Tribes:Ascend Forums

FAQ • Login • Register

Explosive Damage vs. Armored
Author	Message
Elysiume Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:33 pm Posts: 1058	Explosive Damage vs. Armored Explosive damage against tanks, which I tested, is absolutely terrible. I'm not talking about power; I'm talking about consistency and logic. Note that none of these weapons have anything said about their anti-armor capability. Here they are sorted by damage against players: The "bonus" column is the hidden bonus they have before the listed bonus is applied. The bonus is multiplicative, so 100% would be adding 100% for 200%, then 20% for 240%, or a 140% actual. Notice how few of them actually have the correct bonus (i.e., 0%). Here they are listed by their "bonus": This is stupid. There are three options to fix this. edit: Here's a note for the semi-illiterate--read all three options. The last two don't change weapon behavior. Don't make an ignorant response without actually reading the thread. 1. Normalize the damages. This means that all of the weapons would deal the damage in the "20%" column, except for the Grenade Launcher, which would deal 550 damage. This isn't a great option, as it messes with the balance too much. 2. Change the upgrades on the weapons. Every weapon starts out dealing its "Player" column damage to vehicles. Weapons then have their 20% vs. Armored upgrade replaced with whatever value is in the "Actual" column. So the Fusion Mortar will get 140% vs. Armored, and the Heavy Spinfusor will have 68% vs. Armored, etc. 3. Have different weapon classes have different base modifiers. Then, have weapons placed into these categories. The categories I would suggest are: Artillery (+100%): Fusion Mortar, MIRV Heavy Explosive (+40%): Heavy Spinfusor, Heavy Bolt Launcher Medium Explosive (+20%): Spinfusor, Thumper, Bolt Launcher, Spinfusor MKD, Thumper DX Light Explosive (+0%): Light Spinfusor, Stealth Spinfusor, Jackal Note that some weapons were skipped. I would suggest putting the Arx Buster in Medium Explosive (+20%), the Plasma Gun in Light Explosive (+0%), and the Grenade Launcher in Medium Explosive (+20%). Personally, I lean against 1. It doesn't seem like the right path. I think that 2 would be the easiest to do, as well as the most clear. I also think that it would need to be accompanied with a touch of normalizing damages. Personally I think that 3 is the best option. No matter which option is chosen, the Arx Buster and Plasma Gun should not be dealing 4% less damage against armored. The Grenade Launcher should not be dealing 50% more damage against armored. _________________ 100% inheritance is something the game needs. Jetpacks need to behave more like jetpacks, at all speeds. Last edited by Elysiume on Sat May 12, 2012 11:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Sat May 12, 2012 6:01 pm

EvilIguana Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:36 pm Posts: 40	Re: Explosive Damage vs. Armored That 20% modifies the amount of damage the weapon does to an armored object. If you are saying that the amount of damage each weapon does to vehicles or buildings seems arbitrary I'll give you that. However, to measure whether the 20% is being properly applied you need to test each weapon against a tank without the 20% upgrade, then select it and test again. _________________ .
Sat May 12, 2012 6:29 pm

Elysiume Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:33 pm Posts: 1058	Re: Explosive Damage vs. Armored That's not what I'm testing, though. Whether or not the 20% damage is being applied, it's obvious that things are messed up. The behavior makes no sense and is not explained anywhere. _________________ 100% inheritance is something the game needs. Jetpacks need to behave more like jetpacks, at all speeds.
Sat May 12, 2012 6:32 pm

DibbzTheLoner Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:30 am Posts: 1616 Location: Australia Steam Gamer Name: Dibbz	Re: Explosive Damage vs. Armored It's pretty easy to figure out which weapons are anti-armour and which aren't, I honestly don't see the need for a change whatsoever.... it's not confusing and you can easily learn how much damage something is going to do just by experience and common sense. You're proposing quite massive changes to cover over something that really isn't an issue at all. -1 _________________ This signature is green. I like the colour green. Wait, why are you still reading? It should be obvious that this signature is pointless and just here to be green. Stop reading already! You're procrastinating too much!
Sat May 12, 2012 9:33 pm

Elysiume Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:33 pm Posts: 1058	Re: Explosive Damage vs. Armored Really? It's intuitive that guns have bonuses to armor that completely contradict what their upgrades say? That some have penalties against armor? That the Arx Buster has -4%, and the Jackal has the listed +20%? That the Grenade Launcher has a secret mystery +50%? That makes no f* sense. And hey, since you apparently can't read, one of my suggestions explicitly said just listing which weapons have bonuses. You appear to have some difficulty that means you missed #2 which just straight up says what bonuses each weapon has. I f* said I didn't like #1, the only one that actually changes things. You missed the point of the thread entirely. _________________ 100% inheritance is something the game needs. Jetpacks need to behave more like jetpacks, at all speeds.
Sat May 12, 2012 11:42 pm

Eldiran Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:26 pm Posts: 256	Re: Explosive Damage vs. Armored Nicely researched topic. I agree this information should be in the game somewhere (I was always rather mystified as to how my Gravbike could be one-shotted by a Spinfusor... looks like weird bonuses on Brute Spinfusor is the cause).
Sun May 13, 2012 2:15 am

DibbzTheLoner Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:30 am Posts: 1616 Location: Australia Steam Gamer Name: Dibbz	Re: Explosive Damage vs. Armored Elysiume wrote: And hey, since you apparently can't read So I'm not allowed to read #2 and still think it's unnecessary? I'm just disagreeing, no need to be so condescending dude. Way too much functionality put onto a single upgrade.... only serves to invalidate the function of certain items prior to the required upgrade level (this is harmful to lowbies first starting out with new weapons who can't afford to upgrade for a very long time, especially if they are still figuring out which class they want to main, this throws off the anti-armour classes and make the lowbie bracket even less balanced and less like the real game than normal). I'd support adding the information via a passive approach in the description/stats of the item, but not messing around with the upgrades like this; it does more harm than good. _________________ This signature is green. I like the colour green. Wait, why are you still reading? It should be obvious that this signature is pointless and just here to be green. Stop reading already! You're procrastinating too much! Last edited by DibbzTheLoner on Sun May 13, 2012 2:49 am, edited 2 times in total.
Sun May 13, 2012 2:19 am

Frostiken Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 12:42 am Posts: 1045	Re: Explosive Damage vs. Armored Who in the s*** thought a grenade launcher - which is, in everything a grenade launcher has ever been featured in, an anti-personnel weapon - have a higher damage bonus than a weapon that fires what could logically be sticky shaped-charge grenades? GL should be AP. AB should be AA.
Sun May 13, 2012 2:27 am

Worira Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:17 pm Posts: 269	Re: Explosive Damage vs. Armored DibbzTheLoner wrote: Elysiume wrote: And hey, since you apparently can't read So I'm not allowed to read #2 and still think it's unnecessary? I'm just disagreeing, no need to be so condescending dude. Way too much functionality put onto a single upgrade.... only serves to invalidate the function of certain items prior to the required upgrade level (this is harmful to lowbies first starting out with new weapons who can't afford to upgrade for a very long time, especially if they are still figuring out which class they want to main, this throws off the anti-armour classes and make the lowbie bracket even less balanced and less like the real game than normal). I'd support adding the information via a passive approach in the description/stats of the item, but not messing around with the upgrades like this; it does more harm than good. This. You claim #2 and #3 don't change the behaviour of weapons, but they do. # 2 is a huge nerf to most weapons before they're upgraded, and #3 is a nerf to the GL and a buff to the Arx Buster and Plasma Gun, as well as removing versatility from future weapon designs by needlessly constraining the values that can be assigned to weapons.
Sun May 13, 2012 4:24 am

FelixTG Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:11 am Posts: 2245	Re: Explosive Damage vs. Armored AP vs AA and damage vs armored is what I brought up a while back, Everett locked down the thread which can only mean its working as intended. viewtopic.php?f=314&t=61532 Back then they'd just introduced differentiation in grenades that did much more to players than to armored. Yet they never took that the step further and applied it to normal weapons for some reason. The amusing thing like you mentioned with the Arx Buster is that in the past class system the Arx Buster was labeled a high damage anti-armor rating in the class description, but it's one of the worst damage ratings to armored. I'd love to see some consistency and sanity in weapon damages, but I'm not holding my breath. _________________ Youtube -- Beowulf Feedback Thread L.L. wrote: A generation which ignores history has no past - and no future.
Sun May 13, 2012 7:28 am

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Explosive Damage vs. Armored

Author

Message

Elysiume

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:33 pm
Posts: 1058

Explosive Damage vs. Armored

Explosive damage against tanks, which I tested, is absolutely terrible. I'm not talking about power; I'm talking about consistency and logic. Note that none of these weapons have anything said about their anti-armor capability. Here they are sorted by damage against players:

The "bonus" column is the hidden bonus they have before the listed bonus is applied. The bonus is multiplicative, so 100% would be adding 100% for 200%, then 20% for 240%, or a 140% actual. Notice how few of them actually have the correct bonus (i.e., 0%). Here they are listed by their "bonus":

This is stupid. There are three options to fix this.
edit: Here's a note for the semi-illiterate--read all three options. The last two don't change weapon behavior. Don't make an ignorant response without actually reading the thread.
1. Normalize the damages. This means that all of the weapons would deal the damage in the "20%" column, except for the Grenade Launcher, which would deal 550 damage. This isn't a great option, as it messes with the balance too much.

2. Change the upgrades on the weapons. Every weapon starts out dealing its "Player" column damage to vehicles. Weapons then have their 20% vs. Armored upgrade replaced with whatever value is in the "Actual" column. So the Fusion Mortar will get 140% vs. Armored, and the Heavy Spinfusor will have 68% vs. Armored, etc.

3. Have different weapon classes have different base modifiers. Then, have weapons placed into these categories. The categories I would suggest are:
Artillery (+100%): Fusion Mortar, MIRV
Heavy Explosive (+40%): Heavy Spinfusor, Heavy Bolt Launcher
Medium Explosive (+20%): Spinfusor, Thumper, Bolt Launcher, Spinfusor MKD, Thumper DX
Light Explosive (+0%): Light Spinfusor, Stealth Spinfusor, Jackal
Note that some weapons were skipped. I would suggest putting the Arx Buster in Medium Explosive (+20%), the Plasma Gun in Light Explosive (+0%), and the Grenade Launcher in Medium Explosive (+20%).

Personally, I lean against 1. It doesn't seem like the right path. I think that 2 would be the easiest to do, as well as the most clear. I also think that it would need to be accompanied with a touch of normalizing damages. Personally I think that 3 is the best option.

No matter which option is chosen, the Arx Buster and Plasma Gun should not be dealing 4% less damage against armored. The Grenade Launcher should not be dealing 50% more damage against armored.

_________________
100% inheritance is something the game needs.
Jetpacks need to behave more like jetpacks, at all speeds.

Last edited by Elysiume on Sat May 12, 2012 11:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Sat May 12, 2012 6:01 pm

EvilIguana

Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:36 pm
Posts: 40

Re: Explosive Damage vs. Armored

That 20% modifies the amount of damage the weapon does to an armored object. If you are saying that the amount of damage each weapon does to vehicles or buildings seems arbitrary I'll give you that. However, to measure whether the 20% is being properly applied you need to test each weapon against a tank without the 20% upgrade, then select it and test again.

_________________
.

Sat May 12, 2012 6:29 pm

Elysiume

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:33 pm
Posts: 1058

Re: Explosive Damage vs. Armored

That's not what I'm testing, though. Whether or not the 20% damage is being applied, it's obvious that things are messed up. The behavior makes no sense and is not explained anywhere.

_________________
100% inheritance is something the game needs.
Jetpacks need to behave more like jetpacks, at all speeds.

Sat May 12, 2012 6:32 pm

DibbzTheLoner

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:30 am
Posts: 1616
Location: Australia
Steam Gamer Name: Dibbz

Re: Explosive Damage vs. Armored

It's pretty easy to figure out which weapons are anti-armour and which aren't, I honestly don't see the need for a change whatsoever.... it's not confusing and you can easily learn how much damage something is going to do just by experience and common sense.

You're proposing quite massive changes to cover over something that really isn't an issue at all.

-1

_________________
This signature is green. I like the colour green.
Wait, why are you still reading? It should be obvious that this signature is pointless and just here to be green.
Stop reading already! You're procrastinating too much!

Sat May 12, 2012 9:33 pm

Elysiume

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:33 pm
Posts: 1058

Re: Explosive Damage vs. Armored

Really? It's intuitive that guns have bonuses to armor that completely contradict what their upgrades say? That some have penalties against armor? That the Arx Buster has -4%, and the Jackal has the listed +20%? That the Grenade Launcher has a secret mystery +50%? That makes no f*** sense.

And hey, since you apparently can't read, one of my suggestions explicitly said just listing which weapons have bonuses. You appear to have some difficulty that means you missed #2 which just straight up says what bonuses each weapon has. I f*** said I didn't like #1, the only one that actually changes things. You missed the point of the thread entirely.

_________________
100% inheritance is something the game needs.
Jetpacks need to behave more like jetpacks, at all speeds.

Sat May 12, 2012 11:42 pm

Eldiran

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:26 pm
Posts: 256

Re: Explosive Damage vs. Armored

Nicely researched topic. I agree this information should be in the game somewhere (I was always rather mystified as to how my Gravbike could be one-shotted by a Spinfusor... looks like weird bonuses on Brute Spinfusor is the cause).

Sun May 13, 2012 2:15 am

DibbzTheLoner

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:30 am
Posts: 1616
Location: Australia
Steam Gamer Name: Dibbz

Re: Explosive Damage vs. Armored

Elysiume wrote:

And hey, since you apparently can't read

So I'm not allowed to read #2 and still think it's unnecessary? :roll:

I'm just disagreeing, no need to be so condescending dude.

Way too much functionality put onto a single upgrade.... only serves to invalidate the function of certain items prior to the required upgrade level (this is harmful to lowbies first starting out with new weapons who can't afford to upgrade for a very long time, especially if they are still figuring out which class they want to main, this throws off the anti-armour classes and make the lowbie bracket even less balanced and less like the real game than normal).

I'd support adding the information via a passive approach in the description/stats of the item, but not messing around with the upgrades like this; it does more harm than good.

Last edited by DibbzTheLoner on Sun May 13, 2012 2:49 am, edited 2 times in total.

Sun May 13, 2012 2:19 am

Frostiken

Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 12:42 am
Posts: 1045

Re: Explosive Damage vs. Armored

Who in the s*** thought a grenade launcher - which is, in everything a grenade launcher has ever been featured in, an anti-personnel weapon - have a higher damage bonus than a weapon that fires what could logically be sticky shaped-charge grenades?

GL should be AP. AB should be AA.

Sun May 13, 2012 2:27 am

Worira

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:17 pm
Posts: 269

Re: Explosive Damage vs. Armored

DibbzTheLoner wrote:

Elysiume wrote:

And hey, since you apparently can't read

So I'm not allowed to read #2 and still think it's unnecessary? :roll:

I'm just disagreeing, no need to be so condescending dude.

This. You claim #2 and #3 don't change the behaviour of weapons, but they do. #
2 is a huge nerf to most weapons before they're upgraded, and #3 is a nerf to the GL and a buff to the Arx Buster and Plasma Gun, as well as removing versatility from future weapon designs by needlessly constraining the values that can be assigned to weapons.

Sun May 13, 2012 4:24 am

FelixTG

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:11 am
Posts: 2245

Re: Explosive Damage vs. Armored

AP vs AA and damage vs armored is what I brought up a while back, Everett locked down the thread which can only mean its working as intended.

viewtopic.php?f=314&t=61532

Back then they'd just introduced differentiation in grenades that did much more to players than to armored. Yet they never took that the step further and applied it to normal weapons for some reason.

The amusing thing like you mentioned with the Arx Buster is that in the past class system the Arx Buster was labeled a high damage anti-armor rating in the class description, but it's one of the worst damage ratings to armored.

I'd love to see some consistency and sanity in weapon damages, but I'm not holding my breath.

_________________
Youtube -- Beowulf Feedback Thread

L.L. wrote:

A generation which ignores history has no past - and no future.

Sun May 13, 2012 7:28 am

Forum rules

Explosive Damage vs. Armored