0
STREAK SRM DAMAGE IS MUCH HIGHER THAN EXPECTED [TEST RESULTS INSIDE]
Vorallem die Aussage von Paul ist dort wichtig und deutet auf ein Problem mit dem Splash Damage der SSRM/SRM hin.
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2060318
Quote
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.
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.
We are looking at the tuning for these hit locations/splash damage and will update as soon as possible.
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.
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.
We are looking at the tuning for these hit locations/splash damage and will update as soon as possible.
Ich denke das sollte alle wissen. Wegen diesem Splashdamage sind dann logischerweise auch die Streakcat bzw. Splatcat so heftig unterwegs.
Schönes Wochenende.
Nachtrag:
Aus noch unbestätigter Quelle (noch nicht von den Devs bestätigt) scheint das Problem auch die LRMs zu betreffen.
Dazu hat ein User im gleichen Thread ein paar Tests gemacht.
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2061375
Quote
Thanks Paul for posting, it's quite a relief to know that we're onto something. And thank you again Amaris for starting this discussion!
I have some results from the Testing Grounds.
Will be testing this on Live as well later on on mechs such as the Raven.
Edits: Thanks to Thontor and Scop for spotting an error in my formula for total HP. The result, however, makes missiles appear to do even more damage than originally calculated.
The mlas damage is an average, calculated using the final % health and the known HP of the mech.
The srm and lrm damage is an average per individual missile, that has been normalised according to the laser results.
Expected damages:
mlas = 5 damage per shot
srm = 2.5 damage per missile
lrm = 1.8 damage per missile
COM-1B (128 armor, total 223 HP)
mlas: 5.13 (103%)
srm2: 19.11 (764%, however components were destroyed in a single hit)
srm6: 17.39 (696%)
lrm5: 8.48 (471%)
JR7-D (128 armor, total 253 HP)
mlas: 5.14 (103%)
srm2: 13.06 (523%)
srm6: 13.73 (549%)
lrm5: 6.64 (369%)
CN9-A (272 armor, total 447 HP)
mlas: 5.36 (107%)
srm2: 10.38 (415%)
srm6: 10.42 (417%)
lrm5: 1.75 (97%)
CPLT-A1 (384 armor, total 601 HP)
mlas: 5.11 (102%)
srm2: 6.47 (259%)
srm6: 7.11 (284%)
lrm5: 4.08 (227%)
CTF-1X (352 armor, total 575 HP)
mlas: 5.18 (104%)
srm2: 6.53 (261%)
srm6: 7.18 (287%)
lrm5: 2.89 (160%)
AS7-D (612 armor, total 925 HP)
mlas: 5.32 (106%)
srm2: 6.38 (255%)
srm6: 5.56 (222%)
lrm5: 2.35 (130%)
Observations:
mlas appeared to be doing correct damage and is functioning as the control figure here (variances are due to rounding errors from the % health reading).
The Commando received around 750% of the expected srm damage. 6 locations were hit on average per shot.
The Jenner received about 530% of the expected srm damage. 5 locations were hit on average per shot.
The Centurion received about 410% of the expected srm damage. 4 locations were hit on average per shot.
The heavy/assault mechs received 260% of the expected srm damage. 3 locations were hit on average per shot.
The Commando received 470% of the expected lrm damage
The Jenner received 370% of the expected lrm damage.
The Centurion received 94% of the expected lrm damage. Correct damage values? Incorrect method?
The Catapult received 230% of the expected lrm damage. Higher than other mechs of this weight class.
The Cataphract and Atlas received about 140% of the expected lrm damage.
Method:
All mechs are assumed to have trial mech armor.
Total HP of the mech was calculated with the following formula:
[Base Armor] + (([Max Armor] - 18) / 2) + 15
mlas were fired 10 times at a range of 25m at different body parts as a control. The final health % was noted. Repeated this several times for six different mechs.
The mlas damage is assumed to be according to official ratings (i.e. 5 damage), and the discrepancy is used to normalise the missile damage. The discrepancy is due to rounding of the % health and is considered negligible.
Then, srm2 were fired at the upper centre torso at a range of 25m, aiming to avoid splashing the legs. This produces the "worst case scenario", and also the leg damage registration is known to be bugged. Where possible, multiple shots were fired to get better averages.
Srm2 were used over ssrm2 because they hit the target more reliably; ssrm2 can strike the legs. Remember, this is a test about splash damage creating a multiplying effect on damage.
srm6 were fired at 25m to test if the per-missile damage of srm6 is in line with srm2.
Finally, lrm5+Artemis were fired at a range of 200m. It was noted that one missile will miss the target from time to time.
Comments:
mlas appear to be dealing the correct damage,
Although the tests were conducted in the Testing Grounds, the relative difference of mlas damage to srm and lrm missile damage is very apparent.
Hitbox geometry, especially the size of these hitboxes, appears to strongly influence the total damage taken.
I have some results from the Testing Grounds.
Will be testing this on Live as well later on on mechs such as the Raven.
Edits: Thanks to Thontor and Scop for spotting an error in my formula for total HP. The result, however, makes missiles appear to do even more damage than originally calculated.
The mlas damage is an average, calculated using the final % health and the known HP of the mech.
The srm and lrm damage is an average per individual missile, that has been normalised according to the laser results.
Expected damages:
mlas = 5 damage per shot
srm = 2.5 damage per missile
lrm = 1.8 damage per missile
COM-1B (128 armor, total 223 HP)
mlas: 5.13 (103%)
srm2: 19.11 (764%, however components were destroyed in a single hit)
srm6: 17.39 (696%)
lrm5: 8.48 (471%)
JR7-D (128 armor, total 253 HP)
mlas: 5.14 (103%)
srm2: 13.06 (523%)
srm6: 13.73 (549%)
lrm5: 6.64 (369%)
CN9-A (272 armor, total 447 HP)
mlas: 5.36 (107%)
srm2: 10.38 (415%)
srm6: 10.42 (417%)
lrm5: 1.75 (97%)
CPLT-A1 (384 armor, total 601 HP)
mlas: 5.11 (102%)
srm2: 6.47 (259%)
srm6: 7.11 (284%)
lrm5: 4.08 (227%)
CTF-1X (352 armor, total 575 HP)
mlas: 5.18 (104%)
srm2: 6.53 (261%)
srm6: 7.18 (287%)
lrm5: 2.89 (160%)
AS7-D (612 armor, total 925 HP)
mlas: 5.32 (106%)
srm2: 6.38 (255%)
srm6: 5.56 (222%)
lrm5: 2.35 (130%)
Observations:
mlas appeared to be doing correct damage and is functioning as the control figure here (variances are due to rounding errors from the % health reading).
The Commando received around 750% of the expected srm damage. 6 locations were hit on average per shot.
The Jenner received about 530% of the expected srm damage. 5 locations were hit on average per shot.
The Centurion received about 410% of the expected srm damage. 4 locations were hit on average per shot.
The heavy/assault mechs received 260% of the expected srm damage. 3 locations were hit on average per shot.
The Commando received 470% of the expected lrm damage
The Jenner received 370% of the expected lrm damage.
The Centurion received 94% of the expected lrm damage. Correct damage values? Incorrect method?
The Catapult received 230% of the expected lrm damage. Higher than other mechs of this weight class.
The Cataphract and Atlas received about 140% of the expected lrm damage.
Method:
All mechs are assumed to have trial mech armor.
Total HP of the mech was calculated with the following formula:
[Base Armor] + (([Max Armor] - 18) / 2) + 15
mlas were fired 10 times at a range of 25m at different body parts as a control. The final health % was noted. Repeated this several times for six different mechs.
The mlas damage is assumed to be according to official ratings (i.e. 5 damage), and the discrepancy is used to normalise the missile damage. The discrepancy is due to rounding of the % health and is considered negligible.
Then, srm2 were fired at the upper centre torso at a range of 25m, aiming to avoid splashing the legs. This produces the "worst case scenario", and also the leg damage registration is known to be bugged. Where possible, multiple shots were fired to get better averages.
Srm2 were used over ssrm2 because they hit the target more reliably; ssrm2 can strike the legs. Remember, this is a test about splash damage creating a multiplying effect on damage.
srm6 were fired at 25m to test if the per-missile damage of srm6 is in line with srm2.
Finally, lrm5+Artemis were fired at a range of 200m. It was noted that one missile will miss the target from time to time.
Comments:
mlas appear to be dealing the correct damage,
Although the tests were conducted in the Testing Grounds, the relative difference of mlas damage to srm and lrm missile damage is very apparent.
Hitbox geometry, especially the size of these hitboxes, appears to strongly influence the total damage taken.
