38 replies to this topic

[PaintedWolf]

From HarmAssassin:

Quote

Below I've pasted in my Splatcat stats. I've played in 45 matches, have 47 kills, and have inflicted a total of 15,178 dmg. Divide 15,178 by 47 and you get 322 dmg per mech destroyed. At 90 pts per volley, that's 3.5 volleys per mech.

If I were doing 7 times the stated damage (as some have falsely claimed), then I'd be killing every mech with a single volley, and would instead have a damage inflicted total (for 47 kills) of over 105,000 which you can see... I DON'T.

Quote

The stats you "deduced" on the training grounds, weren't accurate. If SRMs were doing the damage you claimed, then my 90 pt alpha would have been doing upwards of 600 damage and single-shot killing every mech I ever fired at.

These are the general stats over dozens of games, where hundreds of missiles are fired. The devs are claiming that SRMs had to be weakened because they were doing 2-7 times their expected damage.

While arguments can be made on both sides, the fact is thus far all I have seen as evidence for the "Weaken SRM" side is really just small slivers of data and expectations that I accept numbers "at face value" i.e. I see a lot of "well numbers don't lie" and then "take my word for it", etc.

However rational testing demands we actually look at general examples over time.

Anyone can doctor a single video, make up numbers or extrapolate singular or super-rare examples and over-generalize. The real test would be whether or not general Splatcat players have noticed absurdly high numbers that were being attributed.

The first example, 45 matches, roughly 322 damage per match, and 3.5 volleys to destroy a Mech seems pretty spot on. That has 90 damage Alpha Strike all over it.

Now I'm willing to see the other side's point of view, but to really resolve this issue I'd like to see more actual stats from Splatcat players.

This is better then singular videos or logic crunching because it shows where the numbers are actually gravitating towards in game. Just like if I want to see if a new medicine is really causing complications, you cannot just go by a single case where an individual took it and then claimed to get sick- you need to observe the effects among a large population.

Or to put it another way, if I flip a coin a dozen times, there is always a small chance it could come up heads 90% of the time. However if I do it hundreds of thousands of times, the chances increase that it will be 50/50.

What we need is real data, from real players over extended periods of time.

Already the above alone is more data then was presented by the other time by a heck of a lot, because instead of a little "firing ground" test and numbers were are supposed to accept on faith, we have literally dozens of battles and thousands of missiles fired.

If the numbers are as off by what critics are saying, by multiples of 2-7 fold, then we should see this discrepancy in the general data.

[PaintedWolf]

Video evidence and notes:

Overall I see nothing at all out of the ordinary that I would not with a 90 point Alpha. It takes the Splatcat at 1:40 2-volleys to kill a commando, and that is combined with enemy fire. It also takes 2-volleys with two other Mechs helping to take out a loan Stalker. Latter on other Mechs seems to die in 1 salvo, but these Mechs are already heavily damaged and attacked at point blank range.

Overall damage is 399 pts. That is exactly what we would expect from that many salvos. Nowhere am I seeing damage values 2-7 times what is expected. And yes, a Commando was hit- twice- by 36 SRMs.



Stalker engaged at roughly 2:30, hits stalker twice with two well placed shots all SRMs hitting, even with combined fire of several other Mechs the Stalker is not terribly crippled or damaged. 4:40- same stalker, already heavily damaged survives very functional after point blank attack- same stalker that was attacked previously. 562 damage done.

Again, given all the volleys 562 damage done is what would be expected from a 90 point Alpha. Hardly see evidence that justifies an emergency hot fix.



Roughly 6:30 hunchback engaged, even with fire support it takes 3 salvos to bring hunchback down. About 7:00 cataphract engaged- Cataphract takes roughly 7 SALVOS to bring down. 8:00 Stalker engaged, WITH fire-support Stalker requires 8 Salvos to bring down. Roughly 9:30 Atlas engaged, takes 3 Salvos including one in the back-Splatcat out of ammo. Overall 1004 damage- a lot but expected, hardly suggesting hundreds of damage per attack.

Video 4: There is no damage overview presented at the end so it is harder to measure then the rest, but again, if you look at it in entirety there really is not much out of the ordinary. A Raven, one the mechs noted to be taking "exponential damage" manages to receive a full salvo of 36 missiles AND combined fire from other Mechs and then run away (again this goes to the argument that if this supposed bug exists, it is not even effecting 1 in 36 missiles with any regularity). A Centurian receives 2.5 salvos, and combined fire, and manages to run around at full speed while returning fire before an ally cores it. A Stalker IS killed with what appears to be a single hit to the back, but again, it could be under-armored in the back or have already received damage.



If the exponential damage per missile is there, it is so subtle and rare that I barely notice it.


Video 5:

This one is made intentionally to show the A1 is overpowered. At roughly 45 seconds into it, a Centurion is hit twice in the same torso area, receiving near full alpha damage and combined fire and still manages to run around and fire before an ally brings it down. Again- what we see is clear evidence of a very effective, specialized build doing what it is supposed to be doing- evidence of a bug does not seem confirmed however.

About 50 seconds into it the A1 engages a Dragon already under heavy fire. The Dragon survives 4 full volleys, while under combined fire, before being brought down by allies. Again, with a 90 point Alpha any case of double damage, let alone seven times normal damage ocurring with any regularity would make such an event pretty unlikely. That would mean this exponential damage did not occur one time in 144 missiles fired.

1:50, a catapult under fire is back hit. It is possible this may reveal a bug, but again, we do not know damage before hand, and rear armor tends to be weak. This is the strongest evidence of a possible bug indicating inadvertent exponential damage so far, and it is ambiguous at the very least.

2:00, an Atlas under the combined fire of 3-4 Mechs survives 2 full volleys before being brought down by allies. Again, if damage was exponentially increasing with any regularity, a 90 point Alpha coupled with focus fire should not be survivable even by an Atlas.

2:50 Centurion engaged. Centurion is already damaged and walks away from two near full volleys receiving only superficial damage.

3:00 Hunchback engaged. Hunchback is already under fire and survives two full volleys, it's arms are removed and it manages to survive more blows from the A1s team-mate before eventually being brought down by a third volley.

3:40 Same Centurion hit twice is engaged. The Centurion, already damaged by team finished with a half volley.

Overall, 4 kills, 2 Assists, 969 damage done. At 90 damage an Alpha this is pretty much what we would expect.

If there is a bug inducing exponential damage, it appears to be too rare or subtle for any noticeable detection.

Edited by PaintedWolf, 24 March 2013 - 09:56 AM.

[qki]

now post some screenshots of individual games, and how many times have you shot at small mechs?

Vs big mechs, damage was roughly twice the intended amount - why do you keep clinging to that 7x thing. Basically every single post wou've made is "but i'm not doing 7x damage, so it was fair"

here's one of mine. Pre fix, driving a raven with 2 streaks and 3 medium lasers.

[PaintedWolf]

qki, on 24 March 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

now post some screenshots of individual games, and how many times have you shot at small mechs?

Vs big mechs, damage was roughly twice the intended amount - why do you keep clinging to that 7x thing. Basically every single post wou've made is "but i'm not doing 7x damage, so it was fair"

here's one of mine. Pre fix, driving a raven with 2 streaks and 3 medium lasers.

I'm showing entire videos to establish context. As for overall damage, that is with 4 kills. Also you are using 3 Medium Lasers.

In any case, the reason I bring up 2-7 times damage is because the argument for the hot fix is based on the claim that damage is "bugged" as to give SRMs a chance to do exponential damage. Here the fact that the Splatcat fires 36 missiles a volley is crucial. If the bug is so rampant, then at least one missile in those 36 should be doing 4 times, or 7 times the damage expected.

You could say it does not happen every time, but if it does not happen one time in 36 with any regularity, then what exactly was the emergency that prompted this hot fix? If it is so rare, that one-in-hundreds of times it does not even happen, then what exactly is the big deal?

Either we have a rampant bug, in which case with the hundreds of missiles fired in video and 36 missile volleys we should be seeing clear signs of it, or it is so rare that even with 36 missiles fired we rarely, if ever, see one doing 2-7 times expected damage.

You do realize a 90 point Alpha is already a lot and enough to explain quick kills to begin with? So why are we seeing Heavy-Assault Mechs whithering 4,5,6 blows? If damage for a 90 point alpha was increased by even 2 with regularity this should be impossible.

Edited by PaintedWolf, 24 March 2013 - 09:57 AM.

[qki]

What is that even supposed to mean? I'm showing a light mech, with 3 medium lasers and 2 streak srm 2 doing more damage than heavy mechs. And the next 2 guys are driving a missile boat and another raven.

I also posted a screen of my atlas doing 5 kills and "only" 680 damage - less than an easy run for a streak light pre-fix.

Those old numbers were seriously out of hand - lights aren't supposed to do that kind of damage.

Now how about you post a screen of the end of round eh? For all I know, your results could have been a couple of 1600 damage rounds, because the splatcat was op, and the rest 0 damage rounds where you get blown up at the start, because you suck.

Until you post screenshots to convince me otherwise, I have to assume that is exactly what happened.

Also - since you edited your post.

That 90 point alpha is spead all over the target - that's the main issue that had to be addressed - It's not 90 to the chest.

Edited by qki, 24 March 2013 - 09:23 AM.

[PaintedWolf]

qki, on 24 March 2013 - 09:11 AM, said:

What is that even supposed to mean? I'm showing a light mech, with 3 medium lasers and 2 streak srm 2 doing more damage than heavy mechs. And the next 2 guys are driving a missile boat and another raven.

I also posted a screen of my atlas doing 5 kills and "only" 680 damage - less than an easy run for a streak light pre-fix.

Again this is why context are critical. You are giving me these numbers in a vacuum. All sorts of circumstances can effect the outcome- the match could be longer or shorter, those mechs fired on can be lighter or heavier, they could have taken or be taking a certain amount of damage by your allies.

Why is it I am confident enough in my case to post entire videos and long-term statistics, whereas you have to give us out of context parcels of data?

qki, on 24 March 2013 - 09:11 AM, said:

Those old numbers were seriously out of hand - lights aren't supposed to do that kind of damage.

Okay, you can say that but again there's no context, so what am I to make of that? Saying they aren't "supposed to" is a questionable claim.

Mechs have hundreds of points of armor. If your Mech is hitting various parts of heavy or even medium mechs that would be hundreds of points of damage. It could easily add up to 1000.

A Hunchback has over 300 points of armor alone. Killing 4+ Hunchbacks can easily add up to almost a thousand points of damage. If we start bringing in heavy, or Assaults these numbers double. An Atlas for example has 600 pts of damage. And this is not counting Mechs that were damaged and not killed.

qki, on 24 March 2013 - 09:11 AM, said:

Now how about you post a screen of the end of round eh? For all I know, your results could have been a couple of 1600 damage rounds, because the splatcat was op, and the rest 0 damage rounds where you get blown up at the start, because you suck.

Until you post screenshots to convince me otherwise, I have to assume that is exactly what happened.

It has already been noted that those who want to weaken missiles are motivated by a certain elitism i.e. "Missiles do not require skill". What I have noticed is while those in the aforementioned camp will often deny this, claiming their motivation is only to innocently expose a bug that could potentially ruin the game- when pressed- they do often time fall back on claims that those who use SRMs and LRMs lack skill.

They can think that if they want, but the fact is this was not the reason why missiles were weakened so heavily, the reason was supposedly over a bug over splash damage that supposedly made missile damage exponential with respect to two or three light mechs.

Why this demanded an emergency, across the board "fix" is already dubious as it is. When attacks on a person's skill are then made alongside the dubious nature of the argument is compounded.

[qki]

killing a mech does not require stripping all the armour. And no - lights are not supposed to do the same kind of damage as assault 'mechs that carry more weapons, than the entire light 'mech - my Atlas has 36 tons of weapons (counting ammo) - a 35 ton raven should not be able to outstrip it in damage.



SRMs do require skill when used against mobile opponents.

LRMs however - that's a serious problem. Here is a lock-on weapon, that can be fired at targets not even in LoS - all you have to do is press R, and rain death at an enemy that can't even attack you back. And breaking los isn't always possible.

Hell - I've killed enemy mechs by "running away at them" - just target, and evade their shots, and let my LRM buddies do the rest.


And you answered your own question - the damage increased unreasonably against certain 'mechs, when it wasn't supposed to be related to the type of mech you are shooting at.

[Amaris the Usurper]

Meh.

Edited by Amaris the Usurper, 06 May 2013 - 05:01 PM.

[PaintedWolf]

qki, on 24 March 2013 - 09:38 AM, said:

killing a mech does not require stripping all the armour. And no - lights are not supposed to do the same kind of damage as assault 'mechs that carry more weapons, than the entire light 'mech - my Atlas has 36 tons of weapons (counting ammo) - a 35 ton raven should not be able to outstrip it in damage.



SRMs do require skill when used against mobile opponents.

LRMs however - that's a serious problem. Here is a lock-on weapon, that can be fired at targets not even in LoS - all you have to do is press R, and rain death at an enemy that can't even attack you back. And breaking los isn't always possible.

Hell - I've killed enemy mechs by "running away at them" - just target, and evade their shots, and let my LRM buddies do the rest.


And you answered your own question - the damage increased unreasonably against certain 'mechs, when it wasn't supposed to be related to the type of mech you are shooting at.

You just posted this on another topic:

Quote

Really dude - learn to play for once - it's not that hard. Every time you noobs run into some obstacle, you come over to the forums to beg the developers to remove the obstacle for you. Instead of trying to improve your game and get better, you want the game altered, so your current (lack of) skill passes for good.

Now you honestly want me to believe you don't think missile weapons require less skill, and THEN you expect me to accept your numbers at face value?

Like I have noted before, given the evidence presented by the side wanting to reduce missile damage- a 40 second video and numbers we are supposed to accept at face value- and their subsequent behavior a lot of this seems more to do with perceptions about how missiles effect whether or not "skilled players" come out on top, and less to do with fixing, what is according to their admittance, a minor, situational bug.

Even if this bug existed, how does this warrant the sweeping, emergency changes to all missile weapons we are seeing in this hot fix?

And why is all the counter-evidence being dismissed out of hand? You can look at those videos yourself, you can look at HarmAssassins stats, that doesn't even make you doubt the more grandiose claims of A1 damage being exponentially higher then intended the tiniest bit? Such quick and adamant dismissal of evidence is what we would expect from people with a pre-established goal, but not from people who are making objective evaluations.

As for myself, I will say I am not 100% objective either, but then again, I am not the one defending emergency/"hot fix" changes that effectively reduce the power of an entire category of weapon by almost 50%.

[PaintedWolf]

Amaris the Usurper, on 24 March 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:

This thread is essentially an attempt to call into question the validity of some experimental results that I posted on 13 March. See http://mwomercs.com/...ed-2013-03-15/.

The tests were performed with the previous version of MWO, i.e., the 5 March patch, which is no longer available for testing, due to the 19 March patch and the following hotfix for missile damage.

As of 24 March, the thread has had approximately 37,000 views and generated 35 pages of responses. These pages contain multiple corroborations of my results (including videos) and no contradictions. Additionally, the results were confirmed by internal testing at PGI (the official response is quoted of my original post).

Note that the issue was not that SRMs were always doing 7x listed damage. It was that they were sometimes doing this, and sometimes doing next to nothing. Please read the original thread to understand what was going on.

How much is sometimes? As I noted, the videos provide a context where literally hundreds of missiles are launched- all without clear sign of any exponential damage being done over what is intended. These are volleys of 36 missiles and 90 point Alphas, if this sort of damage is being done, is it occurring less often then 1/36 or 1/72 or 1/144? How rare are these bugs?

Then there is HarmAssassins stats which basically equate to thousands of missiles fired, but we do not see a numerical discrepancy indicative of 2-7 times intended damage being done.

If this bug is niche and rare, why is an across the board reduction of missile damage- a very sweeping change that reduced the effectiveness of an entire category of weapon by 50% demanded?

At most you could argue that maybe splash be removed, or Streaks have their splash removed, going from "this is a super rare bug that effects 2-3 light Mechs" to "the bug was corrected by a damage reduction on ALL missile weapons against ALL Mechs by 50%" is very dubious reasoning.

It is not just that your data is questionable from my perspective, it is that you seem to agree with this sweeping change when it would not be warranted EVEN IF your data turned out to be accurate. It is this last leap, from exposing a minor bug, to supporting a sweeping and dramatic change well outside the scope of anything you apparently proved that makes me question your objectivity.

Amaris the Usurper, on 24 March 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:

Essentially, the OP interprets my results in a naive manner that is not supported by the accompanying discussion. He then makes predictions based on his naive interpretation, observes that they don't come true, and concludes that the results must, therefore, have been deliberately falsified. His argument is essentially "if A, then B; not B; therefore, not A." Ordinarily, this would be valid. The problem is that B (the naive interpretation) does not actually follow from A (the experimental results).

Note that I did not, at any point, state that "numbers don't lie" or ask anyone to accept them "at face value." I don't think anyone else did either.

The results were posted a week and a half ago, when the previous version of the game was available to anybody and everybody to to check my results, including the OP. That is why I did not post videos. It would have been like posting a video of the sun, when anyone can simply go outside during a clear day and see it.

The reason the results can no longer be checked is that the game has been patched. It is not a conspiracy. The OP missed the party.

Again why I question your objectivity, instead of confronting the issue directly, or noting how the change was not warranted even if your data was correct we have accusations against a person's character and sweeping claims about testimony others did or did not make.

How do you know others have not claimed I need to accept numbers at face value? There is a thread on this very forum where this claim was made.

What specifically am I misinterpreting? You are claiming I misinterpret the data, and thus I am "naive" but present no actual claim so that I can defend myself from the charge.

You then make the claim that I have accused you of "conspiracy"- where specifically did I make this claim?

This, the poor quality of your evidence, the lack of context, claims about what other people have or have not said that I have or have not read without even checking, etc, all adds up to make me question your objectivity in this particular matter.

Edited by PaintedWolf, 24 March 2013 - 11:01 AM.

[Amaris the Usurper]

"Sometimes" = SRMs striking a Commando in the CT.

"Conspiracy" = your various accusations that I and other posters in the original topic posted false results or doctored video evidence.

This whole argument is pointless.

The bugs described were confirmed by PGI in internal testing.

[PaintedWolf]

Amaris the Usurper, on 24 March 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

"Sometimes" = SRMs striking a Commando in the CT.

"Conspiracy" = your various accusations that I and other posters in the original topic posted false results or doctored video evidence.

This whole argument is pointless.

The bugs described were confirmed by PGI in internal testing.

Again, a lot of information is missing, and the fact is your evidence is not presented in as much of a broad context, and the larger context seems to be noting that missiles are working as intended. A 90 point Alpha is a lot of damage in general, even working as normal that will melt Mechs very quickly. Now if you want to argue that is over-powered that is one thing- but if your argument is that missile damage as a whole needs to be reduced because splash damage is not working as intended (and hence bugged) that is something else.

This, more then anything is what makes me question your claims. I can understand if there was a problem with splash damage effecting some Mechs sometimes and that needed to be corrected- but you are acting as though you support the latest hot fix which went well beyond the scope of that- leading to a reduction in missile damage by almost 50% (a very significant change) AND a reduction in splash radius.

If this bug was there, would it have not sufficed to greatly lower or eliminate splash damage? Why then do we also need missile damage overall reduced by almost 50%?

It is this leap in logic that I questioning, not just the validity of your statistics or conclusions concerning the bug's existence or frequency of occurrence. If you would just say that the reduction of overall missile damage was outside the scope of what could be warranted in your study that would be one thing, but you seem content with the change even though the measure would not be even close to merited even if your data was accurate.

[Deathlike]

Amaris the Usurper, on 24 March 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

"Sometimes" = SRMs striking a Commando in the CT.

"Conspiracy" = your various accusations that I and other posters in the original topic posted false results or doctored video evidence.

This whole argument is pointless.

The bugs described were confirmed by PGI in internal testing.

IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!

It reminds me of people who in the face of the facts, still deny the reality of the matter. I could cite examples but the OP's point resembles a popular statement:

[PaintedWolf]

Deathlike, on 24 March 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!

It reminds me of people who in the face of the facts, still deny the reality of the matter. I could cite examples but the OP's point resembles a popular statement:

A conspiracy is not required to explain every simple mistake. Remember, conspiracy is not necessary where human fallibility will suffice.

[qki]

next thing, you're gonna ask for screenshots of Armstrong in the landing module before stepping out, because there is totally no evidence of the actual langing (and no scrrenshots).

And how is posting two unrelated fragments of my posts relevant to anything?

LRMs are a problem to balance, because thay are a guided weapon, capable ofindirect fire. One that allows you to engage targets without a direct LoS, while they may have ZERO indication of your presence, until their missile incoming warning goes off.

To that end, shooting something with auto-tracking LRMs is a lot less demanding, than getting a solid hit with an AC20. And coupled with over-the-top damage, that means a lot of people with very little skill could kill mechs they had no buisness killing in the first place.


And my L2P comments were aimed at the braindead guys claiming their mechs are "useless now", because they do less damage, than they did yesterday. Seriously junior - chill them n's out - neither weapon is useless. I can still engage targets with my SRMs and kill them just fine.

So you cry your pretty little head to sleep all you want - I'll be over there, killing mechs with the very weapons you claim to be useless.


Cheers.

[Deathlike]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

Again, a lot of information is missing, and the fact is your evidence is not presented in as much of a broad context, and the larger context seems to be noting that missiles are working as intended. A 90 point Alpha is a lot of damage in general, even working as normal that will melt Mechs very quickly. Now if you want to argue that is over-powered that is one thing- but if your argument is that missile damage as a whole needs to be reduced because splash damage is not working as intended (and hence bugged) that is something else.

This, more then anything is what makes me question your claims. I can understand if there was a problem with splash damage effecting some Mechs sometimes and that needed to be corrected- but you are acting as though you support the latest hot fix which went well beyond the scope of that- leading to a reduction in missile damage by almost 50% (a very significant change) AND a reduction in splash radius.

If this bug was there, would it have not sufficed to greatly lower or eliminate splash damage? Why then do we also need missile damage overall reduced by almost 50%?

It is this leap in logic that I questioning, not just the validity of your statistics or conclusions concerning the bug's existence or frequency of occurrence. If you would just say that the reduction of overall missile damage was outside the scope of what could be warranted in your study that would be one thing, but you seem content with the change even though the measure would not be even close to merited even if your data was accurate.

I swear, you are adding your opinion on how much this was an overnerf, instead of analyzing why the overnerf came to be.

The problem is two fold:

1) Splash damage finally "worked" as intended in the sense that there aren't any inherent bugs left with splash damage.. it's how that splash damage was wholly applied to the mech on the whole. So, inevitably the obvious nerf is coming. Since this change is temporary, the overnerf is expected (given how they've dealt with this in the past).

2) The splash radius is a factor to this nerf. This in part is relative to the system used to calculate overall damage with the broken damage system based on the mech's hitboxes or whatever you may wish to call it. Leaving it as is does not address the problem... even if we reduce the base damage of missiles to a reasonable amount, the splash damage still affects the mechs in question (the Commando is the base example). So, the "bandaid" fix as it were has to be reducing the splash radius is a necessary step, but not a true fix to address the problem. It only serves to reduce the problem, but it's not a solution. The problem is still there.

Splash removal altogether would require a lot more work... and it is unclear whether it was designed poorly or too tightly integrated to remove components. Coding isn't always a simple tweak to adjust numbers (although adjusting #s is easier than doing the hard part). That's why it cannot be removed in one go.

[PaintedWolf]

qki, on 24 March 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

To that end, shooting something with auto-tracking LRMs is a lot less demanding, than getting a solid hit with an AC20. And coupled with over-the-top damage, that means a lot of people with very little skill could kill mechs they had no buisness killing in the first place.

Again, subsequent complaints about the skill required to properly effectively use LRMs make arguments that this is over a bug more dubious with respect to justifying the hot fix.

[Ralgas]

The other issue was that the game system wasn't recording all damage missiles were doing, if you had read and understood Amis' original thread you'd know that using match results to compare was useless as the original dmg done pre-fix had to be calculated off the remaining target mech, not stats.

In any event you, can see the dev response confirming on page 18 of the thread (cant find the thread right now)

[HammerSwarm]

I would like to weigh in on the OP and the Friends of Splat Cats attempts to QQ over the state of their favorite builds.

First I would like to define a metric I use when grading my performance and the performance of my teammates in my guild: Damage/Tonnage =MEV (mech effectiveness value). to Imagine this statistic imagine an atlas at 100 tons doing 1000 damage. This is a good match and scores as a 10 MEV. Now lets imagine a centurion at 50 tons doing 1000 damage. Both did 1000 damage but the lighter mech did it with less armor, and less available tonnage for weaponry. His MEV would be 20, and 20 is better than 10. The purpose of this stat is to normalize damage to tonnage.

In my experience a terrible game is an MEV of 0-2; a great game is somewhere in the 7-10 range; beast mode is basically anything over 10. You can disagree/agree I don't care. This is the metric I am using because I like it.

You're QQing that your mech at 65 tons can only do 5 times it's tonnage in damage on average? I mean that is basis of your argument is that your cheese build isn't more powerful? That on average you are doing 5 times your tonnage in damage?

The Friends of the Splat Cat faction have also introduced various straw men, "so and so says splat cats take no skill and that is why they need to be nerfed." "some say they don't like splat cats because it negates their elite skill."

I would call those straw men unless you show me the quotes so those people can defend themselves. I would further say that all of the valid min/max, alpha, improperly functioning mechanics arguments are 10x more valid and yet the go unaddressed in your little pity party rants that one of your builds was more or less balanced by a change in the way damage was calculated.

Explain to me how 5x tonnage on average isn't enough, I am willing to listen.

[PaintedWolf]

Ralgas, on 24 March 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

The other issue was that the game system wasn't recording all damage missiles were doing, if you had read and understood Amis' original thread you'd know that using match results to compare was useless as the original dmg done pre-fix had to be calculated off the remaining target mech, not stats.

In any event you, can see the dev response confirming on page 18 of the thread (cant find the thread right now)

Okay, let's consider, if a Splatcat is doing 90 points of damage as intended, it should take on average 3-4 salvos for the Splatcat to drop a Mech. Averaging out HarmAssassins stats we get roughly 3.5 volleys per kill- perfectly in line with expected damage.

If we look at the videos we see some Mechs already damaged or Light going down in 1-2 strikes, and we see other cases where Mechs survive up to 6. That seems pretty much like 3-4 on average to me, that seems like a 90 point Alpha Strike.

So again, if the Mech is doing more then 90 point Alphas, why not only is this not being shown in damage overviews, AND in HarmAssassins state BUT also why is it we don't really see any of this in the video evidence presented above?