I appreciated every little details u put into this. Player/fan like u deserved every single cookie/kudos I can give.

Your tests have a direct affect on the gameplay itself, I`ve been using treb and stalker as my main, and on an average game I`m always on the top, dealing 1.2k dmg on my stalker and 800-900 on my trebs.

Reason being they r simply just too powerful, so powerful that at one point my stalker brawled 4 mech in a 180-350m range and killed 2 phracts, 1 awesome and 1 atlas. Phract r easy 1-2 salvo kill, the exact same as awesome and atlas is just an xtra salvo on a 45-60 lrm packages (xtras if their arm is shielding the core).

To be honest, they r not my fav builds, I love ballistics to death but their weigh/dmg performance in the field is at best 25% of missiles. You can typically ignore 3 ballistic mechs and they r not gonna change the game, at all. However if u ignore an elite lrm user on the field, a mere 2 mins later u`ll find half of your allies dead. Esp mechs like awesome and phract which I`ve killed in just 1 salvo in full hp.

It was then I realised, wait.. I`m great but NOT that great, I`ve been trying to find a solid tested argument like your post for a long long time but as u know forum is full of useless trolls providing biased and lousy sub par argument.

Once again, excellent excellent fantastic work! keep up the amazing job! Not just amaris but the lot of u frenzily testing this!

Edited by paladin yst, 18 March 2013 - 09:45 PM.