Thanks for posting this. I've suspected something amiss for some time on my conqueror ship builds and have been unable to figure out why. Was beginning to think I was just a crap ship builder. Hopefully kix will confirm the bug and fix it.
I will say that turret resistance is not supposed to count towards omega weapons. Currently, it looks like it is, and has been reported and is being looked at.
As far as how everything else is working, I now have a fleet of identical ships, each with a different turret resistance special, and one with no turret defense special. I will report my findings back here after I have a chance to do some looking tonight.
I have, just didn't have a chance to post my findings.
But here they are:
I took a King's Writ with each of the turret defense specials up against the Kinetic Motion Cannon for one shot. In the fleet I would take two ships, one with FLCM as a constant variable to measure the damage taken each test round to make sure it was consistent, and a second ship with an identical build with one of the other specials. I would start the battle up, stack my two ships and creep them into firing range of the OP, which was off by itself to remove other turrets from the equation. I repeated a few of the test runs so the FLCM constant would receive the exact same amount of damage, which should translate to the ship being tested receiving the same amount of damage in each test run.
As such my findings were this:
So for some reason that 0.50% difference between Siege Battery 3/4 and Garrison Battery/FLCM accounted for a 20k damage difference. Last I checked, that is a pretty significant difference for a half of a percent. I would almost be willing to say that the retrofit bonus isn't being applied correctly to the Siege Battery family.
In short, there is merit behind this thread and I passed up my results to be looked at further.
I have, just didn't have a chance to post my findings.
But here they are:
I took a King's Writ with each of the turret defense specials up against the Kinetic Motion Cannon for one shot. In the fleet I would take two ships, one with FLCM as a constant variable to measure the damage taken each test round to make sure it was consistent, and a second ship with an identical build with one of the other specials. I would start the battle up, stack my two ships and creep them into firing range of the OP, which was off by itself to remove other turrets from the equation. I repeated a few of the test runs so the FLCM constant would receive the exact same amount of damage, which should translate to the ship being tested receiving the same amount of damage in each test run.
As such my findings were this:
So for some reason that 0.50% difference between Siege Battery 3/4 and Garrison Battery/FLCM accounted for a 20k damage difference. Last I checked, that is a pretty significant difference for a half of a percent. I would almost be willing to say that the retrofit bonus isn't being applied correctly to the Siege Battery family.
In short, there is merit behind this thread and I passed up my results to be looked at further.
Thanks for the tests , this also means that the omega gun acts as an turret , atleast that is what I see from this results, while there was said it was not a turret, looks as that also needs some clarification.
I have, just didn't have a chance to post my findings.
But here they are:
I took a King's Writ with each of the turret defense specials up against the Kinetic Motion Cannon for one shot. In the fleet I would take two ships, one with FLCM as a constant variable to measure the damage taken each test round to make sure it was consistent, and a second ship with an identical build with one of the other specials. I would start the battle up, stack my two ships and creep them into firing range of the OP, which was off by itself to remove other turrets from the equation. I repeated a few of the test runs so the FLCM constant would receive the exact same amount of damage, which should translate to the ship being tested receiving the same amount of damage in each test run.
As such my findings were this:
So for some reason that 0.50% difference between Siege Battery 3/4 and Garrison Battery/FLCM accounted for a 20k damage difference. Last I checked, that is a pretty significant difference for a half of a percent. I would almost be willing to say that the retrofit bonus isn't being applied correctly to the Siege Battery family.
In short, there is merit behind this thread and I passed up my results to be looked at further.
Thanks for the tests , this also means that the omega gun acts as an turret , atleast that is what I see from this results, while there was said it was not a turret, looks as that also needs some clarification.
OK, the Omega is a weird weapon with how it interacts with other buildings and ships.
Turret defence works against its damage, since the damage comes from a building.
However, tac fields from nearby tactical installation do not affect the Omega. An explanation that I saw basically stated that the tactical installations affected the turret BASE, which indirectly affects the weapon mounted atop it. As the outpost is not affected by offense buffs from tac installations, the weapon mounted on it is not boosted either.
I have, just didn't have a chance to post my findings.
But here they are:
I took a King's Writ with each of the turret defense specials up against the Kinetic Motion Cannon for one shot. In the fleet I would take two ships, one with FLCM as a constant variable to measure the damage taken each test round to make sure it was consistent, and a second ship with an identical build with one of the other specials. I would start the battle up, stack my two ships and creep them into firing range of the OP, which was off by itself to remove other turrets from the equation. I repeated a few of the test runs so the FLCM constant would receive the exact same amount of damage, which should translate to the ship being tested receiving the same amount of damage in each test run.
As such my findings were this:
So for some reason that 0.50% difference between Siege Battery 3/4 and Garrison Battery/FLCM accounted for a 20k damage difference. Last I checked, that is a pretty significant difference for a half of a percent. I would almost be willing to say that the retrofit bonus isn't being applied correctly to the Siege Battery family.
In short, there is merit behind this thread and I passed up my results to be looked at further.
Thanks for the tests , this also means that the omega gun acts as an turret , atleast that is what I see from this results, while there was said it was not a turret, looks as that also needs some clarification.
For the moment, that is correct. Omegas are being mitigated by turret defense, which is not suppose to happen and is on the list to be looked at already.
I just used the KMC because it was a repeatable damage source that I knew would at least damage the fleet, but not kill it. At some point I would like to redo it with a single shot accuracy based turret, but with all the deflections as they are it was a little difficult to design a repeatable test around with the ships I have built. I was trying to minimize variables in the whole thing.
I have, just didn't have a chance to post my findings.
But here they are:
I took a King's Writ with each of the turret defense specials up against the Kinetic Motion Cannon for one shot. In the fleet I would take two ships, one with FLCM as a constant variable to measure the damage taken each test round to make sure it was consistent, and a second ship with an identical build with one of the other specials. I would start the battle up, stack my two ships and creep them into firing range of the OP, which was off by itself to remove other turrets from the equation. I repeated a few of the test runs so the FLCM constant would receive the exact same amount of damage, which should translate to the ship being tested receiving the same amount of damage in each test run.
As such my findings were this:
So for some reason that 0.50% difference between Siege Battery 3/4 and Garrison Battery/FLCM accounted for a 20k damage difference. Last I checked, that is a pretty significant difference for a half of a percent. I would almost be willing to say that the retrofit bonus isn't being applied correctly to the Siege Battery family.
In short, there is merit behind this thread and I passed up my results to be looked at further.
being it was asked while back about spec working on Omega and was stated that the Omega was NOT a Turret (even though it is) so specials do not work on it then that should also include the 50% turret defense spec as well you know since the Omega is not a turret and all. Which is what Kix said on the discussion a while back. If one is going to work then they all need to work.
If Omega is not meant to be classed as a turret then kings writ is useless and the bugs are infact with the frontline countermeasure sys and garrison battery which provide the turret defence against it, i dont think anybody wants this scenario and omega should be classed as a turret for the best interest of everybody...going forward they should just clarify this and fix the seige bat specials. Thats my opinion on it
Worrying as a base hitter to think it could go the other way tho, the only thing i enjoy in this game is hitting bases now and making kings useless would wreck the game for me and many hours of hard work getting them!
I thought they originally classed the original omega researched gun as a turret in the sense that 50% turret defense would work against & then Kix changed their minds for the new kinetic cannon saying it is not classed as a turret so 50% turret defense will not work. Somebody tried to bump the thread where it was stated omega gun would be effected by SB3 & SB4 & that thread was frozen then. (at least that is how I remember it happening) I am unsure if both are still true or if now the original omega isn't affected by turret defense either. I think they are still deciding which way to go by how the players react.
being it was asked while back about spec working on Omega and was stated that the Omega was NOT a Turret (even though it is) so specials do not work on it then that should also include the 50% turret defense spec as well you know since the Omega is not a turret and all. Which is what Kix said on the discussion a while back. If one is going to work then they all need to work.
If Omega is not meant to be classed as a turret then kings writ is useless and the bugs are infact with the frontline countermeasure sys and garrison battery which provide the turret defence against it, i dont think anybody wants this scenario and omega should be classed as a turret for the best interest of everybody...going forward they should just clarify this and fix the seige bat specials. Thats my opinion on it
Worrying as a base hitter to think it could go the other way tho, the only thing i enjoy in this game is hitting bases now and making kings useless would wreck the game for me and many hours of hard work getting them!
I thought they originally classed the original omega researched gun as a turret in the sense that 50% turret defense would work against & then Kix changed their minds for the new kinetic cannon saying it is not classed as a turret so 50% turret defense will not work. Somebody tried to bump the thread where it was stated omega gun would be effected by SB3 & SB4 & that thread was frozen then. (at least that is how I remember it happening) I am unsure if both are still true or if now the original omega isn't affected by turret defense either. I think they are still deciding which way to go by how the players react.
I have no preference on which way they go as long as it is for everything and not pick and choose. Agian IF Fire support etx will not work to buff a Omega as its is not a "turret" then the defense spec can not work vs its damage. IF they decide that Defense spec can work against it then they also have to make the buffs work with it.
As long as its across the board I dont care which way Kix goes with it.
This confirms what I have suspected for a long time, the retrofit for siege battery turret defense is not applied. According to my tests and calculations this seems to be the case for both PvE and PvP. It has been this way for at least two years, perhaps longer.
I took the liberty to expand the table with some calculated values in the way I believe damage calculations are done. The numbers are very close.
Note that the built-in splash reduction for the Kings Writ seems not to be taken into account against the Kinetic.
This confirms what I have suspected for a long time, the retrofit for siege battery turret defense is not applied. According to my tests and calculations this seems to be the case for both PvE and PvP. It has been this way for at least two years, perhaps longer.
I took the liberty to expand the table with some calculated values in the way I believe damage calculations are done. The numbers are very close.
Note that the built-in splash reduction for the Kings Writ seems not to be taken into account against the Kinetic.
I noticed that as well. I also noticed that a control was not used (no turret defense special at all). Using the FLCM as a control really isn't a good option once these results were discovered.
"I'll admit- I avoid the forums, it's where motivation goes to die." -Unknown Game Developer... or is it?
This confirms what I have suspected for a long time, the retrofit for siege battery turret defense is not applied. According to my tests and calculations this seems to be the case for both PvE and PvP. It has been this way for at least two years, perhaps longer.
I took the liberty to expand the table with some calculated values in the way I believe damage calculations are done. The numbers are very close.
Note that the built-in splash reduction for the Kings Writ seems not to be taken into account against the Kinetic.
I noticed that as well. I also noticed that a control was not used (no turret defense special at all). Using the FLCM as a control really isn't a good option once these results were discovered.
I am well aware of the flaws in my test, however it works as a proof of concept and the turret resistance was not the primary. There were 3 separate things being investigated with this test, and it worked well enough to show that the one half percent difference between specials was actually quite a bit larger than what it should be.
As dreadm pointed out, the King's inherent splash resistance was another thing on the list that I was more specifically looking at with this.
The reason an empty King wasn't used as a control was because it didn't survive a KMC blast when doing the initial test to see if turret resistances were being applied against the Omegas. Which was the same thing, identical builds with one having FLCM and one with out, and the one with out was sank, while the FLCM one survived with ~75% health. And that is why the FLCM was used as a base comparison for the test I did because it at least survived.
So do we know if this is just a PVP bug or does it cross the line into PVE as well?
This needs to be investigated by Kixeye asap, cos if this problem applies to PvE too, the builds of most players for the current Siege raid cycle would be compromised.
So do we know if this is just a PVP bug or does it cross the line into PVE as well?
This needs to be investigated by Kixeye asap, cos if this problem applies to PvE too, the builds of most players for the current Siege raid cycle would be compromised.
They are.
Using the best performer FLCM as the "working" special, I calculated back the raw damage done before "turret defense" was applied. Using that number, 14202 here, a simple 1 - (damage / raw damage) got these effective "turret defense" damage reduction percentages.
Damage Reduction (Calculated)
Siege Battery 3 39.44%
Frontline Countermeasures 50.00%
Garrison Battery 48.94%
Siege Battery 4 39.44%
That's a far cry from the 0.5% difference advertised. FLCM is over 20% better at turret defense than either of the standard Siege Batteries used.
ETA: Deflection may be compounding the crap out of this problem... or lessening it. I haven't thought about it and didn't include it in the math. If someone else wants to, feel free. All the numbers I had to go by are right there in the video.
I can attest to this being true. On my 4 buccs 2 have frontline and some anti, and the other 2 have siege batt 4. After an S target camp I go in my base to repair and the 2 with frontline will have 3mins damage and the 2 with siege batt 4 will have a tad over 5mins each. So I will be swapping SB4 out for FLCM when I add my rad pool armor
This was mentioned on the raid dissuasion lots of times yesterday, with zero response. Then I made two separate posts that the Mods just moved to raid discussion without any rearguards to the issue at hand (and that's BS). Somehow, somebody got a post to stick, yay. My siege bat 4 is crap and just wanted to know if it was being fixed? That's all I wanted to know.......Is it being fixed?
This was mentioned on the raid dissuasion lots of times yesterday, with zero response. Then I made two separate posts that the Mods just moved to raid discussion without any rearguards to the issue at hand (and that's BS). Somehow, somebody got a post to stick, yay. My siege bat 4 is crap and just wanted to know if it was being fixed? That's all I wanted to know.......Is it being fixed?
Would be nice to know if the % damage is even working on the SB4 as well since we know the % defense is glitched
today, during the raid, i refit my ironclads from siege bat 3 to siege bat 4 along with adding sts3, a phalanx and trident to each ship. the difference in damage shocked me!
before the refit, i had been doing 3 full sets of 60s before needing 5-6 hrs repair. after the refit, it dropped to being able to only do 1 set of 60s for the same amount of damage!
after finding out about this bug with siege bat 4, (thanks @Shapu_the_farm ), i have since refit my ironclads back to siege bat 3 and am once again able to do 3 full sets of 60s before needing repair.
i'm changing my buccaneer design as well. thankfully i caught the problem before i had more than 1 built.
in conclusion, my experience tells me that siege bat 4 definitely has a problem in PVE as of 01/12/2017
today, during the raid, i refit my ironclads from siege bat 3 to siege bat 4 along with adding sts3, a phalanx and trident to each ship. the difference in damage shocked me!
before the refit, i had been doing 3 full sets of 60s before needing 5-6 hrs repair. after the refit, it dropped to being able to only do 1 set of 60s for the same amount of damage!
after finding out about this bug with siege bat 4, (thanks @Shapu_the_farm ), i have since refit my ironclads back to siege bat 3 and am once again able to do 3 full sets of 60s before needing repair.
i'm changing my buccaneer design as well. thankfully i caught the problem before i had more than 1 built.
in conclusion, my experience tells me that siege bat 4 definitely has a problem in PVE as of 01/12/2017
I have noticed this, i have SB4 on 3 of my bucs and front line countermeasures on the counter measure ship and that takes alot less damage also, so is it just SB4 effected and not SB3 then? Then to top that off i have came across another bug with the shielded tactical system and the emitters in the target that you will take 50% more damage having them equipped.
today, during the raid, i refit my ironclads from siege bat 3 to siege bat 4 along with adding sts3, a phalanx and trident to each ship. the difference in damage shocked me!
before the refit, i had been doing 3 full sets of 60s before needing 5-6 hrs repair. after the refit, it dropped to being able to only do 1 set of 60s for the same amount of damage!
after finding out about this bug with siege bat 4, (thanks @Shapu_the_farm ), i have since refit my ironclads back to siege bat 3 and am once again able to do 3 full sets of 60s before needing repair.
i'm changing my buccaneer design as well. thankfully i caught the problem before i had more than 1 built.
in conclusion, my experience tells me that siege bat 4 definitely has a problem in PVE as of 01/12/2017
I have noticed this, i have SB4 on 3 of my bucs and front line countermeasures on the counter measure ship and that takes alot less damage also, so is it just SB4 effected and not SB3 then? Then to top that off i have came across another bug with the shielded tactical system and the emitters in the target that you will take 50% more damage having them equipped.
I have been using SB4 all these while in the raid and the 60s are truly damaging (for Buccs). 65s does a great deal more damage than 61s and 63s. Sometimes I complete 2 sets, occasionally with a uncommon steelhead I complete 3. Either way, it is urgent and imperative that they fix this bug, any mod received any updates about this?
Yes SB series is bugged. I have identical buccs built with sb4 and mx1... very noticeable difference in damage taken. Enormous difference over the course of this raid series. Lame. Again.
today, during the raid, i refit my ironclads from siege bat 3 to siege bat 4 along with adding sts3, a phalanx and trident to each ship. the difference in damage shocked me!
before the refit, i had been doing 3 full sets of 60s before needing 5-6 hrs repair. after the refit, it dropped to being able to only do 1 set of 60s for the same amount of damage!
after finding out about this bug with siege bat 4, (thanks @Shapu_the_farm ), i have since refit my ironclads back to siege bat 3 and am once again able to do 3 full sets of 60s before needing repair.
i'm changing my buccaneer design as well. thankfully i caught the problem before i had more than 1 built.
in conclusion, my experience tells me that siege bat 4 definitely has a problem in PVE as of 01/12/2017
I will say that turret resistance is not supposed to count towards omega weapons. Currently, it looks like it is, and has been reported and is being looked at.
As far as how everything else is working, I now have a fleet of identical ships, each with a different turret resistance special, and one with no turret defense special. I will report my findings back here after I have a chance to do some looking tonight.
But here they are:
I took a King's Writ with each of the turret defense specials up against the Kinetic Motion Cannon for one shot. In the fleet I would take two ships, one with FLCM as a constant variable to measure the damage taken each test round to make sure it was consistent, and a second ship with an identical build with one of the other specials. I would start the battle up, stack my two ships and creep them into firing range of the OP, which was off by itself to remove other turrets from the equation. I repeated a few of the test runs so the FLCM constant would receive the exact same amount of damage, which should translate to the ship being tested receiving the same amount of damage in each test run.
As such my findings were this:
So for some reason that 0.50% difference between Siege Battery 3/4 and Garrison Battery/FLCM accounted for a 20k damage difference. Last I checked, that is a pretty significant difference for a half of a percent. I would almost be willing to say that the retrofit bonus isn't being applied correctly to the Siege Battery family.
In short, there is merit behind this thread and I passed up my results to be looked at further.
OK, the Omega is a weird weapon with how it interacts with other buildings and ships.
Turret defence works against its damage, since the damage comes from a building.
However, tac fields from nearby tactical installation do not affect the Omega. An explanation that I saw basically stated that the tactical installations affected the turret BASE, which indirectly affects the weapon mounted atop it. As the outpost is not affected by offense buffs from tac installations, the weapon mounted on it is not boosted either.
For the moment, that is correct. Omegas are being mitigated by turret defense, which is not suppose to happen and is on the list to be looked at already.
I just used the KMC because it was a repeatable damage source that I knew would at least damage the fleet, but not kill it. At some point I would like to redo it with a single shot accuracy based turret, but with all the deflections as they are it was a little difficult to design a repeatable test around with the ships I have built. I was trying to minimize variables in the whole thing.
I am unsure if both are still true or if now the original omega isn't affected by turret defense either. I think they are still deciding which way to go by how the players react.
As long as its across the board I dont care which way Kix goes with it.
-Unknown Game Developer... or is it?
As dreadm pointed out, the King's inherent splash resistance was another thing on the list that I was more specifically looking at with this.
The reason an empty King wasn't used as a control was because it didn't survive a KMC blast when doing the initial test to see if turret resistances were being applied against the Omegas. Which was the same thing, identical builds with one having FLCM and one with out, and the one with out was sank, while the FLCM one survived with ~75% health. And that is why the FLCM was used as a base comparison for the test I did because it at least survived.
-Unknown Game Developer... or is it?
ETA: Deflection may be compounding the crap out of this problem... or lessening it. I haven't thought about it and didn't include it in the math. If someone else wants to, feel free. All the numbers I had to go by are right there in the video.
before the refit, i had been doing 3 full sets of 60s before needing 5-6 hrs repair. after the refit, it dropped to being able to only do 1 set of 60s for the same amount of damage!
after finding out about this bug with siege bat 4, (thanks @Shapu_the_farm ), i have since refit my ironclads back to siege bat 3 and am once again able to do 3 full sets of 60s before needing repair.
i'm changing my buccaneer design as well. thankfully i caught the problem before i had more than 1 built.
in conclusion, my experience tells me that siege bat 4 definitely has a problem in PVE as of 01/12/2017