283 replies to this topic

[PaintedWolf]

stjobe, on 24 March 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

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.

Okay very simple questions, was the 1.8 damage of an LRM missile, just that 1.8 damage and not any extra, was that too much damage in your opinion? Was the 2.5 damage of an SRM, just that 2.5 and not any extra, too much damage in your opinion?

[Budor]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

Okay very simple questions, was the 1.8 damage of an LRM missile, just that 1.8 damage and not any extra, was that too much damage in your opinion? Was the 2.5 damage of an SRM, just that 2.5 and not any extra, too much damage in your opinion?

How would we know, it was always combined with splash damage.

Edited by Budor, 24 March 2013 - 04:30 PM.

[Davers]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

Okay very simple questions, was the 1.8 damage of an LRM missile, just that 1.8 damage and not any extra, was that too much damage in your opinion? Was the 2.5 damage of an SRM, just that 2.5 and not any extra, too much damage in your opinion?

Budor, on 24 March 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

How would we know, it was always combined with splash damage.

Exactly. We have never seen it. And neither have you PaintedWolf. So how could we answer that question?

[PaintedWolf]

Budor, on 24 March 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

How would we know, it was always combined with splash damage.

Okay, do you see why I find your arguments hard to believe when you can't even answer basic yes and no questions?

Davers, on 24 March 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

Exactly. We have never seen it. And neither have you PaintedWolf. So how could we answer that question?

So basically you can't answer a simple yes or no question.

Look fine, you don't have to answer any questions you don't want to, but don't expect me to believe you are just 100% objective observers just trying to correct a bug.

Edited by PaintedWolf, 24 March 2013 - 04:35 PM.

[stjobe]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

Okay very simple questions, was the 1.8 damage of an LRM missile, just that 1.8 damage and not any extra, was that too much damage in your opinion? Was the 2.5 damage of an SRM, just that 2.5 and not any extra, too much damage in your opinion?

I can't say, there's too much broken about missiles right now to even make a fair call about how much their damage should be.
IF the missile pathing was correct, and
IF the splash damage was removed, and
IF the missile spread was correct,
THEN we might have a reasonable discussion about how much is too much or too little.

To sort-of answer your question though, if splash damage is removed I do believe 0.7/1.5 is too little damage. I don't know whether 1.8/2.5 would be too much in that situation though, since it's a completely new situation.

[PaintedWolf]

stjobe, on 24 March 2013 - 04:35 PM, said:

I can't say, there's too much broken about missiles right now to even make a fair call about how much their damage should be.
IF the missile pathing was correct, and
IF the splash damage was removed, and
IF the missile spread was correct,
THEN we might have a reasonable discussion about how much is too much or too little.

To sort-of answer your question though, if splash damage is removed I do believe 0.7/1.5 is too little damage. I don't know whether 1.8/2.5 would be too much in that situation though, since it's a completely new situation.

You have to add in 3 extra steps to answer a simple yes or no question to which you give a "maybe"? Do you sell used cars for a living?

Edited by PaintedWolf, 24 March 2013 - 04:39 PM.

[Gaan Cathal]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 04:20 PM, said:

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.

Wow. People like you imprisoned Galileo. "Evidence? Evidence?!? This is just numbers! Numbers and logic! And....mathematics!"

The evidence is there, we have been gracious enough to point you to it. If you then choose to fold your arms, shake your head and pout like a scolded little girl, we shall give somewhere in the region of zero (0) *****.

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

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?

This is difficult to answer, since there has never been a point when it has only done 90 damage alpha.

[Mazzyplz]

summarize 10 pages:

SRM are crap now. they're useful in your small or medium mech when running fast.

don't expect them to protect your assault mech, they're a waste of tonnage

[DrSecretStache]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

Okay, do you see why I find your arguments hard to believe when you can't even answer basic yes and no questions?



So basically you can't answer a simple yes or no question.

Look fine, you don't have to answer any questions you don't want to, but don't expect me to believe you are just 100% objective observers just trying to correct a bug.

I'm not quite following what you're arguing. Are you arguing about whether there is a bug or not, or whether or not people are objective about it? Because there is a bug. And it's still there.

And you're asking a loaded question, because there is no objective or subjective data, since missiles have never done the damage you described. Ever. Splash has always meant increased damage.

This whole thread could just be shut down with "there's a bug, they're fixing it, balance may resume at that point and time"

Also, Vassago's troll skills have never ceased to amaze me. That, or he's sleeping through all of this. Or laughing. Or both.

Edited by Zoughtbaj, 24 March 2013 - 04:42 PM.

[PaintedWolf]

Gaan Cathal, on 24 March 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

Wow. People like you imprisoned Galileo. "Evidence? Evidence?!? This is just numbers! Numbers and logic! And....mathematics!"

Geez. Does this person exaggerate? I dunno, maybe.

Gaan Cathal, on 24 March 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

This is difficult to answer, since there has never been a point when it has only done 90 damage alpha.

Why do I suspect any question I ask is going to be difficult for you to answer?

[Gaan Cathal]

Zoughtbaj, on 24 March 2013 - 04:41 PM, said:

This whole thread could just be shut down with "there's a bug, they're fixing it, balance may resume at that point and time"

It should be. But then we'd get new threads about the "Bug-fix-bias-missile-nerf Mafia Conspiracy"

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

Geez. Does this person exaggerate? I dunno, maybe.

It's called exaggeration for effect. Is it exaggerated? Yes? Are you infact, objecting blindly to actual evidence on the stated reason that it is "a bunch of numbers" (as is all mathematical proof for anything)? Yes, you are. You are discarding the evidence not on the basis of objection to the evidence, but on objection to the results of that evidence. Expressly the fact that the evidence does not support your predetermined opinions, and must thus be invalid and dismissed. That is, infact, exactly the kind of thinking that lead to the imprisonment of Galileo as Pope Urban VIII (previously a supporter) was persuaded his arguments were an attack on his own position, leading to an out-of-hand rejection of logical and mathematical proofs.

Plus comparing you to a mildly delusional pope seemed politer than to the inbred and morally bankrupt science-haters that make up a substantial proportion of the population of the US.

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

Why do I suspect any question I ask is going to be difficult for you to answer?

Because you keep asking questions like "When Splatcat did 90 damage, was it balanced?" which is unanswerable, since that state never existed. It's like asking "Did you prefer it when the sky was green?". I don't know, the state you refer to didn't happen.

It is my expectation that, sans splash damage, a 2.5 damage/missile for SRMs will likely be a decent number. They may need some tweaking around this value, but based on other weapons' damage values I think it would be a good baseline to start balancing from once the missile code is fixed.

Until the missile code is fixed, any attempt to balance missiles is wasted time and effort.

Edited by Gaan Cathal, 24 March 2013 - 04:51 PM.

[Davers]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

Okay, do you see why I find your arguments hard to believe when you can't even answer basic yes and no questions?



So basically you can't answer a simple yes or no question.

Look fine, you don't have to answer any questions you don't want to, but don't expect me to believe you are just 100% objective observers just trying to correct a bug.

I'm sorry dude. I don't know what you want us to say. Until we actually see what it is, how can we know?

stjobe, on 24 March 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

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).

This would imply that ALL mechs were somewhat effected. Maybe my Cataphracts wouldn't be 2 shot anymore. Maybe they would. I DON'T KNOW.

[PaintedWolf]

Zoughtbaj, on 24 March 2013 - 04:41 PM, said:

I'm not quite following what you're arguing. Are you arguing about whether there is a bug or not, or whether or not people are objective about it? Because there is a bug. And it's still there.

And you're asking a loaded question, because there is no objective or subjective data, since missiles have never done the damage you described. Ever. Splash has always meant increased damage.

This whole thread could just be shut down with "there's a bug, they're fixing it, balance may resume at that point and time"

Also, Vassago's troll skills have never ceased to amaze me. That, or he's sleeping through all of this. Or laughing. Or both.

I'm willing to bet Vassago could at least answer a simple yes or no question.

[Deathlike]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

Okay very simple questions, was the 1.8 damage of an LRM missile, just that 1.8 damage and not any extra, was that too much damage in your opinion? Was the 2.5 damage of an SRM, just that 2.5 and not any extra, too much damage in your opinion?

It was always 1.8 damage + splash damage for LRMs and 2.5 damage + splash damage for SRMs. It was always additional damage when splash is involved.

With the state of the game before the hotfixes, the answer is "YES, THAT WAS TOO MUCH DAMAGE FOR BOTH LRMS AND SRMS".

Besides, the question was not even a question. Break down the question that people can comprehend before asking it. You're asking a loaded question that isn't even a question.

Edited by Deathlike, 24 March 2013 - 04:47 PM.

[PaintedWolf]

Gaan Cathal, on 24 March 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

It should be. But then we'd get new threads about the "Bug-fix-bias-missile-nerf Mafia Conspiracy"

Why suggest conspiracy when the basic fact that people tend to mess up and lie will suffice? Saying people blunder and lie is hardly an accusation of conspiracy- that is more or less human nature.

Deathlike, on 24 March 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

It was always 1.8 damage + splash damage. It was always additional damage.

With the state of the game before the hotfixes, the answer is "YES TO BOTH LRMS AND SRMS".

Okay I see, so basically my question was too complicated. Even though I specifically said "and no extra damage". So you can't say whether or not it would be too much damage (1.8 LRMs, 2.5 SRMs) if there was no extra damage because there is (in the opinion of people who cannot answer yes or no questions) extra damage.

So if I were to ask you if you jumped off the grand canyon, would you survive yes or no? You would not be able to answer because you never jumped off the grand canyon. Amazing but true.

[stjobe]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

You have to add in 3 extra steps to answer a simple yes or no question to which you give a "maybe"? Do you sell used cars for a living?

No, I program computers for a living, thank you very much.

And that question was a false dilemma, so not really a "simple yes or no question". There has never been a point in this game (or at least not since very early closed beta) where missiles only did their direct damage. 1.8 might be absolutely perfect for direct damage if there was no splash damage - we don't know, because none of us have ever experienced it.

[BR0WN_H0RN3T]

Damage is fine but they did state that this isn't the final version. I think it was sensible and I use missiles of all types. I carry them on every mech I own except the YLW and Spider-D for obvious reasons. So you aren't owning the way u once did. So what? It's an attempt at balance. If they didn't reduce missile dmg they'd have to rework splash dmg and hitboxes - a much harder fix. This is a good start.

Edited by Brown Hornet, 24 March 2013 - 04:51 PM.

[PaintedWolf]

stjobe, on 24 March 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

No, I program computers for a living, thank you very much.

Whoa, everyone step back and bow down.

stjobe, on 24 March 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

And that question was a false dilemma, so not really a "simple yes or no question". There has never been a point in this game (or at least not since very early closed beta) where missiles only did their direct damage. 1.8 might be absolutely perfect for direct damage if there was no splash damage - we don't know, because none of us have ever experienced it.

Okay I will go ahead of you- No. I do not think 1.8 damage for LRMs or 2.5 for SRMs is too much and if you want I can give you the reason.

See, I was able to answer a basic yes or no question. Now can you give a basic yes or no answer to that simple question? I'm not asking you to solve a quadratic equation or defy the law of gravity here. A person with the amazing intellect of yourself who "works on computers" should be able to pull this off.

Brown Hornet, on 24 March 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

Damage is fine but they did state that this isn't the final version. I think it was sensible and I use missiles of all types. I carry them on every mech I own except the YLW and Spider-D for obvious reasons. So you aren't owning the way u once did. So what? It's an attempt at balance. If they didn't reduce missile dmg they'd have to rework splash dmg and hitboxes - a much harder fix. This is a good start.

Could you give a simple yes or no just so we simple peons can understand you? Do you think the 1.8/2.5 with no extra damage, no splash damage, no extra damage at all is too much? Yes or no, thank you.

Edited by PaintedWolf, 24 March 2013 - 04:56 PM.

[Deathlike]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

Okay I see, so basically my question was too complicated. Even though I specifically said "and no extra damage". So you can't say whether or not it would be too much damage (1.8 LRMs, 2.5 SRMs) if there was no extra damage because there is (in the opinion of people who cannot answer yes or no questions) extra damage.

So if I were to ask you if you jumped off the grand canyon, would you survive yes or no? You would not be able to answer because you never jumped off the grand canyon. Amazing but true.

No, it's not complicated. You worded it as such that we'd think you were not a native born English speaker.

My assumption is that what my opinion is if splash damage wasn't there. The answer is, "I don't know". The reason this does not involve a yes or no answer, is because we don't know the parameters.. the details of how this would be done. If a missile hit BOTH the CT and the RT, how much damage do we determine it to be? If we go by the classic "depending on how much the missile is next to the part of the mech's body", then maybe. I don't know. We have no context... nothing to compare to say that's enough or not enough damage. It could be "fine", but it could also be "underpowered" and "overpowered". We are literally assured of no consistency because of the current design.

Basically, if we are not told how this worked previously, how do we know if the #s are good or bad?

[PaintedWolf]

Deathlike, on 24 March 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

No, it's not complicated. You worded it as such that we'd think you were not a native born English speaker.

My assumption is that what my opinion is if splash damage wasn't there. The answer is, "I don't know". The reason this does not involve a yes or no answer, is because we don't know the parameters.. the details of how this would be done. If a missile hit BOTH the CT and the RT, how much damage do we determine it to be? If we go by the classic "depending on how much the missile is next to the part of the mech's body", then maybe. I don't know. We have no context... nothing to compare to say that's enough or not enough damage. It could be "fine", but it could also be "underpowered" and "overpowered". We are literally assured of no consistency because of the current design.

Basically, if we are not told how this worked previously, how do we know if the #s are good or bad?

You know I'm honestly starting to wonder if you are physically incapable of answering a very simple yes or no question.