63 replies to this topic

[Mister Blastman]

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.

Well what is interesting is the actual damage numbers...

On May 28th...
vs. Catapult
1.5(2*6) * 5 = 90 pts damage

vs. Atlas
1.5(2*6) * 9 = 162 pts damage


On the April 4th test...
vs. Catapult
2.0(2*6) * 8 = 192 pts damage

vs. Atlas
2.0(2*6) * 12 = 288 pts damage

sooooo

The Catapult took 113% more damage to kill it

The Atlas took 77% more damage to kill it

Now, if you consider we had a 25% decrease in SRM spread over the summer PLUS a 33% BUFF in damage per missile... Mathematically speaking it just isn't probable considering if I remember correctly that the torso shrinkage was only around 10 - 20% at most.

It just doesn't compute. Something else strange is going on.

Also, consider this -- the Catapult is the one that took the greatest (percentage-wise) increase in damage and the range I conducted the test at was only 22 meters thus having considerably less chance for spread versus the Atlas at 49 meters.

[Mazzyplz]

this is how SRM tweaking is going every time they change something:

[YueFei]

Maybe the problem is caused by the tiny splash radius, and hitbox changes, combining in a way so as to cause some missiles to detonate on the hitbox but due to small rounding errors in the calculations, some missiles explode *too far away* from the hitbox and their small splash radius doesn't even reach the hitbox, thus causing 0 damage, or vastly reduced damage.

Just a crazy theory.

[Monkeystador]

PGI announced that SRM fix is now on top of the priority list.

[Osis]

Hail,

We should test this online, versus offline. It is very possible with the server side changes that the local client is no longer valid for testing.

After our match this week we should group up and give it a go.

Seyla,

[CeeKay Boques]

MB,

I notice you didn't talk about Artemis. Maybe they gimped the spread/damage to make Artemis more valuable. Rather than making SRMS better, they made them worse, so that if you had Artemis, they'd be better.

Artemis : 100% Missiles hit
No Artemis: 75% missiles hit Something along those lines.

[Mister Blastman]

Well it is with sad tidings that I come to thee; yea I stand in the shadow of defeat but I will not let it defeat me. We must hold our heads high, forum warriors and crusade even stronger!

Quote

Hello Mister Blastman,

The problem you have encountered is a known issue and we hope to have it fixed soon. We thank you for taking the time to submit your report.

This ticket is now considered to be closed, however this does not mean that we consider the issue resolved as bugs are tracked in a separate database. You can reply to this mail if you have pertinent information to add and the ticket will be reopened. Thank you for contacting the MechWarrior® Online™ support.

Vox Potentiae
GameMaster
MechWarrior® Online™

I can't tell if that's either a brush-off or a serious "We have found the problem." It has been a year. Maybe they have?

Technoviking, on 08 April 2014 - 05:31 AM, said:

MB,

I notice you didn't talk about Artemis. Maybe they gimped the spread/damage to make Artemis more valuable. Rather than making SRMS better, they made them worse, so that if you had Artemis, they'd be better.

Artemis : 100% Missiles hit
No Artemis: 75% missiles hit Something along those lines.

Possibly but that wouldn't make sense, gimping an already gimped weapon. Then again... we've all experienced ghost heat...

[Mazzyplz]

Monkeystador, on 07 April 2014 - 10:19 PM, said:

PGI announced that SRM fix is now on top of the priority list.

can i get a link to that please?? thankyou

[Trauglodyte]

Dear User,

We see that you have found a problem. *waves hand* There is no problem. These aren't the droids you're looking for. You can go about your business. Move along.

<insert prison loving here>

[CeeKay Boques]

Mister Blastman, on 08 April 2014 - 07:55 AM, said:

I can't tell if that's either a brush-off or a serious &quot;We have found the problem.&quot; It has been a year. Maybe they have?

Sorry its a brush off.

Quote

technoviking

Mar 31 11:03

Hey guys,

Wanted to run a repeatable bug by you....

I have 3 guys on wired LAN.

If we are playing a match together, and someone dies, then drops to
MechLAB, one of us will often also be forced to return to Mechlab with
him. Its not 100%, but pretty close. Maybe an IP conflict thing?

Something to run up the flagpole, thank you!

Quote

Hello technoviking,

The problem you have encountered is a known issue and we hope to have it fixed soon. We thank you for taking the time to submit your report.

This ticket is now considered to be closed, however this does not mean that we consider the issue resolved as bugs are tracked in a separate database. You can reply to this mail if you have pertinent information to add and the ticket will be reopened. Thank you for contacting the MechWarrior® Online™ support.


Regards,
FullMetalGC
GameMaster
MechWarrior® Online™

[DONTOR]

Hmm seems like some solid information was gathered, Im baffled as to the reason for this. Im also very interested to see if someone has a legit reason for this problem. Curious indeed...

[A Man In A Can]

Best way to truly get to the bottom of a lot of outstanding issues like this is to do 1 v 1 science in private matches when the launch module hits. Then that way you have two people on a server validating the same results, (and more people doing the same).

Cheers.

[Mister Blastman]

Technoviking, on 08 April 2014 - 11:24 AM, said:

Sorry its a brush off.

That's my feeling. I'm tempted to reply with something smartarsed to them.

[A Man In A Can]

Mister Blastman, on 08 April 2014 - 12:45 PM, said:

That's my feeling. I'm tempted to reply with something smartarsed to them.

Don't. Also might I suggest posting your finds in the Patch Feedback area? Usually there is a higher developer response rate in that subsection if there are genuine issues than anywhere else in the forum.

[Void Angel]

Mister Blastman, on 05 April 2014 - 06:39 PM, said:

Now I know some of you are probably rolling your eyes at yet ANOTHER SRM topic. I promise, this one isn't a rant, a whine or anything such. Instead, it is objective and seeks empirical and factual answers. To help begin our short journey into what I'm getting at, I start us off with some interesting figures based on footage I recorded on May 28th, 2013 that I found sitting around growing mold on it and compare it with yesterday.

The things I keep hearing about SRMs indicate that the hit registration issues seem to vary by person - which leads me to guess that there might be something in their connection that's exacerbating the problem. If this is the case, you could be seeing the results of otherwise incidental changes in your connection that are triggering whatever bugs in the code cause hit registration to fail - this would explain the variability on smaller targets especially.

The vast differences in effectiveness reported by different people make it hard to determine the extent of hit registration issues from our end. If it varies somehow by person, we probably can't get enough data even through collaboration on the forums to get an accurate hypothesis.

My personal experience with SRMs is that they are all but useless against lights, and a must-have weapon if I'm planning to brawl at close range against anything bigger than a Medium. I've had other people say everything from "SRMs rock," to claiming that they're utterly useless weapons that should never be used.

[Void Angel]

It also bears mentioning that while the Testing Grounds are mostly accurate, they are still not the live environment - this means that server-side functionality can't be tested (like HSR.) Normally this means that you can't find bugs that exist on the live servers on the Testing Grounds, but it's still possible that the testing grounds is inaccurate in some way - you may need to find a buddy to drop with in order to do some... destructive testing.

Edited by Void Angel, 08 April 2014 - 02:27 PM.

[Void Angel]

Finally, the email you've quoted didn't in fact say that they have found the problem: it says they know it's there, but haven't been able to fix it yet - what more do you want them to say? They're not really responsible to explain to you (or me) personally why they haven't fixed a given issue (although a reasonable conclusion is that other things like general hit registration, UI 2.0, and HSR took precedence.) That sort of thing is handled via announcements and the like. If it's a known issue, they're gonna tell you "Yes, we know about that one. Sorry it happened to you, and we're trying to get it fixed."

Edited by Void Angel, 08 April 2014 - 03:42 PM.

[Mazzyplz]

so there's no quote was too good to be true

[Asakara]

Mazzyplz, on 08 April 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:

can i get a link to that please?? thankyou

Mazzyplz, on 08 April 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

so there's no quote was too good to be true

https://twitter.com/russ_bullock

[Deathlike]

Oh.. .NOW they have listened to the whining. Maybe we should have done more of it LONG AGO.

WhiningForChanges Online - Community Warfare

Let's see what "the actual plan is"....