|
|
Post by Deadeye on Nov 21, 2017 14:46:56 GMT -5
OMG, I just got done playing an E3 level match. Other team had a Bulg start with shocktrain. I went after with my rog and died horribly. Pulled a tempest lance to go hunt it and got engaged, all the while getting hit with Shocktrain ricochets 150m away from a teammate who was getting drilled at 500m trying to outsnipe a shocktrain bulgesari with a zeus carnage. That did not go well for anyone on our side within 150 of the carny. Looked like we were going to get routed when all of the sudden a teammate runs a shocktrain Mark II 12/12 Bulgesari and basically runs the table, twice, with limited help from the rest of us. We won but that weapon is absurd. Totally no fun to play a match involving shocktrains with ppl who know what they are doing. If it gets out much more in the wild to where more ppl start running it, I am going to look for a new game. Anyway, here are the stats and grabs from the match. Team Score:  Top Dog for Blue (all weapons were mark II lvl 12):  Top Dog for Red (a few mk II weapons, most between 10-12):  On a totally unrelated sidenote, both top damage getters for both teams got new personal bests. That's gotta be a rarity, right? That's noteworthy in and of itself.
...Sorry to interrupt the argument...you may resume.
|
|
|
|
Post by anapolon22 on Nov 21, 2017 15:18:05 GMT -5
「whiskey tango foxtrot」 was Pixonic thinking seriously?! Mone, money, moneyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy! |
|
|
|
Post by valoricus on Nov 21, 2017 15:55:56 GMT -5
The Shocktrain particle effect should be changed to a stream of dollar bills being shot at the enemy  |
|
|
|
Post by T34 on Nov 21, 2017 17:10:09 GMT -5
Without having access to the numbers I wonder if the nerf is going to balance the ST. got this feeling it wont.
Could this be a buff for the lance? They're nerfing the chain damage by 15%, which will have basically no effect. The biggest problem is this weapon deals instant damage to the primary target and is a two shot kill on any bot in the game when in a trio mk II. The fact it also weakens other targets is just a bonus for the user, but you could remove the chain altogether and it would still be ridiculously OP. I was under the impression that they were nerfing the chain effect by 50% from 35% to 17.5%. Say 2.1M damage and 2/3 of that comes from the chain effect then the nerf would decrease that to 1.4M (all other things being equal and looking at things from a high level as no access to data in this regard). So it’s a 33% nerfing but in reality that’s probably still not enough. The big assumption here is the initial damage proportion compared to the chain damage. If the initial damage is at 40% than 2.1 -> 1.47 and hence the overall nerfing is very similar in percentage terms. Even the initial damage at 50% it wouldn’t change much in terms of the outcome. Am I missing something? |
|
|
|
Post by ᎶƦ℮℮ƊᎽ ƤΛƝƊΛ on Nov 21, 2017 17:19:59 GMT -5
They're nerfing the chain damage by 15%, which will have basically no effect. The biggest problem is this weapon deals instant damage to the primary target and is a two shot kill on any bot in the game when in a trio mk II. The fact it also weakens other targets is just a bonus for the user, but you could remove the chain altogether and it would still be ridiculously OP. I was under the impression that they were nerfing the chain effect by 50% from 35% to 17.5%. Say 2.1M damage and 2/3 of that comes from the chain effect then the nerf would decrease that to 1.4M (all other things being equal and looking at things from a high level as no access to data in this regard). So it’s a 33% nerfing but in reality that’s probably still not enough. The big assumption here is the initial damage proportion compared to the chain damage. If the initial damage is at 40% than 2.1 -> 1.47 and hence the overall nerfing is very similar in percentage terms. Even the initial damage at 50% it wouldn’t change much in terms of the outcome. Am I missing something? I was under the impression that the first chain currently deals 50% and they are reducing that to 35%. I may be wrong. In either case, three maxed shocktrains kill any bot in two hits. So in a matter of 9 seconds, a dash bot or fujin can kill any robot and probably take little to no return fire if they know how to use cover. That by itself is overpowered. The fact it does any chain damage at all is just adding insult to injury. |
|
|
|
Post by T34 on Nov 21, 2017 17:30:16 GMT -5
I was under the impression that they were nerfing the chain effect by 50% from 35% to 17.5%. Say 2.1M damage and 2/3 of that comes from the chain effect then the nerf would decrease that to 1.4M (all other things being equal and looking at things from a high level as no access to data in this regard). So it’s a 33% nerfing but in reality that’s probably still not enough. The big assumption here is the initial damage proportion compared to the chain damage. If the initial damage is at 40% than 2.1 -> 1.47 and hence the overall nerfing is very similar in percentage terms. Even the initial damage at 50% it wouldn’t change much in terms of the outcome. Am I missing something? I was under the impression that the first chain currently deals 50% and they are reducing that to 35%. I may be wrong. In either case, three maxed shocktrains kill any bot in two hits. So in a matter of 9 seconds, a dash bot or fujin can kill any robot and probably take little to no return fire if they know how to use cover. That by itself is overpowered. The fact it does any chain damage at all is just adding insult to injury. From their release "Shocktrain: damage drops by 50% after each hit (was 35%)"
Not sure how to interpret this. Does this mean
1st chain bot now gets a 35% damage hit and that will be reduced to 17%
And
Will the second bot in the chain get a 17% damage or 17% of the 17% (hence the chain fizzes out really quick to irrelevance).
|
|
|
|
Post by cmdrperalta on Nov 21, 2017 17:53:21 GMT -5
Personally, I see it as a rapid fire mass casualty sniper weapon. I would rather take them on HTH. Armor of a lance appears to protect from primary hit and total horsepower of wpn is not too bad unless lvl 11 or 12. The total secondary damage from the wpn usually hit 1x to 2x the primary damage on small fields. That is not a small thing on maps like Shenzen where, by design you will have 2-3 clusters of 2-3 bots and all clusters are w/in 300m of each other. Center beacon of Yamatau it can be 2.5x damage to the team that grabs center beacon, all from a range of 600m. If they let it keep secondary dam, way to nerf it is to increase lag in firing mechanism. They compare to Treb, but Treb takes 23 secs to fully recharge, not 8. You'd never get close to them. Depends on whether it is a good pilot or not. In this game both were good pilots and other pilots protected them so you could not get close. I have played plenty of other games where I have gotten a lance on them hth b/c their pilot screwed up or got cocky or we were playing BR and I was able to drop in on top of them. But I would rather be facing them HTH than trying to take them when they are sniping or worse, taking secondary damage in a spot where I can't get to them since the head-on dam is not that bad hth if you have physical armor. |
|
|
|
Post by cmdrperalta on Nov 21, 2017 17:57:12 GMT -5
I was under the impression that the first chain currently deals 50% and they are reducing that to 35%. I may be wrong. In either case, three maxed shocktrains kill any bot in two hits. So in a matter of 9 seconds, a dash bot or fujin can kill any robot and probably take little to no return fire if they know how to use cover. That by itself is overpowered. The fact it does any chain damage at all is just adding insult to injury. From their release "Shocktrain: damage drops by 50% after each hit (was 35%)"
Not sure how to interpret this. Does this mean
1st chain bot now gets a 35% damage hit and that will be reduced to 17%
And
Will the second bot in the chain get a 17% damage or 17% of the 17% (hence the chain fizzes out really quick to irrelevance).
Damage *drops by* X after each hit. I read it as 100->50->25 instead of 100->67->45 But what I think is true is that if it hits bot A, it can produce 2 or more bolts that hit at 67%, which can produce 2 or more bolts that can it at 45%. Can anyone confirm this? |
|
|
|
Post by Thunderkiss on Nov 21, 2017 17:57:34 GMT -5
You'd never get close to them. Depends on whether it is a good pilot or not. In this game both were good pilots and other pilots protected them so you could not get close. I have played plenty of other games where I have gotten a lance on them hth b/c their pilot screwed up or got cocky or we were playing BR and I was able to drop in on top of them. But I would rather be facing them HTH than trying to take them when they are sniping or worse, taking secondary damage in a spot where I can't get to them since the head-on dam is not that bad hth if you have physical armor. Not something I'd count on for plan A. |
|
|
|
Post by cmdrperalta on Nov 21, 2017 18:03:12 GMT -5
Depends on whether it is a good pilot or not. In this game both were good pilots and other pilots protected them so you could not get close. I have played plenty of other games where I have gotten a lance on them hth b/c their pilot screwed up or got cocky or we were playing BR and I was able to drop in on top of them. But I would rather be facing them HTH than trying to take them when they are sniping or worse, taking secondary damage in a spot where I can't get to them since the head-on dam is not that bad hth if you have physical armor. Not something I'd count on for plan A. Well, what other options are there when one drops in? You have to try and kill it right away b/c if you don't your whole side is going to get shredded every 8 seconds. So, best scenario is you catch one in beacon rush and instead of being smart they are too close to beacon and you drop on top of them or you get a small map like Shenzen and can get to them fairly quickly. If they are good and teammates protect them you are screwed. |
|
|
|
Post by bronzeknee on Nov 21, 2017 18:43:40 GMT -5
Not something I'd count on for plan A. If they are good and teammates protect them you are screwed. Not if you pay money and buy your own... but the game isn't pay to win right? |
|
|
|
Post by The VVatcher on Nov 21, 2017 18:52:14 GMT -5
Obviously, you can pay $$ to compete at a higher level and yes, that impacts performance of your hangar, where we disagree is about the definition of PTW. You say spending large amounts of RM to do what I just described is "paying to win" and in a sense it is. You are paying to get a stronger hangar and certainly players with dominant OP hangars are more likely to win. But to me, PTW implies quid pro quo. I'd say that hangar owners are more akin to owners of sports teams or horses. If it is PTW, it is PTW in the same sense that NBA teams or horseracing owners spend Big $$ to hire best talent. The point of dashes was to make existing hangars obsolete and enforce product lifecycle but their introduction has had negative effect on matches. That said, still not P2W in the sense that I was meaning, even in match I posted, there was some attempt by MM algorithm to balance the sides, including in terms of ridiculous OP hangars. Your analogy of NBA teams is flawed. The NBA has a salary cap preventing big market teams from having an All-Star team. There is no pay cap on this game. And you cannot have multiples of the same player. You cannot have 3 Kobe Bryant's (3 Haechi), 2 Lebron James (2 Bulgasari) in their primes. And you can't equip Stephen Curry shooting skills to Lebron (Shocktrains). And on top of that have multiple identical teams like this. You need to stop using this analogy. |
|
|
|
Post by cmdrperalta on Nov 21, 2017 19:22:52 GMT -5
If they are good and teammates protect them you are screwed. Not if you pay money and buy your own... but the game isn't pay to win right? Which part of "In a sense it is, and in another sense it is not" are you utterly incapable of understanding? Any time you see a word or phrase it has one and only one meaning? Seriously, it's a stupid argument you keep making. |
|
|
|
Post by cmdrperalta on Nov 21, 2017 19:47:05 GMT -5
Obviously, you can pay $$ to compete at a higher level and yes, that impacts performance of your hangar, where we disagree is about the definition of PTW. You say spending large amounts of RM to do what I just described is "paying to win" and in a sense it is. You are paying to get a stronger hangar and certainly players with dominant OP hangars are more likely to win. But to me, PTW implies quid pro quo. I'd say that hangar owners are more akin to owners of sports teams or horses. If it is PTW, it is PTW in the same sense that NBA teams or horseracing owners spend Big $$ to hire best talent. The point of dashes was to make existing hangars obsolete and enforce product lifecycle but their introduction has had negative effect on matches. That said, still not P2W in the sense that I was meaning, even in match I posted, there was some attempt by MM algorithm to balance the sides, including in terms of ridiculous OP hangars. Your analogy of NBA teams is flawed. The NBA has a salary cap preventing big market teams from having an All-Star team. There is no pay cap on this game. Main thrust of analogy to NBA was akin to HS->College->NBA as a point of comparison to progression to elite leagues and how each league reflects greater investment than previous level as well as greater sortition for natural attributes and in that sense is akin to what Pix has done. Only the Gods get to sit on Olympus and the new Gods have just overthrown the old backed by $$ and new technology. P2W? Yes, in a sense, but not in the deterministic sense that the term has traditionally been used. In the section you quoted, I mean that as a league, NBA teams are all in the business of spending money to hire the best talent. They all have to ante in. There is a limited number of spots. And it is regarded as the best of the best. Is that pay-to-play or play-to-win? How is that different from appearing in top 50 champions? Does having maxed out haechi and bulgs or whatever guarantee a spot in top 50, or does it merely put you in a position to compete at that level? Again, my point is simply that we had discussed this in a different thread where I remarked that this is not P2W in the sense that the term has been traditionally used. Yes, spending $$ gives you the opportunity to buy a better hangar which results in better performance, and that at the very top level these hangars are necessary and is killing the game and offending ppl who have made a great investment of time and $$ and have great emotional attachment to their hangars, but that is not how the term has traditionally been used and I have raised as a point of comparison professional leagues and things like horseracing. I liken what has happened at the very top of champions to Pix creating a high ante card game where there had been a lower ante card game before. As I have said elsewhere, I think this offends the sensibilities of a lot of westerners and esp. some Americans b/c it rubs our face in the idea of income inequality and "buying one's success as opposed to earning it" in a way that we are not accustomed to. |
|
|
|
Post by T34 on Nov 21, 2017 20:07:47 GMT -5
Your analogy of NBA teams is flawed. The NBA has a salary cap preventing big market teams from having an All-Star team. There is no pay cap on this game. Main thrust of analogy to NBA was akin to HS->College->NBA as a point of comparison to progression to elite leagues and how each league reflects greater investment than previous level as well as greater sortition for natural attributes and in that sense is akin to what Pix has done. Only the Gods get to sit on Olympus and the new Gods have just overthrown the old backed by $$ and new technology. P2W? Yes, in a sense, but not in the deterministic sense that the term has traditionally been used. In the section you quoted, I mean that as a league, NBA teams are all in the business of spending money to hire the best talent. They all have to ante in. There is a limited number of spots. And it is regarded as the best of the best. Is that pay-to-play or play-to-win? How is that different from appearing in top 50 champions? Does having maxed out haechi and bulgs or whatever guarantee a spot in top 50, or does it merely put you in a position to compete at that level? Again, my point is simply that we had discussed this in a different thread where I remarked that this is not P2W in the sense that the term has been traditionally used. Yes, spending $$ gives you the opportunity to buy a better hangar which results in better performance, and that at the very top level these hangars are necessary and is killing the game and offending ppl who have made a great investment of time and $$ and have great emotional attachment to their hangars, but that is not how the term has traditionally been used and I have raised as a point of comparison professional leagues and things like horseracing. I liken what has happened at the very top of champions to Pix creating a high ante card game where there had been a lower ante card game before. As I have said elsewhere, I think this offends the sensibilities of a lot of westerners and esp. some Americans b/c it rubs our face in the idea of income inequality and "buying one's success as opposed to earning it" in a way that we are not accustomed to. I think the matter is being over complicating and is off on a tangent. Its much simpler than that.
Lets use the viki definition of P2W. that is
“In some multiplayer free-to-play games, players who are willing to pay for special items or downloadable content may be able to gain a significant advantage over those playing for free. Some critics of such games call them "pay-to-win" or "p2w" games.”
War Robots is pay to win. No ifs no buts.
|
|
|
|
Post by cmdrperalta on Nov 21, 2017 20:11:22 GMT -5
Main thrust of analogy to NBA was akin to HS->College->NBA as a point of comparison to progression to elite leagues and how each league reflects greater investment than previous level as well as greater sortition for natural attributes and in that sense is akin to what Pix has done. Only the Gods get to sit on Olympus and the new Gods have just overthrown the old backed by $$ and new technology. P2W? Yes, in a sense, but not in the deterministic sense that the term has traditionally been used. In the section you quoted, I mean that as a league, NBA teams are all in the business of spending money to hire the best talent. They all have to ante in. There is a limited number of spots. And it is regarded as the best of the best. Is that pay-to-play or play-to-win? How is that different from appearing in top 50 champions? Does having maxed out haechi and bulgs or whatever guarantee a spot in top 50, or does it merely put you in a position to compete at that level? Again, my point is simply that we had discussed this in a different thread where I remarked that this is not P2W in the sense that the term has been traditionally used. Yes, spending $$ gives you the opportunity to buy a better hangar which results in better performance, and that at the very top level these hangars are necessary and is killing the game and offending ppl who have made a great investment of time and $$ and have great emotional attachment to their hangars, but that is not how the term has traditionally been used and I have raised as a point of comparison professional leagues and things like horseracing. I liken what has happened at the very top of champions to Pix creating a high ante card game where there had been a lower ante card game before. As I have said elsewhere, I think this offends the sensibilities of a lot of westerners and esp. some Americans b/c it rubs our face in the idea of income inequality and "buying one's success as opposed to earning it" in a way that we are not accustomed to. I think the matter is being over complicating and is off on a tangent. Its much simpler than that.
Lets use the viki definition of P2W. that is
“In some multiplayer free-to-play games, players who are willing to pay for special items or downloadable content may be able to gain a significant advantage over those playing for free. Some critics of such games call them "pay-to-win" or "p2w" games.”
War Robots is pay to win. No ifs no buts.
Feels very different than games that are literal P2W like leveled games., but whatever. You do you. |
|
|
|
Post by Thunderkiss on Nov 21, 2017 20:22:40 GMT -5
If you dont agree that this game has become pay to win in the literal sense you haven't been paying attention. And if you arent paying attention you shouldn't be making foolish arguments about a subject you haven't been paying attention to.
I have seen first hand squads that couldn't beat my team on our worst day until they filled up on dash bots embers and shocktrains. They aren't good, even with new toys, but there's only so much you can do against 30 dash bots.
|
|
|
|
Post by WilsonK on Nov 21, 2017 21:29:42 GMT -5
Lol I won't be surprised if they are gonna release an "energy based" hydra with splash damage next time... that will be even more absurd...
|
|
|
|
Post by Gdu4ever on Nov 22, 2017 0:59:57 GMT -5
I'm impressed that whether the game is going p2w is still a debatable topic.
Recently I really wish Pix to leave the shocktrain as it is. I expect that soon there will be like 40, if not more, stocktrain-dash bots trading fires in TT clan battles.
Will the big whales get bored and quit?
Will they tank down and force non-whales (including me) to quit?
If yes, will Pix react / react fast enough to save the game?
I'd really like to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crow T. Robot on Nov 22, 2017 1:55:41 GMT -5
OMG, I just got done playing an E3 level match. Other team had a Bulg start with shocktrain. I went after with my rog and died horribly. Pulled a tempest lance to go hunt it and got engaged, all the while getting hit with Shocktrain ricochets 150m away from a teammate who was getting drilled at 500m trying to outsnipe a shocktrain bulgesari with a zeus carnage. That did not go well for anyone on our side within 150 of the carny. Looked like we were going to get routed when all of the sudden a teammate runs a shocktrain Mark II 12/12 Bulgesari and basically runs the table, twice, with limited help from the rest of us. We won but that weapon is absurd. Totally no fun to play a match involving shocktrains with ppl who know what they are doing. If it gets out much more in the wild to where more ppl start running it, I am going to look for a new game. Anyway, here are the stats and grabs from the match. Team Score: Top Dog for Blue (all weapons were mark II lvl 12): Top Dog for Red (a few mk II weapons, most between 10-12): |
|
|
|
Post by Crow T. Robot on Nov 22, 2017 1:57:20 GMT -5
Oh my goodness, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
|
|
|
|
Post by cmdrperalta on Nov 22, 2017 13:21:26 GMT -5
If you dont agree that this game has become pay to win in the literal sense you haven't been paying attention. And if you arent paying attention you shouldn't be making foolish arguments about a subject you haven't been paying attention to. I have seen first hand squads that couldn't beat my team on our worst day until they filled up on dash bots embers and shocktrains. They aren't good, even with new toys, but there's only so much you can do against 30 dash bots. Dash bots were put in the game to EOL your favorite bots. Ppl who have 5 of them are advantaged but the game itself is not literally P2W in the sense I have described. There are games that are P2W in the literal sense where you cannot advance or win period without paying $$ as opposed to the figurative sense that paying for OP hangars makes you more likely to win a given match. A person can play and win War Robots for months and months with zero investment or with limited investment. What they can't do is compete at top level of champions league. PPL who were knocked out of that league by superior bots driven by pilots they see as inferior have an understandable complaint and I def. understand their pov given where they are coming from. But as an alternate frame of reference. my dolphin hangar cost almost nothing, esp compared with whales, but I win compete and advance with new weapons that I received at no cost or little cost. I can do that for 6 months at least with very little expense, which is very different than what one would experience with many/most games in this space that are true P2W. |
|
|
|
Post by Kanshou on Nov 22, 2017 14:11:48 GMT -5
Dude, come on. Its Pay-to-Win. I didn't need to read an entire thread to convince me that any further.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thunderkiss on Nov 22, 2017 15:06:10 GMT -5
If you dont agree that this game has become pay to win in the literal sense you haven't been paying attention. And if you arent paying attention you shouldn't be making foolish arguments about a subject you haven't been paying attention to. I have seen first hand squads that couldn't beat my team on our worst day until they filled up on dash bots embers and shocktrains. They aren't good, even with new toys, but there's only so much you can do against 30 dash bots. Dash bots were put in the game to EOL your favorite bots. Ppl who have 5 of them are advantaged but the game itself is not literally P2W in the sense I have described. There are games that are P2W in the literal sense where you cannot advance or win period without paying $$ as opposed to the figurative sense that paying for OP hangars makes you more likely to win a given match. A person can play and win War Robots for months and months with zero investment or with limited investment. What they can't do is compete at top level of champions league. PPL who were knocked out of that league by superior bots driven by pilots they see as inferior have an understandable complaint and I def. understand their pov given where they are coming from. But as an alternate frame of reference. my dolphin hangar cost almost nothing, esp compared with whales, but I win compete and advance with new weapons that I received at no cost or little cost. I can do that for 6 months at least with very little expense, which is very different than what one would experience with many/most games in this space that are true P2W. Semantics. |
|
