PVP Balance Fixes

  • wrecksds7
    wrecksds7
    Potential Threat
    Joined Nov 2012 Posts: 66
    Spack said:
    Spack said:
    Congratulations on addressing an issue you were informed of over 2 months ago. Now as someone who was involved in player driven testing of the turret damage it is quite easy for me to see the reduction in damage that will be caused with this change. However where as before an executioner turret built for maximum damage with 8 T7 turrets in the group would put out damage as follows.

    374766/2*1.35*1.31*1.25*1.5*1.15^5*1.25^8/2 = 3724567.36 damage to the hull after 50% turret defence. A difficult number to balance and rightly needing to be reduced.

    However what you've proposed is making the T7 bonus additive instead of multiplicative thereby changing those damage numbers to 

    374766/2*1.35*1.31*1.25*1.5*1.15^5*2/2 = 1249757.42 damage applied to a hull after turret defence.

    What this means is you are in effect negating missile turrets against missile cruisers even before additional armour has been equipped. The same can be said of ballistic turrets against the impact cruiser without me needing to bore you with the math. All one needs when designing an attacking fleet is add armour to counter the opposite faction to either of these hulls and one need never worry about a turret when attacking a base ever again.

    I urge you to please consider that adopting this step without implementing change in the armours you've since released will only result in a massive swing in the opposite direction making turret designs irrelevant to base defence. I think you've done untold damage to the pvp community without further aggravating the situation. 

    If you wish to any further advice on how to do so please feel free to contact me.

    I should also add i look forwards to being able to participate in the aspects of the game I enjoy in 20 days time. Until then I feel it's only right to curtail my participation.



    For someone who's so routinely condescending about the design of the game, I love the fact that there are two things missing from your calculations:

    1. Faction bonus.  Yeah, it's only 20%, but when bonuses are compounding like they do, it adds more than it sounds like it would.
    2. Your second calculation only factors in a 100% turret group bonus.  The actual bonus of 200% in reality makes the final damage 1874636.13 if excluding the Faction bonus.

    You, as well as a number of others in this thread, also fail to take into account that only two damage types for turrets have been released so far.  By focusing only on "now", there's absolutely no notion of what the bigger picture may be.  For instance: As more damage types are covered, and we all know there will be, it'll be harder and harder for attackers to cover all turret compositions.  While it may be painful in the short term to swing the pendulum back to attackers, I see that as being more recoverable than the current situation.  And, toward the end of the T7 era, could make for an interesting Attacker/Defender puzzle.

    Personally, I would have liked to see a full suite of damage types released, then a new set that escalated on those while pairing armor upgrades, etc.  But that's just me.
    The faction bonus was deliberately omitted as the only area where it will be relevant were if the two new ballistic were added. Then the effect would be only impact cruisers are relevant in the course of base hitting. That would again present another problem in the swing mechanics. As for the mathematical error in calculation that was immediately corrected some time before you posted but my point still stands. Making the game so the only viable hull for base attacking is the one just released and it itself takes zero damage from turrets is not a good way to provide balance and sustainability to the pvp environment. 

    Also I appreciate you may well be looking forwards to the next turret type in the mean time those of us who only play to pvp have been sat on our arses for the last month or two and now we have to wait another 3 weeks ;)
    dont even waste your time explaining stuff in PvP when 90% of bp don't even PvP. but now that we are getting nerfed turrets now its a big deal and all of a sudden everyone is PvP players lol
  • rebecca.stevens.7902
    rebecca.stevens.7902
    Greenhorn
    Joined Feb 2013 Posts: 22
    first thing you need to do is readjust the hit lvl difference
  • BradW1961
    BradW1961
    Potential Threat
    Joined Feb 2013 Posts: 48
    wrecksds7 said:
    i guess the noobs who can't build a guard fleet will be crying bc their insta kill turrets wont be able to defend against everybody. lmao
    Guess you think you guard that can only give pass-through and over damage any better than anyone elses boy? LOL,, talk about noobs,, unless of course you getting better bonuses from kix than the normal person.
  • wrecksds7
    wrecksds7
    Potential Threat
    Joined Nov 2012 Posts: 66
    BradW1961 said:
    wrecksds7 said:
    i guess the noobs who can't build a guard fleet will be crying bc their insta kill turrets wont be able to defend against everybody. lmao
    Guess you think you guard that can only give pass-through and over damage any better than anyone elses boy? LOL,, talk about noobs,, unless of course you getting better bonuses from kix than the normal person.
    i guess you're one of the noobs who only rely on insta kill turrets. its ok B-Rad, broken pixels never hurt anybody.
  • john joseph svelnys
    john joseph svelnys
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Nov 2015 Posts: 505
    edited 7 Jun 2018, 1:29AM
    kixeye plan is back to death of 1000 cuts but deflection is over 40x more than thEn. when it was implimented , the fix is a diaster for those who won and built turrets. EACH TURRET must have its own value we paid for. The plan kixeye propsed is so flawed. A TOTALLY. A HARD RESET TO WHERE PVP AND PVE SPLIT IS THE RIGHT COURSE. As this fix just makes bases farms because of deflection. go back to resistance not deflection.
  • Toshiyuki Morikawa
    Toshiyuki Morikawa
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Sep 2012 Posts: 497
    Spack said:
    Spack said:
    Congratulations on addressing an issue you were informed of over 2 months ago. Now as someone who was involved in player driven testing of the turret damage it is quite easy for me to see the reduction in damage that will be caused with this change. However where as before an executioner turret built for maximum damage with 8 T7 turrets in the group would put out damage as follows.

    374766/2*1.35*1.31*1.25*1.5*1.15^5*1.25^8/2 = 3724567.36 damage to the hull after 50% turret defence. A difficult number to balance and rightly needing to be reduced.

    However what you've proposed is making the T7 bonus additive instead of multiplicative thereby changing those damage numbers to 

    374766/2*1.35*1.31*1.25*1.5*1.15^5*2/2 = 1249757.42 damage applied to a hull after turret defence.

    What this means is you are in effect negating missile turrets against missile cruisers even before additional armour has been equipped. The same can be said of ballistic turrets against the impact cruiser without me needing to bore you with the math. All one needs when designing an attacking fleet is add armour to counter the opposite faction to either of these hulls and one need never worry about a turret when attacking a base ever again.

    I urge you to please consider that adopting this step without implementing change in the armours you've since released will only result in a massive swing in the opposite direction making turret designs irrelevant to base defence. I think you've done untold damage to the pvp community without further aggravating the situation. 

    If you wish to any further advice on how to do so please feel free to contact me.

    I should also add i look forwards to being able to participate in the aspects of the game I enjoy in 20 days time. Until then I feel it's only right to curtail my participation.



    For someone who's so routinely condescending about the design of the game, I love the fact that there are two things missing from your calculations:

    1. Faction bonus.  Yeah, it's only 20%, but when bonuses are compounding like they do, it adds more than it sounds like it would.
    2. Your second calculation only factors in a 100% turret group bonus.  The actual bonus of 200% in reality makes the final damage 1874636.13 if excluding the Faction bonus.

    You, as well as a number of others in this thread, also fail to take into account that only two damage types for turrets have been released so far.  By focusing only on "now", there's absolutely no notion of what the bigger picture may be.  For instance: As more damage types are covered, and we all know there will be, it'll be harder and harder for attackers to cover all turret compositions.  While it may be painful in the short term to swing the pendulum back to attackers, I see that as being more recoverable than the current situation.  And, toward the end of the T7 era, could make for an interesting Attacker/Defender puzzle.

    Personally, I would have liked to see a full suite of damage types released, then a new set that escalated on those while pairing armor upgrades, etc.  But that's just me.
    The faction bonus was deliberately omitted as the only area where it will be relevant were if the two new ballistic were added. Then the effect would be only impact cruisers are relevant in the course of base hitting. That would again present another problem in the swing mechanics. As for the mathematical error in calculation that was immediately corrected some time before you posted but my point still stands. Making the game so the only viable hull for base attacking is the one just released and it itself takes zero damage from turrets is not a good way to provide balance and sustainability to the pvp environment. 

    Also I appreciate you may well be looking forwards to the next turret type in the mean time those of us who only play to pvp have been sat on our arses for the last month or two and now we have to wait another 3 weeks ;)
    Omitting pieces of data to make your point just undermines what you're trying to say.  As for "my point still stands", you specifically called out that the MSC would soak all of the damage without any armor.  The correct calculation proves that to be false.  For "viable" hulls, that goes back to only being 1/3 of the way through an entire cycle.  IC has no pen deflect, and (if they follow the pattern) whatever comes after will have no pen OR bal deflect, meaning you'll be forced to specifically armor it for that.  Which, huzzah, you can already do with the Onslaught if you like.  And if whatever turret type comes after ballistic turns out to be concussive or explosive, the Onslaught is an even better option in theory.  So I can't really agree with the whole "only viable hull for base attacking is the one just released" line of reasoning.

    Mind you, I'm not saying the turret change is a perfect fix, just pointing out erroneous math and how I imagine (maybe foolishly) the overall T7 PVP space will change after the fix, and in subsequent months.

  • HighPlainsDrifter
    HighPlainsDrifter
    Potential Threat
    Joined Feb 2013 Posts: 49
    edited 7 Jun 2018, 1:40AM
    Kixeye, I admire you all for what you are trying to do but you need to do one thing before you put these changes out. You need to test them. And not just by Kixeye employees in the test environment. You need to invite some of the top hitters and defenders in the game today. Then you need to let them play with these changes using there ships and bases for a few days. Have them try everything and see what this does.  If it pushes the pendulum the opposite way to much, tweek it and let them play some more. Doing this will not solve all the issues of this release but at least it would be better than just throwing it out there and pissing off  75% of the players. 
  • searchall
    searchall
    Greenhorn
    Joined Jan 2013 Posts: 19
    Not another Dime

    Scott A Kiraly
  • BANZAI_Bill
    BANZAI_Bill
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Nov 2014 Posts: 594
    *called it.
  • THE-ORIGINAL-TOOL
    THE-ORIGINAL-TOOL
    Potential Threat
    Joined Jun 2013 Posts: 28
    all they nerfing is  their very own player base, this is ineptitude at it's finest and one has to wonder if this is even legal anymore

    It is not legal to bait and switch and that is exactly what we have here. I am also sure my response will be screened and not posted which is why I am videoing every attempt I make to voice my opinion and concerns as a consumer of this company.
  • Snaprag
    Snaprag
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Sep 2015 Posts: 437
    edited 7 Jun 2018, 2:17AM
    Just a random thought. Its absurd, but its valid. By no means am I making a threat. Its a legit analogy. If I shoot someone, I cant take the bullet back. You put this crap out there, we took it and are adapting. Instead of trying to recall your bullets, find a way to make this better with new tech, OR, brain power. This is a FUCT up attempt at fixing your mistakes



    Edit: typos
  • kixeyeuser_1384609903109_100003522404108
    kixeyeuser_1384609903109_100003522404108
    Incursion Leader
    Joined Dec 2014 Posts: 1,482
    all they nerfing is  their very own player base, this is ineptitude at it's finest and one has to wonder if this is even legal anymore

    It is not legal to bait and switch and that is exactly what we have here. I am also sure my response will be screened and not posted which is why I am videoing every attempt I make to voice my opinion and concerns as a consumer of this company.
    sadly this while i do agree this is bs its not bait n switch bait and switch has to happen at the point of sale and this did not we have been using these items for  awhile so its just another nerf
  • Snaprag
    Snaprag
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Sep 2015 Posts: 437
    all they nerfing is  their very own player base, this is ineptitude at it's finest and one has to wonder if this is even legal anymore

    It is not legal to bait and switch and that is exactly what we have here. I am also sure my response will be screened and not posted which is why I am videoing every attempt I make to voice my opinion and concerns as a consumer of this company.
    sadly this while i do agree this is bs its not bait n switch bait and switch has to happen at the point of sale and this did not we have been using these items for  awhile so its just another nerf
    Didnt someone say these turrets were working as intended at one point? If thats the case, this would be considered a recall. With all recalls Ive dealt with, there was some kind of compensation 
  • kixeyeuser_1351064767481_14766_464628200
    kixeyeuser_1351064767481_14766_464628200
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Feb 2015 Posts: 218
    once  again  another   stupid  knee jerk reaction    were  sick  and  tired  of  yall screwing  up  and  just making up crap and throwing it out here  you havent tested  any of this   and now you propose to  simply  nerf  crap once again after  players have made adjustments  for  what you have existing   Way  to  go  Kix   lets  see  how many more  folks you can run off  with you half baked  ideas 
  • Bangor 1
    Bangor 1
    Greenhorn
    Joined Apr 2013 Posts: 11
    waaaaah  waaaaah 
  • Digger_D7
    Digger_D7
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Aug 2013 Posts: 366
    My question where is the base that can not be bet in game? I still see most bases getting leveled by the newer ships that come out. Is there bases out there that are hard to bet yes, but some have figured out how to do it. So where going to switch the favor back into the ship that is hitting the base nice.

  • iwona.esser.1
    iwona.esser.1
    Force to be Reckoned With
    Joined Feb 2013 Posts: 1,605
    I could accept this change, although it is not a great fix by no means at all, if we were given a bunch of conqueror and defender tokens to adjust...
    ------------------------------------------------------
  • krous152
    krous152
    Greenhorn
    Joined Dec 2014 Posts: 1
    I have paid to build my base & fleets to try & keep up with current conqueror fleets and now I hear you are going to nerf the turrets.. I built my base to balance out in the game at the time. If your going to nerf the turrets I would like to be reimbursed for what I spent to get this base & fleets at to where it is. No where is it legal to take something sold & change it after the fact. You need people do your software straigth. Have you noticed all the abandoned bases? Nerf my turrets and I will join the abandoned too. But I will try to get reimbursed for what was done here such as the  Better Business Bureau 
  • captain-morgan03
    captain-morgan03
    Potential Threat
    Joined Jul 2014 Posts: 39
    edited 7 Jun 2018, 5:22AM
    i call bs on this statement this is just kix way of lying so they can nerf our bases and think we are going to be fine with it all because of the big cry babies fleets getting hurt taking damage or being killed i have seen the new impact cruiser from pops1 player able to sit in the channel of some of these top bases for a long time being pounded on and taking the damage killing some bases and not making it in others so i know if built right it can be done and if you nerf our bases turrets and antis then you will have flip it back the other way 100% because this ship can already take the damage pretty good and will be able to smash (walk) bases once again with all the high tech in them and not take much damage at all and for any of you that tried saying that new impact cruiser wasnt going to be any good i can say your full of it i have seen it first hand with my own eyes so you say you heard our feed back and attempt to use this lie as a way to nerf our bases again now your hearing more feed back from the other half of the players so now you will need to nerf the ships and armors they use to balance it again we and our bases shouldnt be punished for us working hard to get the toys and tech to make a strong base 

  • TRUCULENT2
    TRUCULENT2
    Master Tactician
    Joined Mar 2014 Posts: 2,087
    This could make sense... if they showed us the rest of the picture. Its been teased, but we really don't know what is coming or when. The change doesn't happen until 6/26 (yes, on the eve of bounty) BUT what if they drop something into the raid next week - something like a couple Super Pholgistan turrets, that does about a mil in radioactive damage. This is the strategy they've been teasing, but have taken forever to get to. Once a third damage is introduced, base hitters will be forced to chose how to equip armor to deal with bases. Right now, basers are 3 MC panels and 2 MC2 panels without exception, leaving ship vulnerable to most anything other than ballistic and penetrative; the third damage type will force strategy and hopefully make things interesting. 

    Like i said, it really is up to them to save it. I think I see how they are going to do it... but, no base will survive bounty if nothing new is introduced between now and then.
    2 Months ago it was just a finger, then it was two. Last month it was the fist, and last week to the elbow....
  • Allan Ray
    Allan Ray
    Greenhorn
    Joined Jan 2012 Posts: 21

    We have heard your feedback regarding the imbalance of Player vs Player (PVP) combat and want to share some information about the upcoming Player vs Player (PVP) rebalance and bug fixes.  These changes are slates for the 8.26 release, which is expected the week of June 26th.

    Tier 7 Turret Bug

    Instead of having an additive bonus of 25% for each turret, we have discovered a bug in which the group bonus of Tier 7 turrets is being calculated multiplicatively.  This is causing a wider than intended swing in the power of base defense by granting a 600% bonus to a full set of turrets, rather than the intended 200%.

    In the 8.26 update we are correcting this calculation to be additive, to match the description of turrets. This will give a total of 200% bonus with a full set of 8 turrets. While we do not have a problem with powerful base designs, the intention was never to be able to create an unbeatable base.

    Accuracy Bug

    The team has recently discovered a bug in which  any weapons or counter measures equipped to a ship have an unintended 100% bonus to accuracy.  This has made counter measures that are equipped to defender hulls much more effective than intended.  This bug is being corrected in 8.26, the week of June 26th.

    More info on Accuracy Bug: Here (<--- Click Link)

    Conclusion

    We are working hard to bring PVP back into balance. We don’t have a problem with players being able to create difficult bases to defeat, but through these bugs it was possible to create an unbeatable base with little effort. Our goal is to maintain a competitive balance between attackers and defenders, and these corrections are the first steps towards getting there

    TL;DR

    • Fixing T7 Turret group bonus to match the 200% bonus on the blueprint

    • Fixing accuracy bug that is making Defender hulls much more effective with countermeasures


    When are Kixeye going to stop messing with the game trying to fix this and then fix that just get it right before you put it in the game?
  • Alex11111
    Alex11111
    Strike-force Captain
    Joined Aug 2015 Posts: 711
    This could make sense... if they showed us the rest of the picture. Its been teased, but we really don't know what is coming or when. The change doesn't happen until 6/26 (yes, on the eve of bounty) BUT what if they drop something into the raid next week - something like a couple Super Pholgistan turrets, that does about a mil in radioactive damage. This is the strategy they've been teasing, but have taken forever to get to. Once a third damage is introduced, base hitters will be forced to chose how to equip armor to deal with bases. Right now, basers are 3 MC panels and 2 MC2 panels without exception, leaving ship vulnerable to most anything other than ballistic and penetrative; the third damage type will force strategy and hopefully make things interesting. 

    Like i said, it really is up to them to save it. I think I see how they are going to do it... but, no base will survive bounty if nothing new is introduced between now and then.
    What if, what if, what if not everybody will manage to pick up those Super Phologistan turret, considering how bad was last raid.... Theyare gonna put em in locked store and tag 60mil points for worthless hull to open it. Who's gonna pay for this crap
  • BadVenomHurricane
    BadVenomHurricane
    Strike-force Captain
    Joined Nov 2016 Posts: 703
    The song that kixeye has plying when they talk about pvp
    iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiim gonna swiiiiiiiing from the chandelier.


    On a more serious note, you guys really need to listen to what we say for the love of all things good listen to us. Spack said it quite clearly that without an armor change in a massive way the proposed 'fixes' would further break the balance issues swinging highly towards turrets being useless, if balance was what this was aiming at you guys have went past it a little. I will give CM Rampage a new turret calculator with the T7 bonus additive so they can see what deflections will be required to beat them.
  • Fubar_17
    Fubar_17
    Potential Threat
    Joined Nov 2015 Posts: 54
    This is ridiculous. We've spent time & money getting our bases where they can withstand the over-powered conquerors that are around. Doesn't make us immune because a good fleet, well driven can still get in and kill bases. The hitters just need to work at it. The current see-saw between defence & offence is probably the closest to balance it has been in a long time. Tactics & strategy are essential to succeed in both. Now you're adding insult to injury with the thwarted fanbois having to work for it. It seriously needs a rethink, something which kix seem to be incapable of doing along with their pre-release testing and quality control which is practically non-existent. I cannot remember a time when an update fixed problems without introducing new ones.
  • BadVenomHurricane
    BadVenomHurricane
    Strike-force Captain
    Joined Nov 2016 Posts: 703
    Fubar_17 said:
    This is ridiculous. We've spent time & money getting our bases where they can withstand the over-powered conquerors that are around. Doesn't make us immune because a good fleet, well driven can still get in and kill bases. The hitters just need to work at it. The current see-saw between defence & offence is probably the closest to balance it has been in a long time. Tactics & strategy are essential to succeed in both. Now you're adding insult to injury with the thwarted fanbois having to work for it. It seriously needs a rethink, something which kix seem to be incapable of doing along with their pre-release testing and quality control which is practically non-existent. I cannot remember a time when an update fixed problems without introducing new ones.
    Not true, you can make the base impossible, mine for example you have to prep guard to get in and you can only do that because i chose not to add all the pen turrets, add them and no chance at all.
  • Evil_Hawk
    Evil_Hawk
    Potential Threat
    Joined Sep 2014 Posts: 93
    CM Major_Rampage only thing you are trying to "balance" is those **** major alliances that don't hit bases because they are afraid to lose their medals 
Sign In or Register to comment.