283 replies to this topic

[Davers]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

Again the bait and switch theme keeps running. The Missiles weren't nerf, there was a bug that needed to be corrected.

So why did they get a 40% reduction in general?

Well because missiles were OP and needed to be balanced.

The argument switches time and again to a general claim that Missile are OP and require no skill, to missiles were bugged and LRMs were doing more then 1.8 pts of damage and SRMs more then 2.5.

If they want to Nerf Missiles to TT points or less (LRMs actually only do 70% their TT damage now, which makes them WEAKER then TT in a game with Double Armor and more ways to counter LRMs then TT had) then they need to address the issue of weapon convergence and lack of TACs and Pilot K/O which balanced out spread vs. concentrated damage in TT.

That is why the bait and switch impedes honest discussion of how to balance missile damage. In TT there were extra features which balanced concentrated vs spread damage. But since the missiles are not being "nerfed" and instead this hot fix is over a bug we can't discuss any of this at all. We just have have to accept the fact that missiles are under-powered as though the alternative was to allow cheating.

Because splash damage is based off the weapon's damage? The bug is STILL THERE you know. The reduction in damage is just a work around.

[Gaan Cathal]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

Again the bait and switch theme keeps running. The Missiles weren't nerf, there was a bug that needed to be corrected.

So why did they get a 40% reduction in general?

Well because missiles were OP and needed to be balanced.

No. It's as follows:


The Missiles weren't nerf, there was a bug that needed to be corrected.

So why did they get a 40% reduction in general?

Because the bug can't be fixed directly, and this is an attempt to minimise the effects while they work out how to.


There. Now stop assuming that because Guy A and Guy B both disagree with you, they necessarily agree on all points. You're using some people's childish response to the reduction in effectiveness of some borderline-broken builds as an excuse to ignore people who are actually explaining what's going on.

[stjobe]

Sifright, on 24 March 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

The ssrm 2 was doing 5 damage to both the side torsos and the ct in the example in the video.

so an SRM6 would have done 45 damage total to the commando.

Which, of course, is three times more than it should do, and hence pretty good evidence for the bug being present.

Sifright, on 24 March 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

I've had a time in game where I hit a commando on full health with two srm4's (with my jenner d) and he exploded giving me every single component destruction I can only attribute this to ammo explosion because thats a maximum of 20 damage to each component which should not be capable of blowing a commando to scrap instantly.

The splash code was doing very weird things to Commandos, where splash damage itself would give splash damage, and there was no falloff - all the way out to the 4m radius (please note that a Commando is only about 9m tall, a 8m sphere envelops pretty much the whole 'mech) the missiles did full damage.

Sifright, on 24 March 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

edit: however this bug primarily effected only small mechs until they fixed some of the splash damage code which made missiles brokenly over powered.

Almost, but not quite.

The bug affected every 'mech with "complex geometry" - which means all but the first four 'mechs.

[PaintedWolf]

Well okay, but if you are going to start making sweeping changes based on 46 second videos alone you are setting a bad precedent. Never mind all the dozens of videos which show Mechs taking 4-6 salvos from 36 missile volleys of SRMs and surviving, those don't count. Some people's videos count, other people's videos do not.

Edited by PaintedWolf, 24 March 2013 - 04:05 PM.

[Moromillas]

The amount of hypocrisy is just unbelievable.

The hotfix was not "tweaking" or "balancing" based on missile damage. It was a hotfix, a temporary hotfix to quell a bug that popped up with missile damage in the latest patch.

They then ask for feedback on missile damage, Vassago has done just that, feedback on the missile damage. Then you have these half-wits saying "Vassago wants an easy ride, L2P." No, it's the other way around. It's just amazing how incredibly dishonest players can be. Prime example being "it's fine" followed by labeling the hotfix a nerf.

Devs wanted feedback, saying it's a nerf is saying it does less damage. But don't then say "it's fine" with the hope that it won't be properly fixed, so you can continue to have it easy mode versus missiles.

[Davers]

@Sigfright

Maybe the Devs didn't think what the reduction in damage did to your playstyle (focusing damage on one component). I sometimes wonder if the Devs are playing the same game as the rest of us, after all, they use machine guns on their mechs.

[Mazzyplz]

Davers, on 24 March 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

Balancing can't even be started until everything is working as intended. Let's get there first. Then we can argue over damage fractions to our heart's consent.

If you feel that SRMs are useless now, then I am sorry. Hopefully PGI will get this fixed by the April 2nd patch.

i'm guessing they're not useless to light mech pilots who are running around at 100+kmph spraying them, but for an assault mech that needs it to protect from being facehugged (since he can't run away) yeah, they're pretty useless.

it takes at LEAST 5 salvos of 4xSRM6 to kill a jagermech
it's twin ac20 will core you MUCH faster

just can't kill jagermechs with missiles since they "hotfixed" these things (the jagermech head, made it too tough - besides the missile thing)

Edited by Mazzyplz, 24 March 2013 - 04:10 PM.

[PaintedWolf]

Gaan Cathal, on 24 March 2013 - 04:02 PM, said:

There. Now stop assuming that because Guy A and Guy B both disagree with you, they necessarily agree on all points. You're using some people's childish response to the reduction in effectiveness of some borderline-broken builds as an excuse to ignore people who are actually explaining what's going on.

Okay, will you agree if a Splatcat was doing 90 point Alphas it was doing damage as intended?

[Sifright]

stjobe, on 24 March 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

Which, of course, is three times more than it should do, and hence pretty good evidence for the bug being present.

ofcourse I wasn't arguing the bug didn't exist.

stjobe, on 24 March 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

The splash code was doing very weird things to Commandos, where splash damage itself would give splash damage, and there was no falloff - all the way out to the 4m radius (please note that a Commando is only about 9m tall, a 8m sphere envelops pretty much the whole 'mech) the missiles did full damage.

Yes I've noticed times where an srm shot on the top of a commando or spider damaged the entire mech so my experiences certainly back that up.

stjobe, on 24 March 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

Almost, but not quite.

The bug affected every 'mech with "complex geometry" - which means all but the first four 'mechs.

Well this is where we have a bit of an argument in my experience complex geomtry is refering to mechs with close in tight hit boxes.

So the spider, Commando, Raven and Cicada being primarily effected.

The larger mechs were basically unaffected by splash damaged until they fixed a bug in how splash damage was calculated which meant every component started taking splash damage.

Atlas, Awesome cataphract catapult stalker in my experience didn't have these problems for the most part.

(The stalker did when shot in the back where the rear torso hit boxes are all very close together, same on the catapult)

[stjobe]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

Yeah, right. Why do they shoot the legs with the medium laser and the torso with the srms? This 40 second video is so dubious- and it is basically the entire premise on which the arguments that SRMs/LRM super-bugs rest. This one 46 second video was the basis for a sweeping "emergency fix" on one third of the games weapons.

Oh do come on. That video was just the first one to show that the bug was present in the live game as well.

There's a 35-page thread that's chock-full of corroborating evidence, and incidentally also a couple of dev posts confirming the bug being a real bug and a real problem. I suggest you read it, or at least the OP of it.

There's no conspiracy, players actually discovered and tested (over and over again) a bug, and got the devs attention to get it fixed. The fix isn't in yet, but since other bugs made the game unplayable, the devs reduced missile damage, splash damage, and splash radius.

[PaintedWolf]

Moromillas, on 24 March 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

The amount of hypocrisy is just unbelievable.

The hotfix was not "tweaking" or "balancing" based on missile damage. It was a hotfix, a temporary hotfix to quell a bug that popped up with missile damage in the latest patch.

They then ask for feedback on missile damage, Vassago has done just that, feedback on the missile damage. Then you have these half-wits saying "Vassago wants an easy ride, L2P." No, it's the other way around. It's just amazing how incredibly dishonest players can be. Prime example being "it's fine" followed by labeling the hotfix a nerf.

Devs wanted feedback, saying it's a nerf is saying it does less damage. But don't then say "it's fine" with the hope that it won't be properly fixed, so you can continue to have it easy mode versus missiles.

Exactly. On the one hand they say "oh this is just to fix a bug and they want feedback". A player makes a post providing feedback, immediately this player is insulted and harassed among cries that the other side has "won" in getting missiles nerfed.

So basically, every time someone actually provides feedback they can expected to be insulted for a dozen+ threads. Also some threads have even been locked just for providing feedback. One guy made a thread noting he hit a phract with 100 LRMs and it just put it in the yellow- the person was trolled and the thread was locked.

So basically, they want feedback, but if you give them feedback, you might get insulted and you might get your thread locked if you get insulted. That's really encouraging feedback.

[Shismar]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 04:07 PM, said:

Okay, will you agree if a Splatcat was doing 90 point Alphas it was doing damage as intended?

No, it wasn't. Please start reading and comprehending what was stated about missile damage and the fix. I have no clue what has incited you to go onto this crusade and ignoring any evidence and statement by the developers. You know, it does make you look really stupid. Sorry.

[TheSteelRhino]

Sifright, on 24 March 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

are you claiming an srm6 did 30-45 damage per set fired from one hard point?

because thats just not true at all, medium mechs did not suffer any where near the kind of splash damage issues the commando did.

Oops. I worded that badly.

What u i meant to say


Is if an srm6 could do 90 dmg to a commando but was doing 15 (assuming thats correct) then mediums were probably eating 30 to 45 when they got hit by one

Shrug. Anyways. This discussion is getting boring

[Sifright]

Davers, on 24 March 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

@Sigfright

Maybe the Devs didn't think what the reduction in damage did to your playstyle (focusing damage on one component). I sometimes wonder if the Devs are playing the same game as the rest of us, after all, they use machine guns on their mechs.

Well yea I can't argue with that, some of the dev mech builds are just awful.

Shismar, on 24 March 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

No, it wasn't. Please start reading and comprehending what was stated about missile damage and the fix. I have no clue what has incited you to go onto this crusade and ignoring any evidence and statement by the developers. You know, it does make you look really stupid. Sorry.

Learn to read.

He asked a question, he wasn't making a declatory statement.

He asked very plainly "IF AN SRM DID 2.5 DAMAGE PER MISSILE, WOULD THAT BE DOING DAMAGE AS INTENDED?" in that post you just quoted.

So if any one is making themselves look stupid with an off the cuff post berating some one it would be you.

Rhinehardt Ritter, on 24 March 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

Oops. I worded that badly.

What u i meant to say


Is if an srm6 could do 90 dmg to a commando but was doing 15 (assuming thats correct) then mediums were probably eating 30 to 45 when they got hit by one

Shrug. Anyways. This discussion is getting boring

my experience of both using medium mechs and fighting them with srms is that generally only two hit boxes would be effected by an aimed srm blast generally the CT which i was aiming for and the side torso closest the missiles generally the left side torso in my experience. (depending on mech the cicada would take it on all torso components but it has the tightest torso hitboxes of the mediums)

stjobe, on 24 March 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

Oh do come on. That video was just the first one to show that the bug was present in the live game as well.

There's a 35-page thread that's chock-full of corroborating evidence, and incidentally also a couple of dev posts confirming the bug being a real bug and a real problem. I suggest you read it, or at least the OP of it.

There's no conspiracy, players actually discovered and tested (over and over again) a bug, and got the devs attention to get it fixed. The fix isn't in yet, but since other bugs made the game unplayable, the devs reduced missile damage, splash damage, and splash radius.

more exactly the devs actually fixed a bug with splash calculations which exacerbated the problem immensely which is why the hot fix nerf happened.

[Jonathan Paine]

I find SRMs to be close to perfect now. Good damage, low heat and decent amount of ammo per ton. Good work PGI!

[PaintedWolf]

Okay, people need to realize right now that I don't always think people are 100% honest, and I do not think their motivations are 100% pure. People are acting as if this is some shocking revelation and by questioning people's motives or the accuracy/validity of their data based largely on a 46 second video and a bunch of numbers I need to accept on trust I have somehow torn asunder the entire foundation of civil society and induced chaos and anarchy. Sorry if you feel that way, but acting offended because I do not trust you is not going to make me trust you.

Shismar, on 24 March 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

No, it wasn't. Please start reading and comprehending what was stated about missile damage and the fix. I have no clue what has incited you to go onto this crusade and ignoring any evidence and statement by the developers. You know, it does make you look really stupid. Sorry.

Can you answer a simple question? Do you think Splatcats should be doing 90 point Alphas or not?

You see you act as shocked as an old lady I pulled down my pants in front of when I do not 100% trust your statements, but then you refuse to answer a simple yes or no question. I mean what the heck do you expect me to think? "OMG this guy refuses to answer a simple question and gives me a lot of evasive and ambiguous statements, this is a very honest and reasonable person I am dealing with. "

Edited by PaintedWolf, 24 March 2013 - 04:22 PM.

[Khobai]

SRM damage was stupidly out-of-whack and was ruining the game. The only mechs that were evey worth using were the ones with missile hardpoints. The game is so much better now that missiles arn't overpowered.

Sure missiles arnt quite where they need to be... but now we see mechs like the Dragon being competitive again because they arn't outclassed by Centurion-As with three overpowered SRM6s.

[Budor]

Khobai, on 24 March 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

SRM damage was stupidly out-of-whack and was ruining the game. The only mechs that were evey worth using were the ones with missile hardpoints. The game is so much better now that missiles arn't overpowered.

Sure missiles arnt quite where they need to be... but now we see mechs like the Dragon being competitive again because they arn't outclassed by Centurion-As with three overpowered SRM6s.

True dat. Now buff machine guns!

[PaintedWolf]

Khobai, on 24 March 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

SRM damage was stupidly out-of-whack and was ruining the game. The only mechs that were evey worth using were the ones with missile hardpoints. The game is so much better now that missiles arn't overpowered.

Sure missiles arnt quite where they need to be... but now we see mechs like the Dragon being competitive again because they arn't outclassed by Centurion-As with three overpowered SRM6s.

Simple yes or no question, do you think the Splatcat doing 90 damage alphas, doing ONLY 90 damage and not extra, was doing too much damage?

[stjobe]

Sifright, on 24 March 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

Well this is where we have a bit of an argument in my experience complex geomtry is refering to mechs with close in tight hit boxes.

So the spider, Commando, Raven and Cicada being primarily effected.

The larger mechs were basically unaffected by splash damaged until they fixed a bug in how splash damage was calculated which meant every component started taking splash damage.

Atlas, Awesome cataphract catapult stalker in my experience didn't have these problems for the most part.

(The stalker did when shot in the back where the rear torso hit boxes are all very close together, same on the catapult)

"Complex hitboxes" in my understanding is just hitboxes with a lot of angled planes - the more planes, the more complex. The fact that they're close together with other complex hitboxes just compounds the issue. I seem to recollect (but of course cannot find the post stating it) that splash damage itself was doing splash damage, in effect "bouncing" between hitboxes, hitting the same hitbox more than one time.

Either way, you may be right that it's not that complicated but just a matter of how close the hitboxes are - certainly the lighter 'mechs seem to be more affected by the bug.

But in Amaris the Usurper's original test, even the Atlas took about 40% extra damage from SRMs (so probably 10-20% on the live server).

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

data based largely on a 46 second video and a bunch of numbers

Stop misrepresenting the case. There were numerous threads, the main one I've already linked to (and yet another time just above). There were numerous videos, tests on both Training Grounds and on Live, and finally the devs also tested it and said there was indeed a problem and they would fix it.

The fix just isn't in yet, because it isn't done. It was slated for the April 2nd patch.

The broken code is still in the game, it has not been removed.

The hotfix only reduced damage numbers and splash radius so we could play the game somewhat fairly.

This is a temporary state of affairs.

The missile code will be fixed.