I use Creed and Rav all the time on moving targets without issue.
Maybe we can discuss we can go back to discussing the patchnotes and the testing on this thread like we're supposed to be doing.
Printable View
I use Creed and Rav all the time on moving targets without issue.
Maybe we can discuss we can go back to discussing the patchnotes and the testing on this thread like we're supposed to be doing.
You really think the creed and rav don't bug damage on moving targets? Creed has not been used in OP fighting since its release...I laughed last time I saw someone using a ravager in OP fight...this is important towards the patch because if we do not fix these issues all the damage balancing will be a waste of time that give false data.
I hope you're joking.Quote:
Originally Posted by jj dynomite
It's a known fact that all beam weapons are bugged, and every 4/5 shots doesn't register, meaning it's useless for anything other than PvE.
When did you guys test the bugged beam weapons the last time ?
According to the patchnotes from the last retailpatch this issue has been fixed in R#184-185:
http://forum.neocron-game.com/showth...85-Patch-Notes
Quote:
Reworked state synchronization of weapons, this should fix issues like e.g. a different number of hits registering on the server- and client-side
Next someone is gonna come in and say: Hey i have no problems with the Executioner, i hit every shot every time.. And its not bugged at all.
It's broken as hell.. Doing more damage further away but also missing a lot, and a lot less up close.
In regards to the linear TL curve.. Ok let's see where it takes the game, afterall it's still in the early testing, yes?
And apparently there's no way around it.. So good luck with it :)
Come on.. Do you even play the game?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Steiner
Quote:
Originally Posted by William Antrim
Why make simple when you can do complex huh ?
If you guys think :
1- streamlining weapons
2 - then fixing characteristics
3 - then re-streamlining
Is better than simply :
1 - fixing characteristics
2 - streamlining weapons
See what Im saying ? Bad approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Steiner
Most beam weapons are still broken, especially when used against fast moving target on a fast moving runner (shooter).
It seem standing still for a second as you shoot helps a bit.
This is the reason why no one uses plasma wave, the whole beam laser weapons range, the whole fusion weapons range nor the whole raygun weapons range, in PVP.
This is the stuff want fixed BEFORE we even discuss damage figures or anything.
Bug reports it is then.
I honestly don't get how some people do not understand their approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kame
They are not trying to "streamline" weapons. They are trying to standardize one common element. This is the "foundation" they are talking about. Without standardization there is nothing to begin balancing on... With standardization making changes individually, by group, or type will be less complicated, more precise and much quicker.
I have no idea how the NST has the patience to continually try and help certain people understand. Some people just wont allow themselves to be open to information other than what they believe to be "true."
Stop cluttering up the thread with bullshit and either:
1) Do the specific testing they asked for and provide the results.
2) Move on to a different thread and leave this one alone.
3) Take a break from the forum or game and see how things pan out.
4) None of the above options, but stop creating additional work by cluttering up the test data.
I provided test data, did you ?
I propose solutions, do you ?
I play pvp in NC, do you ?
I understand all too well what they are trying to do and I disagree. Its my legitimate right to voice my opinion here, this is what this forum/thread is for.
Not completely true.. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Tino
When the Creed was released it was (by far) the most used weapon at opfights - it could drop spies in seconds..
And it stayed like that untill a netcode change (or something like that).
After whatever change it was, it and all other beam weapons became useless in PvP.
I actually work during the week. I am on the test server right now. I will be sure to put in my time... surely more than 10minQuote:
Originally Posted by Kame
When I am asked for information or input I gladly express myself constructively. However, I do not try and shove my opinion down anyone's throat.
I have been playing NC PVP and PVE for over 12 years... You? There have been many far more knowledgeable and skilled than you or I during that time my friend.
If you truly understand it then you have little understanding of problem solving. Do you repeatedly fix the same thing over and over or do you provide an all encompassing solution applied to the root cause?
I am simply saying, Stop arguing and causing clutter in the thread. They have a method and are asking for data. obviously they have read your posts and understand your points. you cant ask for more than that...
Back to testing....
& they all have the same opinion. & they have always used the "OP weapon" everytime they've played the game it seems. (Kame, divide, tino, & Strife are all clanmates)Quote:
Originally Posted by Drachenpaladin
That is a personal attack tbh....please remove him from forum!
In my opinion, the foundation of weapons isnt the damage they inflict.
The foundation of the weapons is the concept which was on paper before said weapon even existed.
Things like :
Single shot or AOE.
Direct damage or stack.
Single bullet, or burst.
Reticule relation to shot accuracy.
Runspeed with/without weapon drawn.
Clip size and reload time.
If the weapons do not obey the intended concept for which they were created for, their foundation is ruined.
I.e. No matter how much you tweak the damage/freq on the weapon, is something is wrong with its design it will not be used in-game by much, nor can it be deemed "competitive" or "in line" when compared to the "working as intended weapons".
In some cases, it can even be OP compared to the rest.
Now a couple of years ago, the weapons foundation was ruined by some people running a re-balance project to neocron. The reload fuction was altered, and many weapons clipsize and burst-size were also altered and since then, they have been "broken".
As Tino said, probably better than me :
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tino
I sympathize with the plight of the DEVs and I'm content with their (voluntary) efforts to better the game. reading along I see Sevendust. William and the gang have offered up some great input so far.
With that in mind, what some of what Tino and Kame et al have been saying does make a lot of sense too, about fixing the broken nature of some guns before balancing the damage output, as part of making the platform from where to move forward, one that is solid. These ideas however, are not necessarily mutually exclusive, so let's try not to make this in to two binary schools of thought, because everyone's input is valued here, and the combined input is what will shape the game for the better.
In addition, we're still waiting on a tell all post about the nature of the fixes planned, so this could well have already been in their plans to begin with! At the end of the day, this was always going to be a subject that would draw heated responses, as the changes at hand have the potential to rock the very wastelands we all stand upon. These things are good though, and are a necessary part of the idea generation process, and it shows that people do give a damn
my 2 cents would be to think about the elitist nature of some of your posts though, as it seems to alienate yourselves from the rest of the population, when we should be banding together. whether we PVP or PVE or tradeskill we are still a community that is dependent on one another in game, and in situations like these.
Can you take a look at Grenades? They seem to be very off with range and accuracy. I know we aren't supposed to be testing this, but it's hard to test damage when you have to stand next to the enemy to get the grenade to hit.
Right then.
I won't give away any details, especially since many of them are still in the concept phase and have yet to be estimated, let alone under internal testing, but here's an over-view of the various stages we want to go through as a generalisation (unless Alduin comes along and says it's wrong :p).
Let's bear in mind that nothing will ever be 'finalised'. Everything will remain subject to change and re-evaluation. This is particularly true of latter stages that deal with aiming ease, class roles and things like OP fight balance.
The exact order (especially 5 onwards) may not be precise either. There may be some backward-and-forwarding and potentially if we find ourselves in a dead-end, going back and re-working a previous stage completely.
I'll start with some aims we have been working for:
Viability of as many setups at end-game as possible.
Which weapon a player chooses (above our mentioned TL75) and their offence/defence choices should not impact on their ability to compete.
Increased viability of characters without top-end equipment and increased ability of near-capped players to engage in (end-game) PvP.
The necessity of some items (especially certain implants) excludes too many people, especially the casual player. Top-end players will still have an advantage, but it needs to be small (an example might be between the level 3 implants and the rares/MC5s, and the current necessity of WoC in many areas).
A viable role for each class in both solo/small-scale team PvP and large-scale team PvP (such as OP fighting).
Arguably this is the hardest, most subjective and long-term aim for all the different classes to have a role of some kind in all forms of end-game PvP.
So, to our stages (or at least something resembling them as the whole process is intended to be agile and flexible).
1: Proportional DPM setting.
Here we work out how the weapons relate to each other regarding DPM and TL for a given set of sub-skill values and make sure they are all following it.
These are not fixed values for each weapon, but a base proportion that will scale equally.
2: Sub-skill effects on DPM.
Here we want to make sure that the two directions a player can increase DPM (increasing weapon TL and increasing sub-skills) are of equal value. This may be tricky as we have to get the same TL or sub-skill change to give the same DPM change regardless of the starting/finishing values of both.
3: Implant rework (including power armour).
Here we want to generate the variety of setup choice and ensure the basic viability of each setup.
Each implant is an improvement. Rather than thinking about the final setup as the normal, taking the unmodified base and think about each implant as part of the setup choice.
All the talk I have made about TL vs sub-skill changes/choice relates to this area (which admittedly may have been a bit confusing).
As a very broad generalisation, implants may fall into one of several categories:
Offensive (DPM increase) - Further split into main-skill and sub-skill (a big problem since late NC1/NC2 has been the non-choice resulting from the high level 'do everything' implants, this will aim to bring back some of the choice available in the early days).
Defensive - Those that increase resist and/or armour values.
PvE/Tradeskill/Other - Those that don't directly relate to PvP.
You are then presented with at least three routes to improving a character's performance and/or the ability to choose a weapon you like and build a setup around it in multiple ways.
It might also be where much of an attempt to give near-capped and capped but casual players without access to high level items the ability to remain more competitive by reducing the difference between the level 3 implants and the 'level 4/5' rare/MC5 items.
Power armour (and underwear), aside from the armour values provided, modifies main and sub-skills, so it falls into the 'implant' catagory.
We would also like to explore the sub-skill effects of resists on the actual % damage reduction and health pool.
A discussion of the impact of to what extent speed affects the performance of a setup would be good too (how exactly do you equalise a DPM or defence change with an ath/agl change?).
4 (maybe 3.5): Armour.
Here we set the values for the various armours and as importantly, their requirements.
Stages 1 and 2 are very formal in their mathematical approach.
While 3 and 4 are tied to this in that they must provide a means for viability with that data, they are not so formal and are sorted in a way that is more meaningful and useful to players.
One big problem currently is that the values on armour and implants are currently TL dependent, rather than being what those values need to be for those using them. Eg. there is no armour set for a PE at around Str 64 (which might be reached with a drug or +Str implant to improve their defence value) and if there was, the armour values/type might invariably not be appropriate.
5: Inter-class balancing.
While the above might be all well and good, the actual balance between the classes (the combat ones at least) might not be equal.
Gentanks have a 100 cap combat main skill, the highest health, the highest resists and the highest armour. Monks have a 100 cap main skill like the Gentank and Spy but lower defences than both.
Do we introduce specific class-based DPM and/or defence modifiers? Do we fudge class-specific armour and implant values? Do we introduce class specific tools and abilities?
This would also be where we look at the (currently) under used aspects of each class, such as Psi for the PE and Spy. It could also be an opportunity to look at what could be done with Psi Resist in general.
We would mostly likely seek to harmonise the ease-of-use for the weapons at this stage (or after stage 2).
6: Team level PvP.
Just because the DPM/defence balance of the main combat classes are sorted, does not mean team based PvP will be. Will high-DPM classes dominate for example?
What do we do about the necessity of certain classes in PvP?
Is a mix of classes an ideal for this area? A WoW-like situation where a mix is a necessity only adds a degree of forcing of what class people play, but should a team of 10 Spies be able to compete directly with a team of 3 PEs, 2 PPUs, 3 Gentanks and 2 APUs?
If a class performs correctly at a solo/small-team level but not an OP fight level, how do we get them to be useful there without breaking their small-scale performance?
If you want some clarification, just ask.
edit: damn i should refresh pages before posting forgotten posts. ><
edit 2:
You dont have much space in point 5 if you equalize the damage of all weapontypes based on its TL. :p
btw: is it possible to deactivate drugflashes on the testserver? They interrupt my testings.
This is pretty much everything i'd like to see and a great direction for neocron. Using the TL curve to adjust damage output per gun is a good baseline start but i still feel every weapon in the end will need to be adjusted. If not, everyone will just use highest TL that shoots the fastest and easiest to use. Making every class useful in op wars is something I would love to see, especially APU's. Giving them Antibuffs and fixing what ever is wrong with beam weapons.. (bugged casts, frequency, damage)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bragi
Sorry in advance, because I know we're focusing on the DPM section for now, but I can't help myself, as I find it important given that other areas up for change have come to light.
In terms of the APU/PE ordeal (the most unusable classes), could it be possible/viable to have a set of PE only weapons, like the swat gun/rifle area, that weren't so strenuous on dex, and did reasonable damage, but still less than that of the spy/tanks/APU counterparts, as the true masters of their weaponry, who have sacrificed other elements of their game to be so.
The reason why I say PE only, is because this eliminates the possibility of spies just using a 4 resistor chip set up pwning with low TL weapons, or tanks running around with massive con doing the same. (Well, i'm not sure if that's even a bad thing?) was just thinking in terms of adding this parameter because at the end of the day, it is the PE that needs the boost. could say that the weapons aforementioned required someone that was equally adept in the ways of Int, Dex AND Str to be able to wield the weapons, as a way of making it fit the class role, possibly leading to the creation or alteration of a weap or 2? o0
The reason why i say low dex, is because this will allow the PE to put either psi/str imps in, allowing access to different spells/armor ideas you speak of. Other options could be PE friendly armors/ or increasing the psi abilities, anything that will steer the PE into the direction of being a genuine jack of all trades.
Regarding the APU situation, the last time I really saw them in action was when I last played in 2004/2005 so I'm not too sure how OP or not they were during my AWOL period. Last I played, APUs were all over the place, and were pwning pretty hard and right now, it's very very much the opposite. they definitely need some kind of boostand my thinking is to their damage output. I would say they are weaker than spies, and don't have stealth tools, so this should be compensated by being able to dish out some nice DPS, atleast to the standard to be able to compete with their counter parts. I would even argue that they should be able to out DPS them by a small margin given their fragile nature. I'm sure this could be done by re-configuring the effects of the reticle malus and/or boosting the DMG outputs. Maybe even giving them back their coveted anti-buff, making them real contenders in OP fights (maybe too much so?) possibility of making the anti-buff capability so that only 1 shield drops, like the PPU non-rares? hmm
IMO, using pros and cons, the balance of play in OP fights looks, and in terms of the APU/PE, should look like this
PPUs - fine as they are, the back bone of the OP fight providing much needed TLC.
Gentank - pretty much fine as it is too, Capable of withstanding and dealing high dmg, cannot offer useful OP War services such as hack, no stealth tool, no psi capabilities, therefore fully dependant on PPU, but can also take a fair smack without one (this should include melee tanks too, lol)
Apu - should ; be Very weak, No defensive psi capability , very high DPS, can hack for the team, can possibly anti-buff
Spies- Fairly weak, very evasive, can hack, high DPS, very useful all around, very little or no-psi use, but pretty much fine as it is too
PEs - Should be ; able to take a fair bit more damage than a spy, deal a fair bit less damage than a spy, heal and buff themselves a bit, in a way that should separate themselves from the spy/apu/tank, making them a bit more self-sufficient as the jack of all trades, and does not hack to OP standards (unless gimp)
another idea that could make them a niche asset in the OP fights, and correlates with the re-integration of turrets, is possibly have PE's as the only class that can set turrets? ideas are just falling out of my brain here so just bare with me.
as long as every class has their merit in an OP fight in some way i guess
having PE's and APUs viable again is one the main things i'd like to see on a personal level, and I'm sure most people agree too, so thought I'd pipe up now. Anyway, think I'm now delirious with fatigue. hopefully this is of some help in terms of possible ideas, if not, hopefully the flames to come from my peers will steer us in the right path on this topic.
(PE jet packs ftw :lol:)
I like where you're going but for PE's to be useful again they lower level ppu spells need to be reworked, at their current state they are useless for both spy and pe
Thanks for that post Bragi.
I also agree with where you want to take things. You seem to want to want to put a focus on the pvp aspect and I like this.
However I still recommend you look at the weapons characteristic before you adjust their damages. This is mostly to help get a clear picture of the weapons situation. This is because the weapons characteristic per type of weapons do not make sense right now.
Let me give an example :
All plasma cannons but CS have a 32 shots clip. CS has 40. Im guessing its a remant from old NC1 where not only rare had damage bonus but gameplay bonus like more shots in the clip.
Clip size really is something you should address first before you consider tieing DPM to TL. Else it will simply not be constant.
Now the TL/DPM curve will of course be linear untill you reach CS, because of course reload time impacts on DPM value. So your linear curve will suddently jump at the CS lv because the bigger clips favors more DPS.
It also affects gameplay in such a critical way, having 8 or 10 shots in a clip is major factor in PVP viability. (I have a /52 HC tank on which I pvp. it uses TPC, which has a 32 shots clip. it makes me much less viable than a tank using CS because as I reload he has 2 more shots on me, and more damage).
For some reason I like to think about the idea that "weapon burst" should be "baselined" as well (I used the word streamlined before, poor choice but english isnt my primary language so bear with me plz ?).
Here is a suggestion, but it could very well be organised by weapon type as before (plasma, laser, pulselaser, etc) or by any other classification method. But having a clear pattern here is preferable in my opinion.
Pistol 2 shots burst
Rifle 3 shots burst
Cannon 4 shots burst
Because of clip or burst size, as in TPC (32clip size) vs CS (40 clip size) or Tangent Pulselaser (3 shots burst) vs Disruptor (4 shots burst), the PVP viability is greatly affected until you reach rare weapons capabilities.
Add the damage bonus onto that and this is why low lv PVP is shit.
Then try to appy to right-below rare-lvl-TL weapons, essentially PE gear, adn you have the reason why playing a PE is shit right now.
Having a 32 shot clip on a HC PE and facing a HC tank with more damage and 2 more shots in the clip is way out of balance.
Having a 3shots burst rifle PE using tangent pulselaser vs rifle spy using 4shots burst is as unbalanced.
Not having access to certain weapons because you havnt be grinding enough is no fun at all for a new player. WOC status should be merely cosmetic period, not pvp defining.
After wading through 6-8 pages of serious essay writing i have to add just one small thing which kame mentioned above.
Clip size. It needs to be standardized across the board relevant to what amount of ammo the item consumes per burst. If its a wyatt earp put 20 shots in the clip (FOR EXAMPLE) where as a weapon that shoots 2 shots in one (lasers for example) should have 40 in them. This equals a maximum of 20 shots before a full reload for both weapons.
This would go a long way to establishing a base line IMO. Naturally you can drop the clip size down from 20 to 15 or even 10 and adjust others accordingly but this to me seems to be uniform across all weapons and would help to establish each weapons base damage level which can then be adjusted up/down.
Ps why are people shooting cyclopses. I thought it was pvp testing that was supposed to be done.
kame and doc: since were not looking at damage per shot, but damage over time, it doesnt matter what clip and burst size, single shot damage or reload time any weapon has in the end. because it all adds up. so i think standardizing burst or clip size is unneccessary. what we want is a disruptor thats just slightly stronger than the next lesser gun, but has enough advantage over it to make you think about specializing your toon into max DPM while sacrificing other abilities. and we want MC5 chips or WOC items that are worth acquiring, but are not as indispensable as they are today.
APU
in general better defensives and some variation for the spells. They feel pretty much the same. Right now its more like "shotgun-gameplay", hit & run. Theyre forced to hide behind edges after each shot. For a more aggressive gameplay the apu needs some high frequency spell/s. Combine it with the new changes if you like
-high TL : hard hitting spells - short range
-low TL :high frequency - better defensives
Difficult to balance is that the apu dont need a line of sight to do damage. So you cant set the damage/defensives equal to other classes and especially range cant be raised. Good players will abuse it if no changes are made to the line of sight detection.
Viable and OP weapons is not completely the same..Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevendust
That only a very few weapons have been viable ever since 2.2, is not really something us PvP'ers have been able to do anything about, yet.
Reading the last page or so I can see more questions flying out with a degree of excitement involved from all. I just want to say please understand it is only section one of bragi's plan they are at now. Best to get this part fixed before we dive into some of the specifics that you guys are bringing up. Got to walk before you can run essentially.