38 replies to this topic

[PaintedWolf]

HammerSwarm, on 24 March 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

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.

Are you saying extra damage is being done as the result of a bug, or are you complaining that a 90 point Alpha is too much damage? If the former, I can see your point, however if you are claiming the latter then the devs need to note this as an official reason for damage reduction and not say it is over a bug.

The reason why is because people can then have an honest discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of the Splatcat vs other builds, which takes into account heat, range, ammunition, armor values and blowing off "ears". If however the argument is that the change is due to a bug, then all those points of weakness are rendered irrelevant with respect to the issue, and the devs are in effect making a change without allowing for any discussion at all concerning whether the 90 point Alpha is balanced out by other drawbacks of the A1-Splatcat.

In several cases a Mech receiving full Alphas survives 4-6 hits. If Splatcats are doing more damage then they are supposed to, we are talking more then 90 points of damage. What Mech is honestly going to survive that much damage? How much damage above 90 do they claim is being done and magically not recorded? 91 points? 200 points? Simply put the fact that Mechs are surviving hits at all makes the claim that they are doing extra damage- which would mean more then 90 points, really, really questionable.

Edited by PaintedWolf, 24 March 2013 - 02:07 PM.

[Amaris the Usurper]

Meh.

Edited by Amaris the Usurper, 06 May 2013 - 05:02 PM.

[PaintedWolf]

Amaris you are just repeating the claims already stated in the link to your study almost word for word at this point and you are intentionally ignoring counter-points:

1) In most of the videos presented, Mechs are surviving at least 1 salvo from the Splatpult. The Commando survives 2, with extra damage given from the A1's team. Some Mechs survive 5-6 attacks. A 90 point Alpha is enough to remove all armor in a location in 1-2 Salvos, so if the enemy turns then surviving 4-6 attacks is doable, but the Mechs should go down in 1-2 attacks. That is not the A1 doing more damage then intended, that is the A1 doing its 90 pt Alpha.

If the A1 was doing more then its 90 point Alpha, 2-7 times more damage, as claimed, we are talking 180-600 point strikes here. If that much damage was being done, then in all the dozens upon dozens of engagements presented we should be seeing this.

2) HarmAssassins stats equate to roughly 3.5 volleys per kill. This is exactly what we should be seeing from 90 point Alphas.

3) If the problem was splash/aoe, we should be seeing pages and pages of component destruction. Again, we do not see this.

In other words, a 90 point Alpha is already a TON of damage. If that damage was increased 2-7 fold, it wouldn't just be measurable in a small/subtle way, it'd be glaringly obvious. The enemy team would get steamrolled without even getting a shot 90% of the time.

That is IF this was a bug prevalent enough to justify an across the board reduction to missile damage. IF however we are talking about a very niche bug, only effecting some light Mechs sometimes, then the problem could be fixed by simply reducing splash damage, or even more simply splash damage for streak missiles, as most Light Mechs are fast enough to avoid SRMs and LRMs entirely- that'd be the least disruptive, most logical hot fix.

You are trying to argue a basic case which is plausible based on the data, though imo not well proven (again it comes down to a 40 second video, and then numbers we are supposed to accept on faith, and some extrapolation based on PGI's statement which, if taken at face value does not justify an across the board nerf either) AND THEN you go from this bug that effects some light Mechs, sometimes based on splash, to an argument that the hot fix/nerf of ALL MISSILE DAMAGE BY 40% is justified.

These are two different claims and the former does not justify the latter even if we accepted your claims 100% as dogma.

[PaintedWolf]

Also Amaris you are over-stretching again when you claim nobody is saying that they want the missile boats nerfed because it requires less skill and does conform to how they imagine the game should look. Check out this thread: http://mwomercs.com/...e/page__st__100

There are almost a dozen posters there saying "Oh I love the tears of the A1s!" "Oh they are QQ cause they have no skills without their missile buffs", etc. At the very least you can look at that thread, and if you are objective, admit your claim that 'no one at all' was making arguments that this was over the perceived skill of missile boats was unfounded. Let me give you an example of the latest:

Quote

splat cat tear are delicious. im glad there nerfed your noob mech into the ground

There are lots and lots of claims like that being put forth, so can you at least admit that people are making claims like that?

[Deathlike]

It's not worth discussing this further, as the OP is not willing to participate with #s, logic, facts, or otherwise.

It's almost as if you've never used the weapon before and/or used it properly. Making justifications over stuff that you don't seem to grasp is a recipe for disaster.

[Amaris the Usurper]

This operation has exceeded its budget.

The OP displays a disturbing tendency to believe that all statements contrary to his beliefs--statements made by different people and at different times--have been made contemporaneously by the same person, and that this person is me.

The OP's counter to any argument is to change the argument.

I shall not condescend to scale any further the mountain of intellectual detritus which has been heaped up by the OP.

[PaintedWolf]

Amaris the Usurper, on 24 March 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

This operation has exceeded its budget.

The OP displays a disturbing tendency to believe that all statements contrary to his beliefs--statements made by different people and at different times--have been made contemporaneously by the same person, and that this person is me.

The OP's counter to any argument is to change the argument.

I shall not condescend to scale any further the mountain of intellectual detritus which has been heaped up by the OP.

Geez man, sorry if I don't accept all your points at face value or see you as honest abe with 100% pure intentions. It's not like people are ever, ever biased and how dare I suggest they are anything but fully honest at all times.

[Werewolf486 ScorpS]

They nerf to keep the cry babies happy and quiet. PGI doesn't hear good ideas, they just hear the crying of fools as they drown out the voices of the real supporters and skilled players.

[Zordicron]

IMO all missile dmg is at a good place right now. it does enough to make players react to it, but doesnt wipe players off the map with ease unless they play really stupidly.

As far as trying to discredit the testing from before, nuh. Splash dmg was broken, they are fixing it. PGI will revisit missiles, the last patch was to stop the bleeding. Whatever game mechanics they fix or change or whatever will at that time require more looks at missile dmg. Right now I think it is good. After they alter mechanics I will evaluate again. Debating on stuff from 3 weeks ago that already was changed is a waste of time and forum space.

[Monkeystador]

A purely averaging of statistical data cannot show damage spikes. I assume the 2-7 times the damage spikes happened occasionally.

LRMs Missiles only need a buff.
SRMs are fine. I still do alot of hurt with 3x ASRM.

[HammerSwarm]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

Are you saying extra damage is being done as the result of a bug, or are you complaining that a 90 point Alpha is too much damage? If the former, I can see your point, however if you are claiming the latter then the devs need to note this as an official reason for damage reduction and not say it is over a bug.

The reason why is because people can then have an honest discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of the Splatcat vs other builds, which takes into account heat, range, ammunition, armor values and blowing off "ears". If however the argument is that the change is due to a bug, then all those points of weakness are rendered irrelevant with respect to the issue, and the devs are in effect making a change without allowing for any discussion at all concerning whether the 90 point Alpha is balanced out by other drawbacks of the A1-Splatcat.

In several cases a Mech receiving full Alphas survives 4-6 hits. If Splatcats are doing more damage then they are supposed to, we are talking more then 90 points of damage. What Mech is honestly going to survive that much damage? How much damage above 90 do they claim is being done and magically not recorded? 91 points? 200 points? Simply put the fact that Mechs are surviving hits at all makes the claim that they are doing extra damage- which would mean more then 90 points, really, really questionable.

I only care a little bit about the alpha nature of a splat cat. If you re-read my post you'll notice that I was saying that on average you were still doing respectable damage regardless of feeling like you should do more. The nature of being a close range brawler is such that you're going to die from time to time before you get much damage off. Some matches will be much better. This is the nature of the beast. If you want better average damage try a more balanced build.

What I do care about is your, "I am not doing enough damage" agenda. 300 is a respectable average, until I see catapults routinely at the bottom of the damage list I am not going to be crying for the problems of missile dependent mechs.

You've chosen one highly specialized variant, from a chassis that has acceptable variety, and decided that it's the only way you like playing the game. Learn to enjoy the game the way it was meant to be played, with balanced damage and lasting game play, or find a new game. For the rest of us there is nothing more frustrating than having excellent front armor in our mechs and then having it be shredded by a single volley from a catapult.

The fact that in a game with over 50 mech variants and millions of customization options that one build is just about guaranteed to be in every match is all the proof I need that it's overpowered.

[PaintedWolf]

HammerSwarm, on 25 March 2013 - 05:11 AM, said:

If you want better average damage try a more balanced build.

And that's what it comes down to isn't? You telling me how I should build my Mech. If my Mech does not conform to your preconceptions, but remains competitive and even excels, well then the devs MUST make it so that specialist build does not work and I am forced to make a "balanced" (in your opinion) build. Basically, you determine what constitutes a balanced build, and if people don't agree with you, then steps must be taken to correct their "mistake".

[Deathlike]

PaintedWolf, on 25 March 2013 - 06:05 AM, said:

And that's what it comes down to isn't? You telling me how I should build my Mech. If my Mech does not conform to your preconceptions, but remains competitive and even excels, well then the devs MUST make it so that specialist build does not work and I am forced to make a "balanced" (in your opinion) build. Basically, you determine what constitutes a balanced build, and if people don't agree with you, then steps must be taken to correct their "mistake".

You missed the point that complaining about your "non-balanced" build is the general reason why you aren't doing better. If you build a solid mech build, it can address limitations that a poor "non-balanced" build cannot deal with. Otherwise, noone is really going to listen why your "unbalanced" build is suffering.

Edited by Deathlike, 25 March 2013 - 06:29 AM.

[PaintedWolf]

Deathlike, on 25 March 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

You missed the point that complaining about your "non-balanced" build is the general reason why you aren't doing better. If you build a solid mech build, it can address limitations that a poor "non-balanced" build cannot deal with. Otherwise, noone is really going to listen why your "unbalanced" build is suffering.

As another poster put it:

Quote

"Oh, let's say if I can put in an AC/5, an AC/2, 1 SRM4, 1 STreak 2, 1 Medium Pulse Laser and 1 Small Laser" on this mech?

Is the above your idea of a balanced build that we must all design?

[Deathlike]

PaintedWolf, on 25 March 2013 - 06:33 AM, said:

As another poster put it:

Is the above your idea of a balanced build that we must all design?

That's the other extreme that you seem to copy the response from. That is not a solid build period and irrelevant to the discussion.

[PaintedWolf]

The quotation was from this thread: http://mwomercs.com/...rmech-are-rats/

[Deathlike]

You don't understand the proper meaning, nor context of "balance"... especially when you put up an AC20 is UP thread. That's why noone is taking you seriously.

[HammerSwarm]

PaintedWolf, on 25 March 2013 - 06:05 AM, said:

And that's what it comes down to isn't? You telling me how I should build my Mech. If my Mech does not conform to your preconceptions, but remains competitive and even excels, well then the devs MUST make it so that specialist build does not work and I am forced to make a "balanced" (in your opinion) build. Basically, you determine what constitutes a balanced build, and if people don't agree with you, then steps must be taken to correct their "mistake".

I don't care how you play bro. I do care that you're arguing something that feels balanced to me, isn't.

If as you stated your average damage is 300 you're doing fine. For every 0 game where you get waxed by ER PPCs you're getting a 600 damage game. You're doing fine.

If you want my advice? Balance your build, Mix some short and long range weapons. Like if you have A/c20s on your K-2 you can get ERLL in the shoulders. You're good at more ranges then. When we say balance your build what we mean is that only having SRMs caps your range at 270. If you purposely limit yourself like that no one is going to feel bad that you are getting killed at long range. Just like no one is feeling bad that you picked a mech with 6 weapons hardpoints in their arms and then when you lose your arms you are out.

[focuspark]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

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

I believe the truism is: never assume malice when stupidity will suffice an answer.