63 replies to this topic

[YueFei]

This thread is important. Just like that original thread that discovered the broken SRM splash damage bug, and posted proof.

PGI should pay attention to this thread and do their own testing, and fix as needed. You're right in that your experimental results don't make sense, so PGI probably broke something or made a bug...

[Trauglodyte]

That's why I'm saying that they're terrible now. I can blow through all of my ammo in one match and come out with 700 damage and blow through my ammo in a match right after and barely break 200. Extenuating circumstances aside, there are a lot of instances where stuff simply doesn't land or it does and it doesn't register. These days, you're better off with AC5s cause it is the only thing that is guaranteed to do anything.

[Deathlike]

Trauglodyte, on 06 April 2014 - 06:27 PM, said:

That's why I'm saying that they're terrible now. I can blow through all of my ammo in one match and come out with 700 damage and blow through my ammo in a match right after and barely break 200. Extenuating circumstances aside, there are a lot of instances where stuff simply doesn't land or it does and it doesn't register. These days, you're better off with AC5s cause it is the only thing that is guaranteed to do anything.

The Meta said:

You called?

[wanderer]

What's funny is that SRMs are simply the most broken of the bunch.

Ballistic rounds sometimes "overpenetrate" through armor, most notably on arm mounts clipping through torsos.

Have we mentioned the regular quality of Jarhea- I mean PGI programming yet?

[Mister Blastman]

Bump. For something as important as this topic, it needs to be kept active. Keep the ideas coming! I know we can get to the bottom of this. It will make the game better for all of us.

[Rebas Kradd]

Mister Blastman, on 06 April 2014 - 06:16 PM, said:

Yes, they have. Or did you not even bother to read my original post?

I was talking about hit registration, of which the last fix was June 4. Obviously, there were problems with HSR across the board and it was an iterative process. PGI put the SRM portion of that process off until this year and has recently been talking about bugs being addressed.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 07 April 2014 - 12:56 PM.

[Mister Blastman]

Rebas Kradd, on 07 April 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

I was talking about hit registration, of which the last fix was June 4. Obviously, there were problems with HSR across the board and it was an iterative process. PGI put the SRM portion of that process off until this year and has recently been talking about bugs being addressed.

Well the June 4th patch tightened the spread of SRMs (more missiles hitting single location as a result? Should be better?) and put in HSR for unguided missiles, aka SRMs.

Test grounds aren't "online" per-say. They are as far as I know, on your own client, not occupying a server. In other words, HSR should have nothing to do with them.

[Deathlike]

Rebas Kradd, on 07 April 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

I was talking about hit registration, of which the last fix was June 4. Obviously, there were problems with HSR across the board and it was an iterative process. PGI put the SRM portion of that process off until this year and has recently been talking about bugs being addressed.

June 4 is two months away. Anniversary party!

[Trauglodyte]

Mister Blastman, on 07 April 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

Well the June 4th patch tightened the spread of SRMs (more missiles hitting single location as a result? Should be better?) and put in HSR for unguided missiles, aka SRMs.

Test grounds aren't "online" per-say. They are as far as I know, on your own client, not occupying a server. In other words, HSR should have nothing to do with them.

True. But, after having the test server for 18 months-ish, we JUST got efficiencies to translate over. I wouldn't doubt it if there was some jacked up bug happening over there.

[Thorqemada]

SRM were good at some Point last year...even if they would be good by now they still suffer the short range.

[Mister Blastman]

Trauglodyte, on 07 April 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

True. But, after having the test server for 18 months-ish, we JUST got efficiencies to translate over. I wouldn't doubt it if there was some jacked up bug happening over there.

I'm not sure what it could be. I've never noticed damage being "dropped" on the testing grounds. Light mechs explode gloriously on there like they should. They take damage perfectly.

To me, this is an indicator of some serious, obscure bug or problem with a coding algorithm that is obviously in the live game, also.

Thorqemada, on 07 April 2014 - 01:15 PM, said:

SRM were good at some Point last year...even if they would be good by now they still suffer the short range.

They were beyond good. They were brutally effective. Snipers couldn't hope to out-DPS them. Sure, you'd sweat against a good sniper up close (due to the broken nature of how sniping is handled in this) but they were sweating even more.

[Felio]

Someone did some testing with ASRM2 (to always hit the same location) and also determined they were doing less-than-advertised damage. No idea where the thread is now.

[Mister Blastman]

Well I just filed a support ticket on this. Maybe we'll get somewhere by doing that.

[Deathlike]

Mister Blastman, on 07 April 2014 - 04:44 PM, said:

Well I just filed a support ticket on this. Maybe we'll get somewhere by doing that.

The proper response that you should anticipate from support is soon™.

[Mazzyplz]

Mister Blastman, on 07 April 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

I'm not sure what it could be. I've never noticed damage being "dropped" on the testing grounds. Light mechs explode gloriously on there like they should. They take damage perfectly.

To me, this is an indicator of some serious, obscure bug or problem with a coding algorithm that is obviously in the live game, also.



They were beyond good. They were brutally effective. Snipers couldn't hope to out-DPS them. Sure, you'd sweat against a good sniper up close (due to the broken nature of how sniping is handled in this) but they were sweating even more.

wait, so what's wrong about a short range weapon doing better up close than a sniper loadout???

i'm sorry. wut?
is it you who cried nerf way back when?? for this reason? tell me this isn't so

[Mcgral18]

Mazzyplz, on 07 April 2014 - 06:36 PM, said:

wait, so what's wrong about a short range weapon doing better up close than a sniper loadout???

i'm sorry. wut?
is it you who cried nerf way back when?? for this reason? tell me this isn't so

He's saying they were useable against poptarts, and they had something to fear other than poptarts.

He thought it was a good thing.

[Mister Blastman]

Mazzyplz, on 07 April 2014 - 06:36 PM, said:

wait, so what's wrong about a short range weapon doing better up close than a sniper loadout???

i'm sorry. wut?
is it you who cried nerf way back when?? for this reason? tell me this isn't so

What McGral said.

[Sarsaparilla Kid]

Hmm...did you take into account that between your testing recently and the May 2013 testing, PGI had adjusted the hitboxes for both the Catapult and the Atlas, making their CTs smaller overall? I'd have to look back at when those were tweaked, but it seems like it was in the Fall.

[Mcgral18]

Sarsaparilla Kid, on 07 April 2014 - 07:02 PM, said:

Hmm...did you take into account that between your testing recently and the May 2013 testing, PGI had adjusted the hitboxes for both the Catapult and the Atlas, making their CTs smaller overall? I'd have to look back at when those were tweaked, but it seems like it was in the Fall.

That is a valid point, along with the banana hammock for the groin/leg hitboxes.

I say we try some live server testing as well, with various SRM loadouts.

Artemis, lack thereof, chainfired, alpha'd, small and large packs of SRMs.

[Mad Porthos]

Hey Mr Blastman, as you too kind of noted, testing grounds was not online and is not online... further more though, in that time they were not even bothering to UPDATE the testing grounds missile mechanics and such. They were like a CLIENT side only practice area that was using effectively the hit and damage mechanics they had cobbled together in early 2013, despite the fact that patch after patch tweaked the SRMS in the actual live game. So anyone testing in the Testing grounds and looking at that data, expecting they'd see changes as those patches took place, is missing that the patches did not effect the testing grounds AT ALL. There was still splash damage in the testing grounds for months after it had been reduced to the mentioned 5 centimeters in the live game.

It wasn't until they were approaching thier "quasi" Launch when they were going to take away that "BETA" by the name, that they did an update and retread of the testing grounds that reflected the mechanics, speeds of projectiles, splash characteristics and all that stuff that was "current". Even now, it is not clear to me if the testing grounds has to be updated "seperately" from the live server version of the game. When they were working "feverishly" or not at all, depending on who you ask, to get to Launch, things like the testing grounds and movement tutorials languished for the longest time. I'm guessing though that eventually, they updated it so that the live game updates would fully function for testing grounds too, just as modules now work for testing grounds. But this is just a guess... it might be that even now missiles still move at 120m/s in the testing grounds. It could be that for weeks after the AC20 and A10 velocity was reduced, that they were still moving at their old speeds. So, if I was taking a video and comparing effectiveness, then seeing it later, I'd notice a difference too, knowing that my testing grounds video was made after the velocity change, and perhaps suspecting an additional "stealth" change, forgetting that testing grounds often is a separate change/update.

While I do not have exact dates, I too was doing testing in the early summer of 2013 and I know that ... probably about the same time as your vids, it seemed SRMS were still doing 2.5 or 3 actually then... a good volley of them still seemed to splash and really wreck the testing grounds commando in no time. So I'm just saying, may well be this that has caused the percieved discrepancy, not having the same baseline or an accurate reportage of the damages at the time, in that testing venue.

Edited by Mad Porthos, 07 April 2014 - 07:26 PM.