283 replies to this topic

[TrentTheWanderer]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

This is the thread that the existence of the bug was based on: http://mwomercs.com/...ted-2013-03-15/

In it, a claim is made that PGI verified the bug's existence, this is what PGI said:

Again a small number of Mechs are said to be effected due to complex geometries. Why then is an across the board damage reduction called for over reducing splash effects?

Splash effects can be removed without nerfing overall missile damage. In fact they did reduce the radius of missile splash AND THEN reduced all missile damage by almost 50%. If the problem was with splash damage, it could have been more heavily reduced or removed entirely, why did missile damage have to be reduced completely? That seems to go far beyond the scope of fixing a periodically occurring splash damage bug.

On the one hand claims are being made that this is a "stop gap/temporary measure" and then almost in the same breath claims are being made that missiles are now balanced.

Would it have not made more sense to just remove splash damage?

I have found the problem. Adding basic reading comprehension skills and an understanding of English to your repertoire will avoid you continuing to make a fool out of yourself in public.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Davers, on 24 March 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

Doesn't everyone stalk the Devs and read all their posts?

It is much easier to just complain on the forums and ignore anything that you are too lazy to read.

[Gaan Cathal]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

Splash effects can be removed without nerfing overall missile damage.

....


Would it have not made more sense to just remove splash damage? Again, there is a lot that does not add up with respect to this particular matter, namely that this is over a minor bug effecting some mechs, some times, to the claims that an overall reduction in missile damage has now balanced the game, and made for more skilled game play.

Oh for...read the dev notes if you're going to argue about things like this! They did remove splash damage, and when they did it broke the entire flightpath. The current model has splash damage in it with a reduced radius and damage numbers, while they work out how to remove splash without breaking the flightpath.

Anyone either raging about how missiles are ruined forever, or ecstatic that a weapon they don't like is nerfed into the pit for all eternity are both misinformed at best, if not willfully ignorant.

[MustrumRidcully]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

Would it have not made more sense to just remove splash damage? Again, there is a lot that does not add up with respect to this particular matter, namely that this is over a minor bug effecting some mechs, some times, to the claims that an overall reduction in missile damage has now balanced the game, and made for more skilled game play.

You seemed to ahve missed a detail:
Splash damage removal wasnot possible, because it turned out that missiles usually all hit the center torso. That made them to precise. So they kept slpash damage and nerfed the damage, to get at least a "simulation" of the effect that LRMs are supposed to scatter over the mech's hull.

I think the goal should be to get rid of splash damage and ensure that missiles don't all hit CT. I thought that was already done for Streaks, I am surprised it didn't happen for LRMs.

I'd probably err in the end at putting SRMs and LRMs back to 2 respecitively 1 damage per shot, and adjust rate of fire and ammo/ton if necessary.

[SmoothCriminal]

Anyone else notice that Vassago hasnt posted on this thread since he started it?

Troll king!

[Feral Goose]

Yes missiles were doing to much damage. SRMs are to be 2 points each, and LRMs at 1 point each. If they going to nerf SRMs to 0.75 of their intended function, how about nerfing AC/20 to do only 15 damage and so on with other weapon systems.

I personally would love to see a randomizer in place when it comes to LRM hits. (sorta like rolling for each missile against a difficulty in hitting with TT) All 20 missiles of an LRM20 shouldn't hit each and every time just because you have a "lock", "LOS" and the target is tagged, but the randomized "to hit" percentile should be lower if all of those criteria are met. Obviously high "to hit' percentile if only "locked".

[Feral Goose]

Another observation that needs to be made, is that head shots on the Catapult have increased when hit by missiles. The Cat already has the largest head hitbox to stave off the whiners that the massive "eared" mech that can be CT'ed from the sides is OP. Now that massive head hitbox might as well be any CT, RT, LT, RA, LA, RL, LL, hits against it that does any splash damge

[Davers]

Wyld Goose, on 24 March 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

Yes missiles were doing to much damage. SRMs are to be 2 points each, and LRMs at 1 point each. If they going to nerf SRMs to 0.75 of their intended function, how about nerfing AC/20 to do only 15 damage and so on with other weapon systems.

I personally would love to see a randomizer in place when it comes to LRM hits. (sorta like rolling for each missile against a difficulty in hitting with TT) All 20 missiles of an LRM20 shouldn't hit each and every time just because you have a "lock", "LOS" and the target is tagged, but the randomized "to hit" percentile should be lower if all of those criteria are met. Obviously high "to hit' percentile if only "locked".

You forgot to add in the broken splash damage to your numbers. Missiles are doing approximately the damage the Devs wanted now, and your LRMs are still homing in on the CT of anything you hit,

[Trauglodyte]

With the sheer amount of mechs that carry missiles that ended up doing nothing but cramming in as many SRMs that they could just so they could headbutt their target and press their lone SRM button, we do NOT need the old levels coming back. SRMs are currently fine. LRMs need a slight damage bump and their speed increased. That's it.

[PaintedWolf]

Davers, on 24 March 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

Missiles were doing too much damage. This was confirmed from the Devs that the average damage of an SRM was 12.9. Since all missiles use the same system, LRMs were doing more as well (don't have numbers for that though). They tried just removing splash damage to fix the problem, but then discovered another problem- far too many LRMs were hitting CT than intended. The 'hotfix' was to lower the damage and the splash radius- the bugs are still there (being worked on) which is why they needed these low numbers to try to keep the damage where they feel it should be.

Doesn't everyone stalk the Devs and read all their posts?

Again the reason for the emergency measure/hot fix was because there was a bug effecting splash damage on certain Mechs.

Now the ambiguous claim is being presented that missiles were doing "too much damage".

As I have noted, if the claim is that a 90 point Alpha on the A1 that is one thing, but to claim that its reduction in damage to 54 is merited by the splash bug is a completely different claim. The point still stands: there were better, more logical ways to fix the problem if the issue was just over a bug effecting splash damage on some Mechs. A 40% reduction in all missile damage is not merited by any means, and the fact that the proponents are saying that this "fixed the problem" creates doubt as to whether they really had a problem with the bug, or whether fixing the bug is just pretext to other complaints.

This is then surrounded by other claims concerning player skill, and how this amounts to some kind of victory. How does a patch that goes beyond the aforementioned bug amount to some kind of victory if that was simply the scope of their complaints?

Why are they not agreeing to a very simple and obvious point that the alleged splash damage bug is not fixed by an overall reduction in damage by almost half?

This looks more and more like a bait and switch tactic as the conversation progresses.

[Kdogg788]

Next time I'm on, I will test out missiles with my A1 as I haven't really been using them, but an above poster is right, most players just scream for nerfs for weapons used against them and buffs for their favorites. SRM damage was so high that it became the prime boating weapon to the point that you could core out an atlas with them quicker than dual gauss and that's not right. LRM damage I believe was artificially high more due to their in flight amount of correction than the damage itself. It was hard to avoid LRMs in some cases not cause of the proximity of cover or not, but the fact the they can change course so much on the way to the target.

-k

[PaintedWolf]

Davers, on 24 March 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

You forgot to add in the broken splash damage to your numbers. Missiles are doing approximately the damage the Devs wanted now, and your LRMs are still homing in on the CT of anything you hit,

Okay, are you saying that the Splatpult was supposed to be doing 90 point Alphas or not? I mean pretend the bug did not exist, are you further arguing that a 90 point alpha is over-powered? Because then that would make sense about the problem being fixed by the sweeping change, but that point is not justified by the existence or regular occurrence of the splash damage bug.

Simply put that was not the reason given for the hot fix, and that being the reason changes the nature of the discussion entirely.

Edited by PaintedWolf, 24 March 2013 - 11:50 AM.

[Sifright]

Franchi, on 24 March 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

I pilot SRM catapults nearly exclusively (over a million XP in the A1) I say SRM's ARE FINE.

The same and I disagree, I'm not saying they weren't overpowered a month ago they totally were but the splash bug effected Light mechs far more than assaults. The Commando being a more egregious example of this. Where as medium mechs (except the cicada) and up suffer only very slightly from the splash bug (pre-patch that made splash go full ******)

Right now Srms are an awful choice if you are intentionally aiming at components (the splash doesn't effect the component section you hit intentionally)

with current mechanics srms need to bump up to 1.9-2.1 damage to be fine. (Which is the damage level I wanted them to be nerfed to in the first place)

[Culler]

SRMs are going to be better when splash damage gets put back in. There was no good reason to both remove splash and lower the damage at the same time though, it was just the splash that was OP.

[Trauglodyte]

Culler, on 24 March 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

SRMs are going to be better when splash damage gets put back in. There was no good reason to both remove splash and lower the damage at the same time though, it was just the splash that was OP.

Splash damage is still in. They just reduced the amount of damage done by the missile so that the splash damage didn't compound the problem.

[Davers]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

Again the reason for the emergency measure/hot fix was because there was a bug effecting splash damage on certain Mechs.

Now the ambiguous claim is being presented that missiles were doing "too much damage".

As I have noted, if the claim is that a 90 point Alpha on the A1 that is one thing, but to claim that its reduction in damage to 54 is merited by the splash bug is a completely different claim. The point still stands: there were better, more logical ways to fix the problem if the issue was just over a bug effecting splash damage on some Mechs. A 40% reduction in all missile damage is not merited by any means, and the fact that the proponents are saying that this "fixed the problem" creates doubt as to whether they really had a problem with the bug, or whether fixing the bug is just pretext to other complaints.

This is then surrounded by other claims concerning player skill, and how this amounts to some kind of victory. How does a patch that goes beyond the aforementioned bug amount to some kind of victory if that was simply the scope of their complaints?

Why are they not agreeing to a very simple and obvious point that the alleged splash damage bug is not fixed by an overall reduction in damage by almost half?

This looks more and more like a bait and switch tactic as the conversation progresses.

After multiple Dev/player testing, I would hardly call the claim 'ambiguous'.

The bug is NOT FIXED. The bug is STILL IN GAME. The hotfix allows us to play with the bug. When it is fixed, damage will be returned to normal.

[Sifright]

Davers, on 24 March 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

You forgot to add in the broken splash damage to your numbers. Missiles are doing approximately the damage the Devs wanted now, and your LRMs are still homing in on the CT of anything you hit,

the problem is of course that splash damage being part of the 'normal' damage calculation is terrible.

Srms do a maximum of 1.5 damage to a single component(Per missile) right now. given the lack of state rewind for missiles and the shotgun effect srms just became pretty worthless.

Edited by Sifright, 24 March 2013 - 11:52 AM.

[Feral Goose]

You a-holes won't be happy till everyone is running around in the same mech model with only small lasers, but then the guy that has 6 small lasers will be OP to everyone else using just 5. I made it a goal to always target the enemy SRM Cats with mine, and was victorious well over 80% of the time. So I guess it's not the mech but the pilot that's OP. I guess that will have to be the next thing to be nerf'ed. If your KTD ratio gets to high, your turn ratio and rate of fire will be nerf'ed because your to good compared to the other candy@sses

[Gaan Cathal]

PaintedWolf, on 24 March 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

Again the reason for the emergency measure/hot fix was because there was a bug effecting splash damage on certain Mechs.

Now the ambiguous claim is being presented that missiles were doing "too much damage".

As I have noted, if the claim is that a 90 point Alpha on the A1 that is one thing, but to claim that its reduction in damage to 54 is merited by the splash bug is a completely different claim. The point still stands: there were better, more logical ways to fix the problem if the issue was just over a bug effecting splash damage on some Mechs. A 40% reduction in all missile damage is not merited by any means, and the fact that the proponents are saying that this "fixed the problem" creates doubt as to whether they really had a problem with the bug, or whether fixing the bug is just pretext to other complaints.

This is then surrounded by other claims concerning player skill, and how this amounts to some kind of victory. How does a patch that goes beyond the aforementioned bug amount to some kind of victory if that was simply the scope of their complaints?

Why are they not agreeing to a very simple and obvious point that the alleged splash damage bug is not fixed by an overall reduction in damage by almost half?

This looks more and more like a bait and switch tactic as the conversation progresses.

I'll say it again. You are not doing 54 damage with current alpha. There is still splash damage, raising it to a general hit of 75-90dmg. Again, before you were getting >110 easily even against Atlai, against complex-geometry targets you'd get several hundred.

I don't understand all this about the 'bait and switch'. The people you're talking to aren't PGI devs, they're players. The fact some of them are happy about reduced missile damage has no relationship with why PGI put in their hotfix. Similarly, PGI are not these players and these players do not reflect their opinions. For this to be a bait-and-switch PGI (the implementers) and the anti-missile players (the likers) would have to be the same.

You are not Truman Burbank. There is no conspiracy.

[New Breed]

I need to find something better for my founders atlas. It's a 100 ton mech with 50 ton fire power

medium range missiles would be great now..except we are years away from them (who knew dead fire missiles were so advanced?)