Gevurah, on 18 March 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:
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:
ok ok. lol....buttttt dad he started it...lol.