|
Post by Replicant on Jul 13, 2017 14:54:10 GMT -5
Efficiency gap between armor and damage
First, I want to take a peek about at the difference between armor and damage in terms of effectiveness, which is a gap that increases even more with this release. One of the pieces of advice you'll frequently see given to new players is that they should keep their weapons 2 levels ahead of their Robots, and that is sound advice because damage out scales armor. This is exemplified by comparing the Leo (one of the Robots with the best armor scaling) with the Thunder. Leo -Level 6 – 155,000 armor Level 12 – 226,000 armor 46% bonus armor going from 6 to 12. Thunder-Level 5 – 8432 damage per shot Level 12 – 16304 damage per shot 93% bonus damage going from 5 to 12. A level 12 Leo with a level 6 Thunder would be easily defeated by a level 6 Leo with a level 12 Thunder. And that doesn’t consider the fact the Leo also has 3 other weapons to level, which skews damage even more! As you progress in the game, Robots take far less time to kill.That difference, between how armor and weapons scale with levels explains a lot about how the game changes as you rise. Consider a creating close range Robot for top tier; you naturally have to compare to it the other top knifers in the game, with a special focus on damage. In the end, just about everything has to be measured against the Death Button Griffin (Orkan/Pinata), because it has such high damage potential it can burst down nearly any Robot in a single cycle. I know I seem to be going against conventional wisdom here, but I don’t agree with the maths regarding Weapons and Bot level increases. Essentially, you’re skewing the stats because you’re taking one weapon in isolation. You should look at the change taking into account all weapon points. I know you say damage will be skewed even more but you make it sound like there’s no time or cost involved in levelling. The fact bots have multiple weapon slots actually makes the impact of levelling a weapon over a bot less significant not more. Looking at your example of a Leo I calculated the maths based on a lvl 6 leo with x3 lvl 6 Pinatas and a lvl 6 Thunder, which seems a fair start. The HP at this point is 155K with a total cycle damage of 84,570 (3*12,750 + 46320). If you level the leo to level 7 you get a 6.45% increase in HP to 165k. If you instead choose to level the Thunder you get a 5.39% increase in overall damage, up to 89,130 (+4,560). The Time to level is roughly the same (30 vs 33), however the Thunder costs .6m more Ag. What’s interesting is, if you face off a Leo with 165k and cycle damage of 84,570 against a Leo with 155k but 89,130 they actually take almost exactly the same time to kill each other, 1.83 vs 1.85 cycles, in favour of the higher level leo, yet only a differencial of 0.99%. In fact if you go to higher levels, so for example take x2 level 8 leos with all level 8 weapons, one player levels the robot to 9 and another the thunder to level 9, the differential is even closer. Even though the cycles required to kill goes down for both 1.73 vs 1.74, the battle is even closer, with only a 0.78% differential (again in favour of the Leo with more HP). Again in this case the Time cost is the same, 50 hours, but the Thunder costs 1m Ag more. (for reference, 176k HP taking 101,820 Damage vs 187k HP taking 107,340 Damage) Now it’s not the same for every bot of course, but it definitely isn’t as clear cut as people suggest. Even a Thunder carnage is better off levelling the bot first (like the Leo the Heavy slot makes up around 50% of the damage). 126k (HP+Sh) taking 92,640 vs 134k taking 97,200. Within 1%. Cost to level the Thunder is more than twice as much though If you look at a lvl 6 RDB Griffin it really favours to level the bot to 7 over a Tulumba, by almost a 3% differential. 117k taking a cycle damage of 38,080 beats 110k with 39,280 every time if they hit together. It takes 5 hours longer to level, but costs you 200ag less. Slightly less relevant given it’s not a knife fighter set up I suppose. The significance here is that a Tulumba only makes up 32.77% of a RDB Griffin’s damage compared to 50% with the other 2, which is why levelling the griffin is more pronounced. But a plasma griffin is almost exactly the same as the RDB at lvl 6 (assuming the magnum fires for the full cycle length of a Taran you get 110k taking 141,344 vs 117k taking 145,344). higher lvl griffin wins. So in short, I think Pix have actually made the level of Bots and Weapons incredibly balanced. It does depend on the Bot and their weapon points of course but I don’t think you can make the argument that levelling a weapon is automatically better. Yes, weapons can be migrated to other bots, but then of course you’re getting speed bonuses with the bots too. Anyway, there’s my thoughts. The flip side of this is that you take damage once, but deal damage as many times as there are bots to take the hits. If you play to your mech's strengths and rock your opponent's scissors, the extra damage you deal from the higher weapon upgrades can make all the difference. Another way to put this is good piloting and use of cover can reduce the need for HP, but not the need for better guns. With the meta going the way it is, this is becoming even more true. If you're not an Ancillot, Getting within LOS of a DB configuration is pretty mortal regardless of how high your bot's leveled.
|
|
|
Post by Russel on Jul 13, 2017 17:34:13 GMT -5
.....So in short, I think Pix have actually made the level of Bots and Weapons incredibly balanced. It does depend on the Bot and their weapon points of course but I don’t think you can make the argument that levelling a weapon is automatically better. Yes, weapons can be migrated to other bots, but then of course you’re getting speed bonuses with the bots too. Anyway, there’s my thoughts. The flip side of this is that you take damage once, but deal damage as many times as there are bots to take the hits. If you play to your mech's strengths and rock your opponent's scissors, the extra damage you deal from the higher weapon upgrades can make all the difference. Another way to put this is good piloting and use of cover can reduce the need for HP, but not the need for better guns. With the meta going the way it is, this is becoming even more true. If you're not an Ancillot, Getting within LOS of a DB configuration is pretty mortal regardless of how high your bot's leveled. ....aaaaand you forgot yet another one VERY important feature. Getting more HP basically gives your enemy more Silver. So that they could upgrade their bots more. While getting more DAMAGE is where you GET more Silver. So YOU can upgrade yours.
|
|
|
Post by MCYL on Jul 13, 2017 18:55:29 GMT -5
Well, I'm not going to argue that because I believe that it is self-evident that both players should have equal control in games, and the AWP doesn't.... And have unalienable rights to not get mech at spawn, capture beacons and the pursuit of eventually a 12/12 hangar. Sorry...been rewatching HBO's John Adams I'll show myself out.
|
|
|
Post by bronzeknee on Jul 14, 2017 1:43:49 GMT -5
Efficiency gap between armor and damage
First, I want to take a peek about at the difference between armor and damage in terms of effectiveness, which is a gap that increases even more with this release. One of the pieces of advice you'll frequently see given to new players is that they should keep their weapons 2 levels ahead of their Robots, and that is sound advice because damage out scales armor. This is exemplified by comparing the Leo (one of the Robots with the best armor scaling) with the Thunder. Leo -Level 6 – 155,000 armor Level 12 – 226,000 armor 46% bonus armor going from 6 to 12. Thunder-Level 5 – 8432 damage per shot Level 12 – 16304 damage per shot 93% bonus damage going from 5 to 12. A level 12 Leo with a level 6 Thunder would be easily defeated by a level 6 Leo with a level 12 Thunder. And that doesn’t consider the fact the Leo also has 3 other weapons to level, which skews damage even more! As you progress in the game, Robots take far less time to kill.That difference, between how armor and weapons scale with levels explains a lot about how the game changes as you rise. Consider a creating close range Robot for top tier; you naturally have to compare to it the other top knifers in the game, with a special focus on damage. In the end, just about everything has to be measured against the Death Button Griffin (Orkan/Pinata), because it has such high damage potential it can burst down nearly any Robot in a single cycle. I know I seem to be going against conventional wisdom here, but I don’t agree with the maths regarding Weapons and Bot level increases. Essentially, you’re skewing the stats because you’re taking one weapon in isolation. You should look at the change taking into account all weapon points. I know you say damage will be skewed even more but you make it sound like there’s no time or cost involved in levelling. The fact bots have multiple weapon slots actually makes the impact of levelling a weapon over a bot less significant not more. Looking at your example of a Leo I calculated the maths based on a lvl 6 leo with x3 lvl 6 Pinatas and a lvl 6 Thunder, which seems a fair start. The HP at this point is 155K with a total cycle damage of 84,570 (3*12,750 + 46320). If you level the leo to level 7 you get a 6.45% increase in HP to 165k. If you instead choose to level the Thunder you get a 5.39% increase in overall damage, up to 89,130 (+4,560). The Time to level is roughly the same (30 vs 33), however the Thunder costs .6m more Ag. What’s interesting is, if you face off a Leo with 165k and cycle damage of 84,570 against a Leo with 155k but 89,130 they actually take almost exactly the same time to kill each other, 1.83 vs 1.85 cycles, in favour of the higher level leo, yet only a differencial of 0.99%. In fact if you go to higher levels, so for example take x2 level 8 leos with all level 8 weapons, one player levels the robot to 9 and another the thunder to level 9, the differential is even closer. Even though the cycles required to kill goes down for both 1.73 vs 1.74, the battle is even closer, with only a 0.78% differential (again in favour of the Leo with more HP). Again in this case the Time cost is the same, 50 hours, but the Thunder costs 1m Ag more. (for reference, 176k HP taking 101,820 Damage vs 187k HP taking 107,340 Damage) Now it’s not the same for every bot of course, but it definitely isn’t as clear cut as people suggest. Even a Thunder carnage is better off levelling the bot first (like the Leo the Heavy slot makes up around 50% of the damage). 126k (HP+Sh) taking 92,640 vs 134k taking 97,200. Within 1%. Cost to level the Thunder is more than twice as much though If you look at a lvl 6 RDB Griffin it really favours to level the bot to 7 over a Tulumba, by almost a 3% differential. 117k taking a cycle damage of 38,080 beats 110k with 39,280 every time if they hit together. It takes 5 hours longer to level, but costs you 200ag less. Slightly less relevant given it’s not a knife fighter set up I suppose. The significance here is that a Tulumba only makes up 32.77% of a RDB Griffin’s damage compared to 50% with the other 2, which is why levelling the griffin is more pronounced. But a plasma griffin is almost exactly the same as the RDB at lvl 6 (assuming the magnum fires for the full cycle length of a Taran you get 110k taking 141,344 vs 117k taking 145,344). higher lvl griffin wins. So in short, I think Pix have actually made the level of Bots and Weapons incredibly balanced. It does depend on the Bot and their weapon points of course but I don’t think you can make the argument that levelling a weapon is automatically better. Yes, weapons can be migrated to other bots, but then of course you’re getting speed bonuses with the bots too. Anyway, there’s my thoughts. Very interesting analysis. My point was to compare a base level Leo versus one that was fully leveled for the purpose of seeing how the game changes as you approach the top tiers. So I do believe we should be considering the leveling independent of the cost. The damage of the Leo nearly doubles at level 12 with all the weapon slots are considered, yet the hitpoints only increase by ~43%. So the leveling process taken as a whole does reduce the numbers interactions (and we know that good pilots want more interactions because they want as many opportunities as possible use their skill and outplay their opponent) because damage outscales armor and extra damage shortens interactions as robots are destroyed faster, even if it is significantly cheaper to level a Robot than weapons.
|
|
|
Post by Russel on Jul 14, 2017 2:10:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HEATHEN HERETIC on Jul 14, 2017 3:12:01 GMT -5
I have been fine in canyon. I choose cover and let red team short and midrange bots come to me. SF when you start in the valley however.... screw that place. Always a pleasure to find a quad Treb/Butch there when you spawn in the channel. Or a pair of Treb/Furys or Nats. Or all three. Pretty much as bad as finding them on Yama.?
|
|
|
Post by MCYL on Jul 14, 2017 3:30:27 GMT -5
I've got other concerns for weapons balance. If you look measure up burst DPS of the latest gainers they are too close to other weapons with lesser or no buffs despite an advantage in range.
Here's a few examples for perspective:
The burst DPS of a single orkan will be 8328 DPS. This is 98% of a thunder (which did not see a gain) at point blank range yet an orkan can easily deal this damage @200m and 250-300m with a bit of practice. Vs the Thunder it does have shortfalls. E.g The high rate of damage can be maintained for 4s with Orkans yet accounting for reload whilst firing a thunder can fire at max ROF for around 7s. So for the first 4 seconds, a medium bot (Fujin) can deal the equivalent damage of a triple thunder fury at point blank range at up to 300m with the speed advantages and ancille protection.
-more to follow
|
|
|
Post by Russel on Jul 14, 2017 6:05:56 GMT -5
I've got other concerns for weapons balance. If you look measure up burst DPS of the latest gainers they are too close to other weapons with lesser or no buffs despite an advantage in range. Here's a few examples for perspective: The burst DPS of a single orkan will be 8328 DPS. This is 98% of a thunder (which did not see a gain) at point blank range yet an orkan can easily deal this damage @200m and 250-300m with a bit of practice. Vs the Thunder it does have shortfalls. E.g The high rate of damage can be maintained for 4s with Orkans yet accounting for reload whilst firing a thunder can fire at max ROF for around 7s. So for the first 4 seconds, a medium bot (Fujin) can deal the equivalent damage of a triple thunder fury at point blank range at up to 300m with the speed advantages and ancille protection. -more to follow Thunder vs Orkan:
Thunder could provide consistent fire for about 9 seconds - you can check the numbers war-robots-forum.freeforums.net/thread/9726/burst-cycle-damage-dpsOrkan is more like 5 seconds burst. So if you are not as good with aim - Thunder is your friend.
Orkan is 「dookie」 when clip is empty. Thunder is still at 50% effiiciency
Thunder is great against Ancile, Orkan no so good
Orkan is great against shielded bots, Thunder is not so good. And most importantly, you can't replace Thunder with Orkan, it's different slots :-D So I don't see where are you heading with this comparison.
|
|
HeWhoEatsBabies
Recruit
Posts: 9
Karma: 8
Platform: Android
Favorite robot: Gareth
|
Post by HeWhoEatsBabies on Jul 14, 2017 9:49:20 GMT -5
Weapons: with common misconception being that you need same number of shots from weapon of the same level to bring the bot down all the way, be it lvl1 bot and lvl1 weapon or lvl12 bot and lvl12 weapon; That is incorrect. Weapon damage increases faster than the bot's HP, so it's better to be in a lvl10 bot with lvl12 weapons than vice versa. You're gonna hate me, but again I disagree with this post. The post makes argument that 10/12/12 leo will destroy a 12/10/10 leo, which is obvious but is a just not a fair comparison. To level a 10/10 Leo (say pinatas and a Thunder) to have all level 12 weapons requires 105m Ag and will take 494 hours, giving a damage increase of 20.9%. However, if you have 100m odd silver to spend you're not going to level your Leo to 12 and just keep your weapons at lvl 10 are you, you'll keep leveling your weapons too till it's gone. So here's my scenario: 2 players with 10/10 leos, one wants to get to lvl 12 weapons ASAP and the other a lvl 12 Robot first. The first spends 105m silver and 494 hours to achieve his goal, spreading his leveling evenly, starting with a Thunder. The second levels his Leo to up first then his weapons, achieving a lvl 12 Leo, x3 lvl 11 Pinatas and a lvl 12 Thunder. This costs 106m silver and takes 495 hours. So almost exactly the same. Now this is a proper comparison. In 495 hours and 106m Silver you can have a 10/12/12 Leo or a 12/11/12 Leo. The first leo has 199k HP and does 148,840 damage in a cycle, the second has 226k HP and does 142,720. It takes the Leo with the full weapon leveling build 1.52 cycles to kill the other, whereas the lvl 12 Leo takes only 1.39 cycles to kill his opponent. OK, skill and ranged setups will skew this, and I'm sure everyone believes they can deal more damage than they'll take. But I just want to point out that the assertion that it is always better is just not right. Weapon damage does not increase faster than HP because you need to take that damage increase as a percentage of all the weapon slots. So it's not a 10% increase, it's 10% of that one weapon slot. So level a thunder up on a Leo with equal level weapons and you're increasing your damage 5.39%. With a RDB Griffin it's even less, a Tulumba level only increases overall damage by 3.15%. However this is presumably because as a midrange set up health is less important so glass canon is more acceptable, and therefore a smaller damage:hp ratio increase is also acceptable. But i guess i'm arguing knife fighters here. Anyway, there it is
|
|
|
Post by MCYL on Jul 14, 2017 10:16:23 GMT -5
I've got other concerns for weapons balance. If you look measure up burst DPS of the latest gainers they are too close to other weapons with lesser or no buffs despite an advantage in range. Here's a few examples for perspective: The burst DPS of a single orkan will be 8328 DPS. This is 98% of a thunder (which did not see a gain) at point blank range yet an orkan can easily deal this damage @200m and 250-300m with a bit of practice. Vs the Thunder it does have shortfalls. E.g The high rate of damage can be maintained for 4s with Orkans yet accounting for reload whilst firing a thunder can fire at max ROF for around 7s. So for the first 4 seconds, a medium bot (Fujin) can deal the equivalent damage of a triple thunder fury at point blank range at up to 300m with the speed advantages and ancille protection. -more to follow Thunder vs Orkan:
Thunder could provide consistent fire for about 9 seconds - you can check the numbers war-robots-forum.freeforums.net/thread/9726/burst-cycle-damage-dpsOrkan is more like 5 seconds burst. So if you are not as good with aim - Thunder is your friend.
Orkan is ?poo-poo? when clip is empty. Thunder is still at 50% effiiciency
Thunder is great against Ancile, Orkan no so good
Orkan is great against shielded bots, Thunder is not so good. And most importantly, you can't replace Thunder with Orkan, it's different slots :-D So I don't see where are you heading with this comparison. Ah ok. I'll keep it simple. For 5s an orkan is now 98% the power of a thunder. Besides using unsuitable bots like a Natasha or fury, the main platform for 2 or more thunders is the Carnage. It maintains that power all the way up to about 250m. Now the a Fujin can carry the equivalent of 3 thunders, walk a whole lot faster than say a Fury AND have the strongest ancille in the game. Soon we'll be dealing with the Haechi with a potential of 3 orkans, faster walking speed than a Carnage, faster shield recharge than a Carnage, more health than a Carnage and close to 50% higher DPS with more flexible range than 2 thunders. A Bulgasari will have a physical shield, >Griffin HP, speed of a med bot. Oh and they can dash into a ancille. In a nutshell the Orkans hit a little too hard now and hence upsets the balance in bot choice. Reduces a high risk, high reward weapon (and bots that employ them) unviable.
|
|
|
Post by Russel on Jul 14, 2017 10:52:42 GMT -5
Weapons: with common misconception being that you need same number of shots from weapon of the same level to bring the bot down all the way, be it lvl1 bot and lvl1 weapon or lvl12 bot and lvl12 weapon; That is incorrect. Weapon damage increases faster than the bot's HP, so it's better to be in a lvl10 bot with lvl12 weapons than vice versa. You're gonna hate me, but again I disagree with this post. The post makes argument that 10/12/12 leo will destroy a 12/10/10 leo, which is obvious but is a just not a fair comparison. To level a 10/10 Leo (say pinatas and a Thunder) to have all level 12 weapons requires 105m Ag and will take 494 hours, giving a damage increase of 20.9%. However, if you have 100m odd silver to spend you're not going to level your Leo to 12 and just keep your weapons at lvl 10 are you, you'll keep leveling your weapons too till it's gone. Now this is a proper comparison. In 495 hours and 106m Silver you can have a 10/12/12 Leo or a 12/11/12 Leo. The first leo has 199k HP and does 148,840 damage in a cycle, the second has 226k HP and does 142,720. It takes the Leo with the full weapon leveling build 1.52 cycles to kill the other, whereas the lvl 12 Leo takes only 1.39 cycles to kill his opponent. 1) I am not going to hate you, why? I ceased hating people back in school years. 2) Don't see how what are you saying is relevant at all. I am talking about damage \ hitpoints ratio, you are talking about how expensive is what. 3) Again, if you read my post - I compare two Schutzes, that's a proper comparison. 1 weapon, 1 bot. There is no sense comparing something else, because gameplay is much much much more complicated than that.
|
|
|
Post by Russel on Jul 14, 2017 10:54:12 GMT -5
Thunder vs Orkan:
Thunder could provide consistent fire for about 9 seconds - you can check the numbers war-robots-forum.freeforums.net/thread/9726/burst-cycle-damage-dpsOrkan is more like 5 seconds burst. So if you are not as good with aim - Thunder is your friend.
Orkan is ?poo-poo? when clip is empty. Thunder is still at 50% effiiciency
Thunder is great against Ancile, Orkan no so good
Orkan is great against shielded bots, Thunder is not so good. And most importantly, you can't replace Thunder with Orkan, it's different slots :-D So I don't see where are you heading with this comparison. Ah ok. I'll keep it simple. For 5s an orkan is now 98% the power of a thunder. Besides using unsuitable bots like a Natasha or fury, the main platform for 2 or more thunders is the Carnage. It maintains that power all the way up to about 250m. Now the a Fujin can carry the equivalent of 3 thunders, walk a whole lot faster than say a Fury AND have the strongest ancille in the game. Soon we'll be dealing with the Haechi with a potential of 3 orkans, faster walking speed than a Carnage, faster shield recharge than a Carnage, more health than a Carnage and close to 50% higher DPS with more flexible range than 2 thunders. A Bulgasari will have a physical shield, >Griffin HP, speed of a med bot. Oh and they can dash into a ancille. In a nutshell the Orkans hit a little too hard now and hence upsets the balance in bot choice. Reduces a high risk, high reward weapon (and bots that employ them) unviable. Okay, if I get you right you are saying that Dash would be the death of it all? Yeah, I agree. That's why longrange\homing weapons were upgraded, too. Too pity Zeus was not, because you need to hit them from far away, in close range no way you can deal with any of Samsung bots.
|
|
|
Post by adrenachrome on Jul 14, 2017 20:35:58 GMT -5
Patch 2.9.2 offers damage buffs to a significant amount of weapons in the game. Though I do agree that Pins and Tulumbas were too strong, damage buffs across the board is a huge mistake. Pixonic has noted that the top tiers of the ladder aren’t as "fun" due to a lack of diversity and I’m going to use that as a springboard to explain why more damage makes the game objectively worse, why top tier has been suffering so much because of this, and how this patch will make things worse for players of every skill level. Why isn’t top tier fun?
Top tier isn’t fun in the eyes of Pixonic and many members of the community because of the lack of diversity. I’ll let Pixonic explain: “In lower leagues the picture happens to be much broader, but not because people there don’t yet have an access to higher tier robots — not necessarily. People there are much more keen to experiment. If we go higher, min-maxing aspect slowly but surely takes over. Which is alright, because, you know, why would you go for a suboptimal build when your goal is to be the best among the best?
The reason for that? There aren’t many variables to play around with. You take Galahad and Lancelot for supreme protection. You pick Griffin if you want a jail free card with its ability to quickly jump into safety. You pick Fury (or Butch, if you prefer) for long range sniping. And that’s pretty much it."
"If you want to climb leagues it’s better to play the most powerful robot builds instead of those you consider most fun. And that kind of sucks, we agree.”Let’s examine that min-maxing aspect a bit more and why we can’t run certain robots and weapons with success at the top. Efficiency gap between armor and damage
First, I want to take a peek about at the difference between armor and damage in terms of effectiveness, which is a gap that increases even more with this release. One of the pieces of advice you'll frequently see given to new players is that they should keep their weapons 2 levels ahead of their Robots, and that is sound advice because damage out scales armor. This is exemplified by comparing the Leo (one of the Robots with the best armor scaling) with the Thunder. Leo -Level 6 – 155,000 armor Level 12 – 226,000 armor 46% bonus armor going from 6 to 12. Thunder-Level 5 – 8432 damage per shot Level 12 – 16304 damage per shot 93% bonus damage going from 5 to 12. A level 12 Leo with a level 6 Thunder would be easily defeated by a level 6 Leo with a level 12 Thunder. And that doesn’t consider the fact the Leo also has 3 other weapons to level, which skews damage even more! As you progress in the game, Robots take far less time to kill.That difference, between how armor and weapons scale with levels explains a lot about how the game changes as you rise. Consider a creating close range Robot for top tier; you naturally have to compare to it the other top knifers in the game, with a special focus on damage. In the end, just about everything has to be measured against the Death Button Griffin (Orkan/Pinata), because it has such high damage potential it can burst down nearly any Robot in a single cycle. Thus, the only knifers that are viable at the top then either are so tanky they can withstand the barrage of rockets (Ancilot), or can dodge the rockets via mobility (other Griffins with Jump, Galahads and Gareth being able to outrun rocket). That is why the meta is so limited at the top. If your opponent can burst you down in a single cycle, then your Robot either needs to also have that potential, or have the potential to survive it. And the high armor Robots (Leo, Boa, Raijin) have neither without greatly sacrificing damage. Raising weapon damage makes Robots with high armor even worse, further damaging the viability of builds that were already weak. At lower levels a Death Button Griffin often can’t burst down an opponent in a single cycle, and thus the meta opens up, because many Robots can survive the cycle and then have the opportunity to deal return damage. But there is something even more insidious about high damage, it contracts the length of battles. Contracting time decreases the quality of play
A good pilot wants the battle to last as long as possible, because the longer he is in the fight, the more decisions he can make that positively affect the outcome of the battle and the more time he has to allow his skill to show. This is why we say inferior fighters have a punchers chance against a superior fighter in MMA and boxing. If you rush your opponent and get lucky with a punch, you might beat someone a lot more skilled. But if the match goes for a long period of time, the better fighter have more time to utilize their superior skills, and the lesser fighter is going to be worn down. High burst damage can contract the time players have to make decision, which limits the number of decision that can be made, and in turn that reduces the amount of skill they can show. And thus counter play opportunities are greatly reduced. This is illustrated well in this quote regarding game design from a French game designer: “Think about driving a car. What happens at 30 km/h? You're in control. Now increase to 50? Still fully doable, but your margin of error does decrease. Now increase to 70, 100, 150, 300, 500—at some point the accident can no longer be avoided and even the best drivers enter the realm of the “unforgivable”. The simple fact that you maintain your driving activity makes the crash inevitable. You lose control and you make mistakes by force. This mechanism is “the contraction of time”. Blitz chess is another dazzling example of that: pressured by time, world-caliber players start making absolutely grotesque, newbie-like blunders. Contracting time decreases the quality of play, even if the competition can somewhat stand for a while (though increasingly turned inwards, towards oneself). Should you proceed for too long in that direction, skill itself would start to disappear, replaced with the functional equivalent of luck.”
Think also about the interaction of a sniper who can kill someone in one shot in a FPS. Unless you have unlimited access to cover (in which case the sniper is 100% not viable) the sniper will have a chance to pick you off. While utilizing cover well is a skill you can use to mitigate their chances of hitting you, a good sniper will still hit people. In the end that means the interaction is essentially one sided, the skill of the sniper decides whether you live or die in an instant, even if you play perfectly. That is why the AWP dominates Counterstrike, because good players know if they play well, there is nothing their opponent can do against their well-placed shots that kill in an instant. It is a terrible interaction because one player is completely at the mercy of the other, and research has shown that that feeling leads to player frustration. We all want to feel like we have a chance to play our way out of situation if we play our best. Perhaps a great example of this is remembering the first few War Robot games you played. Everyone was piloting a Destrier that does very little damage. Good pilots aim well, utilize cover when reloading and circle strafe their opponents to avoid damage. There are so many opportunities to show skill, so many opportunities for counter play, and for comebacks, because the weapons don’t deal critical damage. There is time to make a mistake and recover.
The interaction allows for so much more skill than when a Death Button Griffin comes flying in over your head and the rockets come crashing down. There isn’t time to recover from a mistake in that situation. And that is partly why people prefer the lower tiers. Burst damage doesn’t just ruin many fun Robot builds, it contracts time, reduces skill, and leads to player frustration. That is why the top tier isn't "fun." Every time Pixonic increases damage, they risk bleeding some skill out from the game. I’d like to see them revert these changes and balance the Pin and Tulumbas in other ways, there is more than enough damage in the game. Probably the best forum post I have ever read on any forum ever.
|
|
|
Post by xXrobotrippinXx on Jul 14, 2017 22:29:23 GMT -5
Great post. I've only. Been playing now for about 3 months but have been going at it hardcore. I've been in gold for a while now and kind of bouncing between gold I & II and I totally agree. I was having a lot more fun when I was in silver and there was so much more diversity. I'm all for longer, strategic, skilled matches.
I can't help but think there is s relatively simple solution to this all. Like if it were cheaper to upgrade the bots and more expensive to upgrade the weapons or if the weapons took twice as long. Or if the bots could be upgraded to level 15 and weapons stayed at 12..
I feel like, In all reality, the game could use more diversity in general. I'd like to see some more bots that could hang in the higher leagues - if they added about 6 more (2 for silver, 2 for WSP & 2 for gold). Then add another kind of shield or 2 and a few new weapons - that will also be used in higher leagues.
I do like the idea of support bots too. Maybe 1 new bot that's an engineer and another new one that buffs. I mean I know it would be hard to fix/heal a bot that gets hit by a DB cause as mentioned it's pretty much done for after 1 round of missles but maybe if an engineer bot could get to it in a certain amount of time after it's killed he can revive it. I don't know. It would definitely add another level of skill to the game as well as some diversity.
Also, I don't understand why level 12 is as high as it goes anyway.. or why personal levels don't go above 30.
|
|
|
Post by HEATHEN HERETIC on Jul 15, 2017 0:17:53 GMT -5
As things are going support bots and light bots will be all but useless in future renditions of the game. No use for strategic weaponry when all you can really use is close range bare knuckle toys because most of your maps are small to too small in comparison to your bots' movement capabilities and weapons ranges and damage capabilities. Beacon rush might delay the death of fast light bots in upper tier usage for a little while, but it won't stop the inevitable because the Rogatkas can do the job of any light bots in that mode and carry enough weight of arms to blow any light bot that dares to show itself away.
When I first started playing the game I thought how awesome it was going to be when I got up into the higher upgrades. I was thinking tactical and strategic combat would be awesome when I finally got that high up. Because when you first start playing the damage isn't disproportionate as to weapons and bots. Even with just one bot you can manage to last an entire match if you're just a little careful and apply good sense. And your bots are small enough and slow enough to make even a small map appear quite adequate for tactical and strategic movements.
That all disappears rather quickly after player level 6. I know, I've done it eight times now. At that point you start getting put in with players having bots and weapons you aren't even allowed to buy yet. And by player level 10 you're starting to see the really mean stuff, Stalkers, Carnages, Gareths, Galahads and the proportionate weaponry. You begin to realize it was far more fun at player levels 1-5 when nearly everyone had the same capabilities as yourself and vice versa and it was actually more intuition and skill than equipment and upgrades that were determining the outcomes of the matches.
I'm just kind of disillusioned by Pixonic's course in developing the game. There is no longer a strategic element left in the game. There's no room on the small maps for it. The large maps do not provide enough cover for it. And the fact that you can see exactly where every enemy player is, even when "cloaked", means that there is no real tactical surprise factor unless you're just oblivious to your surroundings. I keep hearing they are going to "fix" this or that but I never see any evidence of it. In fact all I keep seeing is Pixonic ignoring the matchmaking algorithm problem that they have acknowledged cause lopsided matching, and because of their ranking system no less. And the "fixes" they do make just keep exasperating others.
And because of the ranking system it stresses players out so that they are not enjoying the game anymore. People obsess over those ridiculous ranks. They b*tch and wail because other players are "costing our team the match" and causing them personally to lose those stupid league points and drop in rank. Leagues are for groups of teams. I ain't no team. You ain't no team. So why use this moronic league system? Why aren't we being ranked statistically by our achievements and individual abilities? If we were ranked statistically you might not like the loss of a match but only your personal performance would matter in your ranking. Thereby who gives a cr*p what the other players on your team did or did not do in the match? Their mess won't be affecting your ranking.
Changing the matchmaking algorithm out for a hanger based matching formula and ranking us statistically as individuals instead of as some kind of "teams" would fix 98% of this game's problems. The other 2% would be bringing back a strategic element to the game(1%) and just adding more straight up robots and weapons and size balanced maps(1%).
|
|
|
Post by imnobody on Jul 15, 2017 0:44:57 GMT -5
As things are going support bots and light bots will be all but useless in future renditions of the game. No use for strategic weaponry when all you can really use is close range bare knuckle toys because most of your maps are small to too small in comparison to your bots' movement capabilities and weapons ranges and damage capabilities. Beacon rush might delay the death of fast light bots in upper tier usage for a little while, but it won't stop the inevitable because the Rogatkas can do the job of any light bots in that mode and carry enough weight of arms to blow any light bot that dares to show itself away. When I first started playing the game I thought how awesome it was going to be when I got up into the higher upgrades. I was thinking tactical and strategic combat would be awesome when I finally got that high up. Because when you first start playing the damage isn't disproportionate as to weapons and bots. Even with just one bot you can manage to last an entire match if you're just a little careful and apply good sense. And your bots are small enough and slow enough to make even a small map appear quite adequate for tactical and strategic movements. That all disappears rather quickly after player level 6. I know, I've done it eight times now. At that point you start getting put in with players having bots and weapons you aren't even allowed to buy yet. And by player level 10 you're starting to see the really mean stuff, Stalkers, Carnages, Gareths, Galahads and the proportionate weaponry. You begin to realize it was far more fun at player levels 1-5 when nearly everyone had the same capabilities as yourself and vice versa and it was actually more intuition and skill than equipment and upgrades that were determining the outcomes of the matches. I'm just kind of disillusioned by Pixonic's course in developing the game. There is no longer a strategic element left in the game. There's no room on the small maps for it. The large maps do not provide enough cover for it. And the fact that you can see exactly where every enemy player is, even when "cloaked", means that there is no real tactical surprise factor unless you're just oblivious to your surroundings. I keep hearing they are going to "fix" this or that but I never see any evidence of it. In fact all I keep seeing is Pixonic ignoring the matchmaking algorithm problem that they have acknowledged cause lopsided matching, and because of their ranking system no less. And the "fixes" they do make just keep exasperating others. And because of the ranking system it stresses players out so that they are not enjoying the game anymore. People obsess over those ridiculous ranks. They b*tch and wail because other players are "costing our team the match" and causing them personally to lose those stupid league points and drop in rank. Leagues are for groups of teams. I ain't no team. You ain't no team. So why use this moronic league system? Why aren't we being ranked statistically by our achievements and individual abilities? If we were ranked statistically you might not like the loss of a match but only your personal performance would matter in your ranking. Thereby who gives a cr*p what the other players on your team did or did not do in the match? Their mess won't be affecting your ranking. Changing the matchmaking algorithm out for a hanger based matching formula and ranking us statistically as individuals instead of as some kind of "teams" would fix 98% of this game's problems. The other 2% would be bringing back a strategic element to the game(1%) and just adding more straight up robots and weapons and size balanced maps(1%). *slowly applause. You've just have fixin the problem . Pix will not take your consideration this could hurt their money making scam system. War robot is a huge component there are a lot of variables happening and it's impossible to weed out everything. tweeking will set them one step problem ahead, it is like cutting an onion. Everytime you peel an onion layer youll end up with another layer of a problem. Why reinvent a new wheel? because its effective and it work. By Reinventing a new system you are untangle the threads.
|
|
|
Post by xXrobotrippinXx on Jul 15, 2017 0:49:37 GMT -5
Couldn't agree with you more, Heathen - on just about all aspects you mentioned.
The league system is extremely stressful.. especially where I'm at. Gold I seems like the worst spot to be cause that's when you start getting matched with all 3 diamond tiers and the occasional expert as well as other gold players. And if your gold, your at the lowest end of the spectrum. I don't tank but believe me, half the matches I play make me want to. No leagues = no tankers. I'm not saying get rid of leagues.. just make them optional. If you want to play leagues, it's there, you can. Don't want to? You don't have to.
I agree with you about the maps too. Would like to see more in general and definitely some bigger ones with more cover. Maybe some big 2-3 story ruins/broken buildings that you can actually kind of go inside. Have them scattered throughout some of the maps. Like a bigger version of dead city with bigger interactive buildings..
As I said I've only been playing about 3 months and I'm definitely addicted to the game but I can see myself getting bored with it already pretty soon. It's definitely starting to leave something to be desired.
|
|
|
Post by HEATHEN HERETIC on Jul 15, 2017 0:56:17 GMT -5
*slowly applause. You've just have fixin the problem . Pix will not take your consideration this could hurt their money making scam system. War robot is a huge component there are a lot of variables happening and it's impossible to weed out everything. tweeking will set them one step problem ahead, it is like cutting an onion. Everytime you peel an onion layer youll end up with another layer of a problem. Why reinvent a new wheel? because its effective and it work. By Reinventing a new system you are untangle the threads. ? Huh?
|
|
|
Post by imnobody on Jul 15, 2017 1:17:43 GMT -5
*slowly applause. You've just have fixin the problem . Pix will not take your consideration this could hurt their money making scam system. War robot is a huge component there are a lot of variables happening and it's impossible to weed out everything. tweeking will set them one step problem ahead, it is like cutting an onion. Everytime you peel an onion layer youll end up with another layer of a problem. Why reinvent a new wheel? because its effective and it work. By Reinventing a new system you are untangle the threads. ? Huh? fixing one problem will lead another problem. By stating in your last paragraph this will solve everything. Every time pix cut an onion they end up another layer of onion, in this case problems. By reinventing a new wheel this will eliminate all the of problems.
|
|
|
Post by HEATHEN HERETIC on Jul 15, 2017 4:07:15 GMT -5
fixing one problem will lead another problem. By stating in your last paragraph this will solve everything. Every time pix cut an onion they end up another layer of onion, in this case problems. By reinventing a new wheel this will eliminate all the of problems. Exactly. That is what I did. I re-invented a high performance racing wheel to replace the broken hamster wheel the game is running on now. Because the hamster is dead and really starting to smell.
|
|
|
Post by Replicant on Jul 18, 2017 12:41:38 GMT -5
Getting more HP basically gives your enemy more Silver. So that they could upgrade their bots more. While getting more DAMAGE is where you GET more Silver. So YOU can upgrade yours. The bots you run, and the level you choose to upgrade them to has no meaningful impact on the silver resources your opponents have to upgrade with. The amount of time you have to play and the amount of real world money you're willing to spend drives almost all of any pilot's silver acquisition. While there is a nominal reduction in silver awarded to your opponents, its not enough to move the needle.
|
|
|
Post by Russel on Jul 18, 2017 13:13:02 GMT -5
Getting more HP basically <sarcasm>gives your enemy more Silver. So that they could upgrade their bots more</sarcasm>.While getting more DAMAGE is where you GET more Silver. So YOU can upgrade yours. The bots you run, and the level you choose to upgrade them to has no meaningful impact on the silver resources your opponents have to upgrade with. The amount of time you have to play and the amount of real world money you're willing to spend drives almost all of any pilot's silver acquisition. While there is a nominal reduction in silver awarded to your opponents, its not enough to move the needle. Okay, I marked sarcasm red. And upgrading your bot's HP is not helping you to gain more silver PER MINUTE, while upgrading weapon indeed makes you silver PER MINUTE gain much more. While this has absolutely no meaning if you live in the universe where you got infinite time and\or spend $x000 to buy Silver, I try to give advices for free-to-play players with limited time.
|
|
|
Post by Replicant on Jul 19, 2017 12:57:43 GMT -5
I'm a sucker for missing sarcasm in posts.
I think you're probably right about the per-minute silver gains being better with weapons leveled over bots, but I haven't seen a material difference in my own play. It's like PIX normalizes your silver gains to remove or mitigate the impact of your weapon level, the targets bot level, and the fact that heavier boys carry more guns.
The best silver gains I've had are winning matches where my over-gunned medium bots (Fujin & Carnage) accounted for most of my participation in the match, and I was able to keep a mech or two in the hanger.
TL;DR - per minute silver gains are probably nominally better with large bots and over-leveled guns, but the premium bonus, bonus for winning, and bonus for your first three wins swamp the effect. Play what helps you win.
|
|
|
Post by Russel on Jul 19, 2017 13:46:31 GMT -5
I'm a sucker for missing sarcasm in posts. I think you're probably right about the per-minute silver gains being better with weapons leveled over bots, but I haven't seen a material difference in my own play. It's like PIX normalizes your silver gains to remove or mitigate the impact of your weapon level, the targets bot level, and the fact that heavier boys carry more guns. The best silver gains I've had are winning matches where my over-gunned medium bots (Fujin & Carnage) accounted for most of my participation in the match, and I was able to keep a mech or two in the hanger. TL;DR - per minute silver gains are probably nominally better with large bots and over-leveled guns, but the premium bonus, bonus for winning, and bonus for your first three wins swamp the effect. Play what helps you win. It's all good, no sweat ;) You ARE correct on the account of "silver payout is being normalized", but it's still possible to get 100~300K single battle payout. On the maximum gain - keep in mind it is only a speculation (I would've written an article if i got hard facts) - but it seems than light small bots (or mediums) with big guns (Thunder Carnage, Orkan Rog, Plasmahad, etc) are the best options for silver gain. You pay less for repairs, and get more silver for using medium bots with high damage guns. Again, just an educated guess based on different examples.
|
|