[R#186] T#186-T#197 Patch Discussion

**William Antrim** · 19-04-14, 10:45

It will help them the same as everyone else. It puts everyone on a level playing field.

**Ascension** · 19-04-14, 10:59

Originally Posted by Divide

Don't think that is in scope of the patch, but it is definitely something a large number of players would like to see. The return of a class that used to be fun.

Indeed. It's the only class I've really played. Would be nice to see it return to its former glory, on a level playing field.

**ZoomTHX** · 19-04-14, 16:12

Hello i think everything has been told about what i'm about to say but i just wanna show my feelings about this "patch"
most people will insult / hate me after that but i'm rly anger atm
jump from 1meter instant kill you / 1 dot from ANY fire mobs instant kill you (even full rare pad buff / full fire armor resist / full force/piercing resist) / 30 to 50% dmg nerf on most weapon that make the farm pretty IMPOSSIBLE for most classes because you need 2x more time to kill and any shot from fire mobs kills you.
i know there is people that will say " i farm easy you noob " but i tried with capped tank / spy with ppu and same resuslts ..
what's the point ? nerf dmg in pvp to balance weapons ok but how we farm mobs we used to do now ? if they instant kill us and with the tl 90 dmg of the tl 115 rare weapons ..... imagine how you can lvling with tl 50 weapon with the same nerf ???????
just impossible the rav/cs/creed dmg is just a shame and i don't talk about the healing light dmg.... less than the tl 75 TT epic WITH 60/ freq REALLY ???? if this patch is applied on titan i'll stop the game i'm so sad...
now you can spam insult reply as you like

**aKe`cj** · 19-04-14, 16:32

Originally Posted by ZoomTHX

[snip]

Relax.

Even though this is a Vedeena Patch and those patches used to be "staging" tests for Titan, this time, the balancing changes are not intended to be ported to retail. It confuses me as well, but I am sure there is a reason why this singular aspect of balancing is being tested on Vedeena and not on Sparta and I hope prior to any retail patch a proper staging test will be conducted.

**Trivaldi** · 19-04-14, 16:56

Originally Posted by aKe`cj

I am sure there is a reason why this singular aspect of balancing is being tested on Vedeena and not on Sparta

For clarity on this, these changes are being tested on Vedeena due to changes to the underlying code.

I'll explain this quite broadly as I'm sure a few more people are also wondering!

Sparta always runs at the same patch level as Titan, it has the same underlying logic as Titan. Differences only come about 'in the numbers' used for weapons and other aspects of balance, we can tweak those values server side on Sparta and need not patch your clients. Basically we can tweak stuff with quick server reboots for a much more agile approach.

Keeping the code the same on Titan and Sparta, means there can be no other reason for changes in weapon/item behavior or performance. We believe that is very important when it comes to getting balance right.

Vedeena is used when we actually patch the game. Changes exist in the underlying code and therefore things can be different for a number of reasons. We needed code changes this time around as the ability to switch off frequency's dependence on player skills needed to be added under the hood.

Originally Posted by Alduin

Therefore we now implemented a new option which enables us to turn off this dependency, which we have done.

Plus of course, there's a lot of stuff which isn't balance related in this patch.

Assuming everything else works fine (turrets and what have you), we can apply the code changes to Titan with frequency dependence left on (as it's now an option, not a code change). Then we can separate the changes which produce the new proportial-DPM curve to Sparta only, where we'd have that dependance turned off. Titan gets the fixes, Sparta gets those and the balance changes.

I hope that makes sense and shines a bit of light on why we have two public test environments.

**Kame** · 19-04-14, 17:11

First how about re-instating weapon caps ??

Have you considered it ?

Secondly, if you really think about it, it is a weird concept to have 200% damage on a weapon...

**Dasore** · 19-04-14, 19:53

this threat is getting better every day... more details are a nice thing to know for the com

**Bragi** · 20-04-14, 01:10

Originally Posted by Kame

First how about re-instating weapon caps ??

Have you considered it ?

Secondly, if you really think about it, it is a weird concept to have 200% damage on a weapon...

We would prefer that performance remains open-ended. I am quite aware of the various arguments against it (especially regarding specilisation) but it's felt that 'excess' skilling should be rewarded - we just have to make sure that it's balanced by other factors/choices.

As for 200%, it's just a number. We can always reduce that value yet keep the actual damage the same.

**Drake6k** · 20-04-14, 01:16

Originally Posted by Bragi

As for 200%, it's just a number. We can always reduce that value yet keep the actual damage the same.

Having percents cap at 100% would make a lot more sense. 250% aiming? 120% artifact weapon stats? Wasn't the old freq cap like, 378%?

**jj dynomite** · 20-04-14, 02:19

Originally Posted by Drake6k

Having percents cap at 100% would make a lot more sense. 250% aiming? 120% artifact weapon stats? Wasn't the old freq cap like, 378%?

Agreed!

If the scaling can be the same but the end number be 100% on stats it would give a MUCH clearer view of an end goal for runners. Have the highest attainable natural skill could be 100%. Imps and armour could assist in gaining the 100%, but nothing could go past that.

This would be so good for the game, and yet so simple.

**Kame** · 20-04-14, 04:14

To the DEV team I will say : I think it's obvious that a lot of people would rather have a weapon stat (aiming, damage, shot/min and range) cap re-instated, as well as the same gun clip-size as NC1 and early NC2. It's also easier for new players to deal with stats caps and standard ammo clip-size and burst-size.

Also wouldnt weapon stats cap help A LOT when it comes to scaling DPM/TL ???

100% stats cap for weapon also means there is a cap, and it feels good to have reference points like a cap when building character setups. This is a feature that was removed from the game by 2.2 and no one ever asked for such a change from what I can remember. People were simply asking to balance the PSI class, APU and PPU.

One suggestion is that only rare/epic weapon reward and such should have over 100% stats, and this should be the ONLY bonus rare weapons have. Clip size and burst size whould be standardised for balance's sake. And NOT in stage 5 of the balancing. As soon as you look at weapons those topics should be on the table. Please ask us what WE think should happen with weapon before you do major changes.

If you ask me I dont think that excess skilling should be rewarded, unless were talking about tradeskill. I think you should actually ASK US what we think about excess skilling and weapons stats cap.

**Sevendust** · 20-04-14, 05:56

Originally Posted by Trivaldi

what you're testing with this patch right now; is that the numbers we put in on our end match what come out on yours. That the foundation and corrections to our tools/Neocron's code work as expected and intended. We need to make sure issues in the under lying systems have been fixed (which is where the time has gone) and that issues in our assumptions from the first balance test (what we launched on Sparta) are corrected.

Do you know if they noticed the problem with the high dmg of the speedgat pistols & the pulselaser rifles from my tests I posted?

The only 2 guns (out of pistols & rifles) that didn't match the curve (HIGH dpm) on my tests was the speed gat Pistols & the pulselaser rifles. While I personally believe a rapid fire weapon should have a higher DPM since it requires ALOT more shots to land, it was a bit excessive...& then there's the disruptor/pulselaser rifles, that need another nerf cuz they're still too strong. I believe not ONLY does the disruptor need to be reduced to a 3 shot burst to bring the dmg down into line, but also all pulselaser rifles need a slight dmg nerf. (slightly lower the dmg of the ammo to fix this maybe?)

#1 Example of pulselaser rifles: TL 81 stabber pulselaser rifle, hits 5 shots less/min than the healing yet, a TL 110 wep, yet it hits for 5 dmg more per burst.

#2 Example of disruptor: Plasma rifles have the higher DPM slightly, because they're faster firing weapons. But, at the TL 80 range, the TL 81 pulselaser had a DPM of 4,350 & the TL 82 plasma rifle at 5,044 = Correct curve. Then, at the TL 115 point, TL 115 dissy had a DPM of 7,400 & the TL 114 First Love at 6,669, almost 1,000 less DPM = Incorrect curve.

FURTHERMORE, one main thing we're trying to get away from is having a weapon that hits for a large amount from just 1 click (makes the weapon much easier to use for the amount of damage you get; ie: Becomes the weapon everyone wants a Spy using = Spy class weapon choice still imbalanced) THAT BEING SAID, even if we change the dissy to a 3 shot to lower the DPM into range, let's look at the numbers it should then do. the previous gap between the pulselaser & plasma rifle was about 700 dpm, with the plasma rifle being higher. With the dissy being 1TL higher this time instead of lower, we'll say it'll only be 500 dpm lower than the First Love. FL's DPM was 6,669, so to get 6,169 at 24.75 shots/min, the dissy would then need to be doing 249, instead of 299. Now, the Healing Light did 169 (80 dmg less) & fires at only 5 shots more/min (0.08 secs faster than the dissy). Practically the same fire rate in real-time.

So, from this point of view, even after the dissy burst change, it still either needs a re-work (change in fire rate id suggest. No more easy-mode weapons), or a considerable dmg nerf.

**Torg** · 20-04-14, 09:53

Originally Posted by Bragi

We would prefer that performance remains open-ended. I am quite aware of the various arguments against it (especially regarding specilisation) but it's felt that 'excess' skilling should be rewarded - we just have to make sure that it's balanced by other factors/choices.

As for 200%, it's just a number. We can always reduce that value yet keep the actual damage the same.

Thats a delicate part of the balancing. Yes, in some cases extreme skillpoint specializing should be rewarded, to create a wider variety of sub-classes/professions and playstyles. Which means more fun. While in other cases, especially in low and midrange gamplay (noncapped chars) specializing must not get in the way of secondary skills/professions (like driving, recycling etc), which would reduce playing fun. I believe balancing around this will be difficult, but quite neccessary to keep the game entertaining to its full extent.

Stats and numbers: Sure, when i started playing NC i was also confused by those seemingly chaotic stats values, but later in the game i enjoyed this rather complicated system as a part of the lore and atmosphere. So i strongly oppose simplifying the stats and other values, as it would make the game more dull and less interesting. At the end of the day its the killcount, not the numbers behind it.

**Sevendust** · 20-04-14, 14:21

Originally Posted by Bragi

We would prefer that performance remains open-ended. I am quite aware of the various arguments against it (especially regarding specilisation) but it's felt that 'excess' skilling should be rewarded - we just have to make sure that it's balanced by other factors/choices.

As for 200%, it's just a number. We can always reduce that value yet keep the actual damage the same.

If I hadn't tested the reality of this recently, & the Kami chips were put back into the game, Id accept this. But after I did a test with a cursed soul & did a whopping 14 more dmg in a burst from having 31 more HC (283 total), it's not really even rewarding, for the cursed soul at least. Ive yet to test this with other weapons.

(Testing was done on Titan)

**Bragi** · 21-04-14, 11:46

Well the next stage is looking at the sub-skill to performance relationship. Also, 14 extra damage on top of what total? (Could you also check the change between ~150 HC and ~175 HC?)

P.S. I'm currently going through the damage values on the ammo. I've found numerous problems that have cropped up since I last did them. Going to fix the ones you mentioned while I'm at it.

Thread: [R#186] T#186-T#197 Patch Discussion

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions