121 replies to this topic

[PaintedWolf]

Thontor, on 23 March 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

Where have I done that?

Okay, so what about HarmAssassin's numbers?

[PaintedWolf]

Thontor, on 23 March 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

For one, he's basing it on the damage stated at the end of the round, which for all we know might not be reporting correctly.

Oh wait- "numbers don't lie".

[PaintedWolf]

Thontor, on 23 March 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

numbers dont lie, but stat tracking could be off.. we know missile damage comes in two parts.. the damage to the location it hit, plus splash damage.. maybe just one of them is being tracked?

the hit point percentage has been proven to be accurate by using weapons with no splash damage... and they do the listed damage.. so the hit points is a known value, and the damage done can easily be calculated by looking at the percentage.. this has been proven to be accurate..

the damage done statistic has not... if anything it's been suspect ever since it's been introduced... with weapons reporting more or less damage than they should... the less damage can possibly be explained away by the hits being beyond optimum range.. but the fact some report more damage per shot than they should means there is probably something wrong with the stat tracking... or some unknown variable that we cannot calculate...

thus they should not be used to judge missile damage because they could be reporting higher or lower than the damage they actually do to the mechs.

Then show a single video of SRMs doing as much damage as Gauss Rifles, or show an end of match damage point overview screen shot where a Mech does 3-4k damage, which is what one would expect if SRM-2s were doing as much damage as a Gauss Rifle. The lie isn't just there- it is beyond obvious and blatant.

[PaintedWolf]

Thontor, on 23 March 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

ask and ye shall receive


also, the tests in the thread below were done in the live game, not the testing grounds:
http://mwomercs.com/...e-test-results/

It was already noted that numbers in the testing grounds were inflated. I want a single gameplay video. Not on the testing grounds. There are literally hundreds of them out there, and if SRM-2s are doing as much damage as gauss rifles it should be obvious and blatant.

According to that logic there are cases where Splatcats are doing as much damage as 18 Gauss Rifles. Are you really telling me that wouldn't be noticed or extremely obvious?

Edited by PaintedWolf, 23 March 2013 - 03:39 PM.

[PaintedWolf]

Thontor, on 23 March 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

he's shooting a friendly mech.. with a name above it, not "No Pilot"

that is in the live game.. a gameplay video... and the numbers in the linked thread are also in the live game.. not testing grounds

Give me a break. You are saying that the CT was hit with the equivalent of 2 Gauss Rifles?

And wait- that's your BEST video? That's really, out of all the videos out there, the BEST you could show of an SRM-2 doing as much damage as a Gauss Rifle?

I'm sorry, but like I said that's the equivalent of a blurry video of a UFO with some nut running around going "OMG Alien Invasion!"

Why is it those with a poor case always present really short or blurry videos to prove their case?

Edited by PaintedWolf, 23 March 2013 - 03:50 PM.

[PaintedWolf]

Thontor, on 23 March 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

Ok, I'm done... I give you clear proof... Irrefutable proof that an SRM2 does three times the damage of a medium laser to a Commando in the live game and you still deny it... Clearly you are blind to the truth and refuse to listen to reason. So there is no point in continuing this discussion.

I remember when people were complaining about the Gauss-Cat. You are honestly telling me, that a Streakboat has the damage output of 6 Gauss-Cats, and this video is the best you could muster as evidence?

And the rules get changed over this? Just say the rules don't matter at all at this point.

Edited by PaintedWolf, 23 March 2013 - 03:55 PM.

[Deathlike]

Any competent 3L Raven pilot can tell you that Streaks ate up the Commando easily.

At this point, the current version still eats them up, just not at the same rate they were used to. That's how you knew streaks and srms were doing insane damage prior to the hotfix.

Edited by Deathlike, 23 March 2013 - 04:44 PM.

[PaintedWolf]

Deathlike, on 23 March 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

Any competent 3L Raven pilot can tell you that Streaks ate up the Commando easily.

At this point, the current version still eats them up, just not at the same rate they were used to. That's how you knew streaks and srms were doing insane damage prior to the hotfix.

It couldn't be the fact that Commandos had insanely low armor and streaks tracked them? You ever ask yourself why Streaks ate them up, but not normal SRMs?

Edited by PaintedWolf, 23 March 2013 - 04:46 PM.

[Deathlike]

PaintedWolf, on 23 March 2013 - 04:45 PM, said:

It couldn't be the fact that Commandos had insanely low armor and streaks tracked them? You ever ask yourself why Streaks ate them up, but not normal SRMs?

I shot Commandos in a Splatcat. They go down pretty easily there too.

It's not armor, it's the previous iteration of splash damage. It's fairly obvious from the video provided AND experience with using both.

[HarmAssassin]

Notice the damage test shown in the video involved a leg shot for the laser and chest hit for missile... THIS is what skewed your result.

You should have fired both at legs. As you are well aware, splash damage was in the game back when you did the test, and as the Dev's have already said COMMANDOs and Jenners got the shaft on splash damage. Had you done your test on other larger mechs, and fired both tests at legs, your results would have been different.

As the Devs said, because of the Commando and Jenner had hit locations so close together, Splash damage was causing them to take more damage than they should have. But this was fixed by the removal of splash damage.

The weapon's base damage didn't also need to be reduced. The problem was fixed by the removal of Splash... and the problem only existed on those TWO mechs (and some that they haven't released yet).

Also, you are assuming that the hp percentages reported in the HUD over friendly mechs is accurate. Since the damage done number reported at the end of the match is tied to the hp of each mech, if one is suspect - the other would be as well.

Splash damage was removed - good, it shouldn't have been there in the first place (In my opinion).
Weapon damage can be easily checked by reading the game code, which ANY dev should be able to do - but none of us have access to (yet).

Individual missiles were not doing Gauss Rifle damage outside of the Splash issue, but how many times do we have to say it, that only affected two mechs and has been removed.

Did your test aim at the same location for both lasers and missiles - no.

Did your test run each mech and its variant to ensure that the results were due to the damage code of the weapon, or whether the differences noted were from faults with the individual mechs or variants - no.

Did you repeat the test on every map to eliminate any possibility that something on the map was skewing the results - no.

Did you do anything to verify if the percentages reported of mech health were accurate (run test of every weapon, compare results to stated damages of each weapon to see if there's a bug in which some weapons reported differently) - no

I could go on, but quite frankly as already stated - your test only showed a bug with splash damage, which was removed. Problem fixed. Nerfing the actual damage of the entire class of weapons was overkill.

This is quickly turning into a game of energy and ballistic boats. They need to stop fiddling with the weapon damages. Return them all to TT value.

Edited by HarmAssassin, 23 March 2013 - 05:02 PM.

[PaintedWolf]

HarmAssassin, on 23 March 2013 - 04:52 PM, said:

Notice the damage test shown in the video involved a leg shot for the laser and chest hit for missile... THIS is what skewed your result.

I noticed that too. The devs already said there was a problem with leg damage. Obvious they knew they were creating a BS test video from the get-go and then added a host of made up numbers to it.

[Deathlike]

HarmAssassin, on 23 March 2013 - 04:52 PM, said:

Notice the damage test shown in the video involved a leg shot for the laser and chest hit for missile... THIS is what skewed your result.

You should have fired both at legs. As you are well aware, splash damage was in the game back when you did the test, and as the Dev's have already said COMMANDOs and Jenners got the shaft on splash damage. Had you done your test on other larger mechs, and fired both tests at legs, your results would have been different.

As the Devs said, because of the Commando and Jenner had hit locations so close together, Splash damage was causing them to take more damage than they should have. But this was fixed by the removal of splash damage.

The weapon's base damage didn't also need to be reduced. The problem was fixed by the removal of Splash... and the problem only existed on those TWO mechs (and some that they haven't released yet).

Also, you are assuming that the hp percentages reported in the HUD over friendly mechs is accurate. Since the damage done number reported at the end of the match is tied to the hp of each mech, if one is suspect - the other would be as well.

Splash damage was removed - good, it shouldn't have been there in the first place (In my opinion).
Weapon damage can be easily checked by reading the game code, which ANY dev should be able to do - but none of us have access to (yet).

Individual missiles were not doing Gauss Rifle damage outside of the Splash issue, but how many times do we have to say it, that only affected two mechs and has been removed.

Splash damage was not removed in this patch. In fact, it's very much the same system, except with some tweaks to the splash damage application.

SRMs weren't doing Gauss Rifle damage... the sum of the splash damage would equal a Gauss rifle. That's the distinction you are not realizing.

It would be better to ask a POV of a Commando pilot to see how "squishy" they were...

PaintedWolf, on 23 March 2013 - 04:54 PM, said:

I noticed that too. The devs already said there was a problem with leg damage. Obvious they knew they were creating a BS test video from the get-go and then added a host of made up numbers to it.

These are not made up numbers... the devs had explicitly put up post to address this behavior. If you choose to ignore the posts regarding splash and the devs response, then I guess it must be all a lie.

One of the old tricks with missiles (in this case, SRMs) is to "fire at the legs" if you were a newbie struggling to grasp the shooting mechanics. Even if you fail to dish out major damage, you could at least attempt to leg the light mech with splash.

Having seen the devs address the fact that splash damage did a lot less to legs (SRMs shooting @ legs didn't work as intended), you can see why this was an issue.

[PaintedWolf]

Deathlike, on 23 March 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

Splash damage was not removed in this patch. In fact, it's very much the same system, except with some tweaks to the splash damage application.

SRMs weren't doing Gauss Rifle damage... the sum of the splash damage would equal a Gauss rifle. That's the distinction you are not realizing.

It would be better to ask a POV of a Commando pilot to see how "squishy" they were...





These are not made up numbers... the devs had explicitly put up post to address this behavior. If you choose to ignore the posts regarding splash and the devs response, then I guess it must be all a lie.

One of the old tricks with missiles (in this case, SRMs) is to "fire at the legs" if you were a newbie struggling to grasp the shooting mechanics. Even if you fail to dish out major damage, you could at least attempt to leg the light mech with splash.

Having seen the devs address the fact that splash damage did a lot less to legs (SRMs shooting @ legs didn't work as intended), you can see why this was an issue.

Yeah, yeah, so why'd you aim for the legs with the lasers and chest with the SRMs? Oh it was to be 100% objective....of course! There are a million ways that video could be rigged- the CT could be under-armored compared to the legs, etc. Sorry, not buying it.

[PaintedWolf]

Thontor, on 23 March 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

I dont know why WardenWolf shot the leg with the medium laser..

To bias the results? Look man, if I want to I can give the CT 40% of its max armor and the legs 100%, and then make it so when I shoot the CT and do 4 damage it does way more % wise then if I shot the legs. It's hardly impossible.

Edited by PaintedWolf, 23 March 2013 - 05:07 PM.

[PaintedWolf]

Thontor, on 23 March 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

you werent paying attention.. the legs not taking full damage was for explosive weapons only

The fact that different locations are hit still invalidates the results. If he wanted his results to be beyond question the same location should have been hit by both weapons. The Legs could be armored more fully then the CT to mess with the %s. I could do that with any weapon now and then claim I need a nerf to fix it.

Edited by PaintedWolf, 23 March 2013 - 05:18 PM.

[Postumus]

ICEFANG13, on 21 March 2013 - 11:26 PM, said:

SRM-2s are worse than Small Lasers now, and everything else follows suit.
SRM-4s are worse than 2 Small Lasers
SRM-6s are worse than 3.

I know, weapon hardpoints, but its not like Small Lasers were amazing or extremely awesome, they were good. Think of a slightly cooler, heavier Small Laser than spreads damage, and although has more range, will fire randomly around. Yeah, over nerfed by a lot. 2 is the logical place to start with a damage nerf, and probably good, but 2.5 wasn't bad. Problem was SRM-18+ mechs, not SRM-4s.

Worse than small lasers? Might be a little bit of hyperbole there. The only mech I would ever even think of putting small lasers on is a Jenner F, and even that is a toss up. 90 meters is crap range, and a SL will not do any damage beyond 180. Even at 200m an SRM6 is going to do 1/4 to 1/3 of its damage, depending on the target, and a direct hit from a single SRM6 is going to do 1.8*6 damage, 10.8 total, plus up to another 40% in splash for components near the impact. At SL effective range, I.E. face hugging, most of that is gonna go into the CT.

[PaintedWolf]

Postumus, on 23 March 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

Worse than small lasers?

Small lasers don't suffer ammo explosions and can at least focus fire. 5 SRM-2s= different locations. 5 SLs equal focus fire.

Edited by PaintedWolf, 23 March 2013 - 05:37 PM.

[Deathlike]

PaintedWolf, on 23 March 2013 - 05:02 PM, said:

Yeah, yeah, so why'd you aim for the legs with the lasers and chest with the SRMs? Oh it was to be 100% objective....of course! There are a million ways that video could be rigged- the CT could be under-armored compared to the legs, etc. Sorry, not buying it.

Proof comes from the horse's mouth:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2060318
Personally, all dev updates should be hotlinked in the first page of the thread, for future reference.... just in case people don't believe in the facts.

You can "rig" things however you want, the reality is that splash damage has a far greater impact on certain mechs than others. It's obvious that not all mechs are created equal, but damage by splash affects certain mechs more than others.

I run 3 SSRM2s on my Atlas D-DC and splash is lower than I'd hope (used to the Raven-3L's 2 SSRM2s pre-hotfix), but it's still fairly reasonable overall.

Edited by Deathlike, 23 March 2013 - 07:34 PM.

[PaintedWolf]

Deathlike, on 23 March 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:

Proof comes from the horse's mouth:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2060318
Personally, all dev updates should be hotlinked in the first page of the thread, for future reference.... just in case people don't believe in the facts.

You can "rig" things however you want, the reality is that splash damage has a far greater impact on certain mechs than others. It's obvious that not all mechs are created equal, but damage by splash affects certain mechs more than others.

I run 3 SSRM2s on my Atlas D-DC and splash is lower than I'd hope (used to the Raven-3L's 2 SSRM2s pre-hotfix), but it's still fairly reasonable overall.

That is hardly equivalent to SRMs doing Gauss Rifle level damage and hardly justifies a 40% across the board nerf on ALL missile weapons.

Even the splash damage imbalance only occurred with respect to SOME light Mechs. Why this justifies a total, across the board series of sweeping and dramatic changes is beyond me. That is akin to a poster noting that the Gauss Rifle sometimes damages the Catapult and Stalker more then other Mechs because it goes through the arms and damages R/L Torsos, and in response the devs reduce Gauss Rifle damage to 8 and decrease the firing rate by 50%.

Simply put it is like amputating someone's arm because the person complained of a broken finger.

BTW I talked to the person who made the studies these nerfs were based on. He/She said that missiles were doing too little damage as well as too much (the way it was put-too much damage in some areas, and too little damage in some areas) and that nerfing damage did not fix the problem.

So you people are misusing the person's data if you think it justifies an across the board nerf to missile damage. But you don't care at all do you? As long as you feel like you get your way, you'll abuse the information and misrepresent it all day long.

Edited by PaintedWolf, 23 March 2013 - 07:46 PM.

[Deathlike]

I think missiles are underpowered after this hotfix. Don't get me wrong on that.

However, compared to what has happened, having people complain about missiles being underpowered is better than missiles being overpowered and overabused (well, specifically LRMs, but the splatcat/SRM whining has been there for a longer period). The current tourney would be in utter chaos with LRM boats galore.

It wasn't even that hard to get 1k damage with a Atlas D-DC with 3 LRM15s. 3 LRM15s is a very mediocre missile boat. I'm sure 3 LRM15s now aren't even fashionable... Stalkers could do much better...

Edited by Deathlike, 23 March 2013 - 07:59 PM.