Page 4 of 11
Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?
Posted: 02 Nov 2013, 18:22
by NoQ
In what line you have this issue?
The whole "NOT BURNING" column. I think there's something wrong with damage modifier it takes.
I think 18/14 is better, i can suggest to reduce constant BURN_DAMAGE.
If we set BURN_DAMAGE to 0 and keep the rest as already done in my patch (24/22), would it be enough?
Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?
Posted: 02 Nov 2013, 19:07
by crab_
NoQ wrote:The whole "NOT BURNING" column. I think there's something wrong with damage modifier it takes.
I dont have this issue.
NoQ wrote:If we set BURN_DAMAGE to 0 and keep the rest as already done in my patch (24/22), would it be enough?
Not sure.
But it will be great step if BURN_DAMAGE will be killed.
I had suggested this long time ago, but my suggestion were not heared unfortunately 
Well i think it is enough if set burn_damage to zero, and incendiary damage from 28 to 24.
I want test it
Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?
Posted: 02 Nov 2013, 19:25
by crab_
I would suggest do not afraid of my patch with long list of changes
Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?
Posted: 02 Nov 2013, 19:25
by NoQ
crab_ wrote:NoQ wrote:The whole "NOT BURNING" column. I think there's something wrong with damage modifier it takes.
I dont have this issue.
Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?
Posted: 02 Nov 2013, 19:30
by crab_
NoQ wrote:crab_ wrote:NoQ wrote:The whole "NOT BURNING" column. I think there's something wrong with damage modifier it takes.
I dont have this issue.
2013-11-02-212333_3200x1080_scrot.png
What wrong on this picture?
Damage modifier - propulsion damage modifier.
Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?
Posted: 02 Nov 2013, 19:32
by NoQ
Why is damage modifier different for old and new weapons? Why is not-burning DPS different for old and new weapons?
Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?
Posted: 02 Nov 2013, 19:35
by crab_
NoQ wrote:Why is damage modifier different for old and new weapons? Why is not-burning DPS different for old and new weapons?
Because in your patch you changed damage modifier for flamers from 100% to 80% for half-tracks
NoQ wrote:
[*]Modifiers:
- vs. Halftracks: 100->80.
- vs. Tracks: 90->70.
Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?
Posted: 02 Nov 2013, 19:36
by NoQ
Oh wow. Seriously
Maybe leave this out then?
Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?
Posted: 02 Nov 2013, 19:46
by crab_
NoQ wrote:Oh wow. Seriously
Maybe leave this out then?
Agreed.
Try to play more with DPS calculations.
Here is list of research times
You can see, for example, what damage upgrades and what thermal armor upgrade is ready at time 20:00 and next calculate DPS of inferno to python and you can see impact of your changes.
In excel you have to copy whole line (to be sure formulas not damaged) and then change values of armor, armor upgrades etc.
Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?
Posted: 02 Nov 2013, 19:57
by NoQ
Changelog changelog:
- Further decrease MG health and damage modifiers, make down ROF upgrades smoother.
- Further decrease flamer damage, remove unconditional burn damage, but no longer touch modifiers.
Complete changelog:
Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?
Posted: 02 Nov 2013, 20:00
by crab_
NoQ wrote:
[*]Nerf machineguns. Reduce role of machineguns as meat shields.
Actually machineguns are not meat shileds but they are good damage dealers.
They strong, they 'all-rounder', they cheap
Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?
Posted: 02 Nov 2013, 20:01
by NoQ
they cheap
This. They have huge HP/$.
But we can't make them expensive, it wouldn't make sense.
Also, do you have any statistics on how often they start piercing the armor (over 33% minimum)?
How much would the new 50/40 modifiers affect it?
Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?
Posted: 02 Nov 2013, 20:11
by crab_
NoQ wrote: they cheap
This. They have huge HP/$.
But we can't make them expensive, it wouldn't make sense.
Also, do you have any statistics on how often they start piercing the armor (over 33% minimum)?
How much would the new 50/40 modifiers affect it?
33% minimum is minimum of damage*modifier.
When you nerf modifier you also nerf minimum damage.
As far i remember machineguns are always dealing minumum damage, except early game.
I think changing modifier from 50 to 40 should instantly reduce damage by 20% in any case.
Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?
Posted: 02 Nov 2013, 20:31
by NoQ
33% minimum is minimum of damage*modifier.
When you nerf modifier you also nerf minimum damage.
Yeah, but armor remains the same. So it gets pierced less often.
Ok let's calculate.
HMG: 17 base damage, AG: 19 base damage, TAG: 28 base damage o_O.
Twice as much with 4 damage upgrades. Half as much with 50% modifier. So we can assume base damage is roughly what we have against slow tanks in mg-focused mid-game. Viper and Bug have 10 and 8 base armor respectively, against all other tanks we have HMG firing at 33%. Scorpion has 12 armor, which makes AG fire at 33% against all slow medium body tank. TAG is quite piercy though, but still against an unupgraded panther (something we never see) it shoots at 10/28 damage, which is only slightly above 33%.
So, yeah, right.
Re: Balance 3.1. Is possibly to fix before 3.2?
Posted: 02 Nov 2013, 20:34
by NoQ
Also, my HP changes are significant only in early game. In T2 they're around 10%.