Rifleman Archive
Thread: Where do you want AP to go?
The_Great_Destroyer wrote:
As we can all see, the Riflemen have been pretty curious about how AP should be working and how it is working. First, I'd like to say the whole thing is silly and pointless in lieu of the combat revamp. It seems like we're calling for a nerf on ourselves as we *are* doing more damage than the Devs say we're supposed to be doing and yet the Devs say to leave it. Why argue?
As I mentioned in the "Keldarin is reviewing AP" thread, there are two reasons:
1) They will eventually figure out that they're doing it wrong. We cannot hope to simply ignore them and hope they don't notice us. The solution to keep things as they are is to educate them on how the combat system really works, and then explain to them why changing it to the way they think it is "intended" would be bad.
And it WOULD be bad for everybody except Pistoleers, Fencers, and TKA.
2) They are making sweeping changes to the system without understanding the system. The AT-ST armor nerf. The Damage Mitigation system. The T21 nerf. All of these changes were made with a flawed understanding of how combat actually works in SWG.
That's bad.
There's no guarantee that the combat revamp will touch the actually combat engine. Therefore, it behooves us to make sure the Devs understand the combat engine before they start making sweeping combat changes.
There's also a third reason which occurred to me later:
3) The Devs will not fix the armor piercing issues with the DX2 as long as they think that the DX2 is working as intended. People say "The DX2 doesn't get an AP damage bonus!" and the Devs say "Well, it's not SUPPOSED to get an AP damage bonus, because that's not how AP works!"
Only that IS how AP works. And as long as the Devs think otherwise, the DX2 will continue to suck the hind teat in the AP department.
The_Great_Destroyer wrote:
But the topic hasderailed (only the second post too, that must be a record).I'm starting this post to see what you think AP *should* do? Not according to the Devs, not according to the Armor Guide, but how you want to see AP implemented.
I think it works just fine as it is, aside from the vulnerability issues. The Devs need to shift their mental gears and accept the fait accompli that this is how Armor and AP work in the game, and simply fix vulnerabilities.
The_Great_Destroyer wrote:
Wait which system works fine Volsted? The Armor Guide one or Keldarin's system?
The system which is in place right now in the game. Which is more-or-less the Armor Guide system.
VolstedGridban wrote:
The_Great_Destroyer wrote:
Wait which system works fine Volsted? The Armor Guide one or Keldarin's system?
The system which is in place right now in the game. Which is more-or-less the Armor Guide system.
Grr I keep derailing my own topic, but here goes again. I *seriously* doubt the Devs will change the system in place unless you provide literally hundreds of tests to prove them wrong. So I'm wondering why we're going through all the number crunching just to get a system implemented we don't want.
Otherwise, how do you want the vulnerabilities changed? So that AP and vulnerabilites work together?
The_Great_Destroyer wrote:
I *seriously* doubt the Devs will change the system in place unless you provide literally hundreds of tests to prove them wrong.
I do not share this opinion.
The_Great_Destroyer wrote:
So I'm wondering why we're going through all the number crunching just to get a system implemented we don't want.
We're not.
I answered this above, GD.
We cannot explain to the devs why their method, should it be implemented, would be a nerf unless they understand how it works now, and how the two will compare.
They cannot fix the vulnerability issues unless they understand how AP works in the game as it currently exists on the live servers.
We cannot expect them to make meaningful, well-designed changes to any aspect of the combat system if they don't understand how the combat system works.
The_Great_Destroyer wrote:
Otherwise, how do you want the vulnerabilities changed? So that AP and vulnerabilites work together?
At a bare minimum, vulnerabilities should not negate the AP bonus.
Ideally, I'd like to see vulnerabilities done as a percentage, like resistances. Only, where resistances modify the damage according to (1 - X), I'd like to see Vulnerabilities modify the damage according to (1 + X). So a critter with, say, a 5% Vulnerability to Energy damage would take an extra 1.05 damage bonus on top of any AP bonuses or penalties.
Ah ok, that's what I had in mind for Vulnerabilites as well. The current system is pretty weak regarding it and really screws over the AP system.
VolstedGridban wrote:
At a bare minimum, vulnerabilities should not negate the AP bonus.
Ideally, I'd like to see vulnerabilities done as a percentage, like resistances. Only, where resistances modify the damage according to (1 - X), I'd like to see Vulnerabilities modify the damage according to (1 + X). So a critter with, say, a 5% Vulnerability to Energy damage would take an extra 1.05 damage bonus on top of any AP bonuses or penalties.
VolstedGridban wrote:
We're not.
I answered this above, GD.
We cannot explain to the devs why their method, should it be implemented, would be a nerf unless they understand how it works now, and how the two will compare.
They cannot fix the vulnerability issues unless they understand how AP works in the game as it currently exists on the live servers.
We cannot expect them to make meaningful, well-designed changes to any aspect of the combat system if they don't understand how the combat system works.
You're going to have to pardon me here, but they've got the code and we don't. We can see the effects of the code, but we can't even fully comprehend it as there's a lot of discrepancies we can't account for (like why the RAF is off more than it should be, if I remember your post correctly). I know there have been issues in the past with developers not understanding their own code, but there are also plenty of examples of developers who do understand it.
VolstedGridban wrote:
I do not share this opinion.
Then let's go to the officials. Klawlegna, would you ask them if it is being changed in the publish or if they think it's working fine and are making now changes?
The problem I see here is that all creatures have now been rebalanced based in part on what the Devs must think a player's theorietical max and average damages are.
That assumption is completely upended in the case of mobs with low resists vs high AP weapons (which there are likely more of now that armour is only on CL 40 or higher mobs). In short - the players (and riflemen most of all) will be doing a great deal more damage than expected.
If we keep the Armour Guide system it will necessitate another full creature rebalance - and probably another rebalance of the new combat system. This is only if they understand the system as it is. If they don't - it will likely result in yet another damage nerf for us.
Pushing for the Dev's system as they think it works would fit AP weapons into the larger system - rather than fitting the system around AP weapons. I don't personally see a problem conceptually with the notion of AP reducing the protective ability of armour (which is what I believe was meant - damaging armour specifically is nonsensical and doesn't agree with anything they previously said about AP and AR).
The_Great_Destroyer wrote:
You're going to have to pardon me here, but they've got the code and we don't.
And we're playing the game, and they're not.
Building a plane and flying a plane are two entirely different things. Writing code is no different. Having access to the code isn't the same thing as having a holistic understanding of how it all actually works in the final analysis.
The_Great_Destroyer wrote:
We can see the effects of the code, but we can't even fully comprehend it as there's a lot of discrepancies we can't account for (like why the RAF is off more than it should be, if I remember your post correctly).
In general, the RAF is accurate out to 2 decimal places. There are exceptions, but they cluster around the predicted RAF. They certainly aren't sufficient to disprove the rule, and they can easily be accounted for by assuming truncation and/or rounding errors.
The_Great_Destroyer wrote:
I know there have been issues in the past with developers not understanding their own code...
Yes. And not to blow my own horn, but I was one of the folks who was instrumental in explaining the math of why fast 1-handers in EQ were so much more powerful than slow 2-handers, when used by high-level players. The nerfing of the Moss-Covered Twig and the boosting of the 2-handed Level Damage Bonus in EQ occurred at least in part due to some of the work I did (though I certainly don't take credit for all of it, or even the majority of it -- there were several other folks doing the same thing at the time).
Which is part of the reason why all of this irritates me so much. I've done this dance before. How many times must we demonstrate that not all players are mouth-breathing morons, and that access to the code isn't necessary to understand the workings of the game, before gaming devs in general, and MMORPG devs in particular, stop writing us all off automatically just because we're "merely" players?
VolstedGridban wrote:
Which is part of the reason why all of this irritates me so much. I've done this dance before. How many times must we demonstrate that not all players are mouth-breathing morons, and that access to the code isn't necessary to understand the workings of the game, before gaming devs in general, and MMORPG devs in particular, stop writing us all off automatically just because we're "merely" players?
Whoa there, I'm not a Dev and I'm certainly not writing you off. You've done a ton of great work, and you're correct that playing the game and making the game are completely different experiences.
As for the differences in RAF, I thought it was greater than 2 decimal places but I guess I need to check again. Arg...
So once again, I'm just trying to get a clear idea. (I'm kinda slow so forgive me)
1. You want the current AP system to stay
2. You want vulnerabilites to do more damage instead of just taking away less.
3. Vulnerabilites should not negate AP
And again, we don't know if Keldarin has changed everything. Maybe Klaw and I could hop on TC and give it a shot, but I think he still doesn't have access to the Correspondent Terminal or a good rifle for that matter, but we can try to hook him up. It would be easier if we could get a straight answer from Keldarin, but from what I understand of what's going on, Keldarin isn't changing anything.
Hmm ate my post. Ok well here goes, second time's the charm.
As we can all see, the Riflemen have been pretty curious about how AP should be working and how it is working. First, I'd like to say the whole thing is silly and pointless in lieu of the combat revamp. It seems like we're calling for a nerf on ourselves as we *are* doing more damage than the Devs say we're supposed to be doing and yet the Devs say to leave it. Why argue?
But the topic hasderailed (only the second post too, that must be a record).I'm starting this post to see what you think AP *should* do? Not according to the Devs, not according to the Armor Guide, but how you want to see AP implemented.
Frankly, I'm all for it reducing armor's effectiveness. I think there should be a 50% increase in the chance to wound per rank higher than the target's AR. Also, I think it should do more damage as you're punching right through the thing.