Seige bat 3 and 4 bugged

  • Shapu_the_farm
    Shapu_the_farm
    Master Tactician
    Joined Sep 2015 Posts: 2,045
    tristy g said:
    Dazandren said:
    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
    Could you post your build plz m8,
    I'll intercept here.  This is my build:

    https://www.dahippo.com/bp/ship#!C07M012121212342U6P2Y8OAKAK2M2M2M2M2M2M2M2M07J012121212342U6P2Y8OAKAK2M2M2M2M2M2M2M2M07J012121212342U6P2Y8OAKAK2M2M2M2M2M2M2M2M07J012121212342U6P2Y8OAKAK2M2M2M2M2M2M2M2M07J01212121234446P006AAKAK2C00F2001B001B00dE

    Notice that the fifth ship is my countermeasure ship.  I use a Harlock's Ironclad.  If you don't have one, expect to do one 60 set per repair cycle.
  • stephenl90
    stephenl90
    Strike-force Captain
    Joined Mar 2013 Posts: 784
    This could be one of the reasons that the Canoneers are not working as intended in this raid. It would seem certain that there is a bug and lower levels using these specials should be compensated in some way for loss of points and increased daamage.
  • kixeyeuser_1388600479319_1249361144
    kixeyeuser_1388600479319_1249361144
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Apr 2015 Posts: 226
    I have no faith in Kix anymore. Even if they did compensate us it would be some piddly amount that is more of an insult than anything. Between this and the C1-C nerf I feel like my legs have been cut out from under me. I used all available tokens just to get my buccs out and 3 out of 4 were already fitted with Sb4 before this came to light. The one with MKX takes waaaay less damage than the other 3. Its the difference between hitting 80s effectively. I should not have to refit at this point because of this issue. Funny how bugs that work against us seem to last forever and ones that work for us are fixed ASAP. Really tired of this kind of stuff. 
    Upgrade Pirates is not as fun as Battle Pirates
  • DazzXP
    DazzXP
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Dec 2011 Posts: 3,509
    This could be one of the reasons that the Canoneers are not working as intended in this raid. It would seem certain that there is a bug and lower levels using these specials should be compensated in some way for loss of points and increased daamage.
    They are not using retrofits so they have 40% turret defence, when retrofitted to R15 they are meant to go to 50% but remain at R0 instead... thats the issue. So it's affecting the higher end players that have retrofitted their SB.
    We want the Dry Dock NOW! http://www.facebook.com/groups/184955281636155/ We need YOU! The game needs YOU!
  • stephenl90
    stephenl90
    Strike-force Captain
    Joined Mar 2013 Posts: 784
    edited 13 Jan 2018, 7:34PM
    DazzXP said:
    This could be one of the reasons that the Canoneers are not working as intended in this raid. It would seem certain that there is a bug and lower levels using these specials should be compensated in some way for loss of points and increased daamage.
    They are not using retrofits so they have 40% turret defence, when retrofitted to R15 they are meant to go to 50% but remain at R0 instead... thats the issue. So it's affecting the higher end players that have retrofitted their SB.
    I was responding for a friend who is a level 94 but who I would call a Mid Level player with low end tech. As it happens she has retroed her SB3 to R15.
  • Corp_Hellrazor
    Corp_Hellrazor
    Force to be Reckoned With
    Joined Oct 2012 Posts: 1,637
    You know....it would just be nice to see someone official acknowledge the issue.

    A little communication would go a long way.

    But I guess that's asking too much.    :/


  • Carlo DeNauw
    Carlo DeNauw
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Aug 2012 Posts: 4,036
    The difference between Siege Batt and FLCM is only .5%. The math doesn't work. At all. That's almost triple the damage.


    "I'll admit- I avoid the forums, it's where motivation goes to die."
    -Unknown Game Developer... or is it?
  • cupidstunt
    cupidstunt
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Oct 2011 Posts: 306
    not sure what you are asking?   there is always randomness....  but look at the resists also :)

    Not adding much here.

    Won some hulls

    Visited a few sectors

    Sector 249 is my home
  • klington
    klington
    Strike-force Captain
    Joined Feb 2015 Posts: 871

    Siege bat is 40%, flcm is 50%. Yes I know seige stated 49.5% but it broken. The r15 is not apply now till Kix fix it.


  • Carlo DeNauw
    Carlo DeNauw
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Aug 2012 Posts: 4,036
    klington said:

    Siege bat is 40%, flcm is 50%. Yes I know seige stated 49.5% but it broken. The r15 is not apply now till Kix fix it.

    That's what I was thinking as well.


    "I'll admit- I avoid the forums, it's where motivation goes to die."
    -Unknown Game Developer... or is it?
  • Cathedral_Rock
    Cathedral_Rock
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Feb 2013 Posts: 8,604
    there is clearly something wrong
    players have been complaining for almost a month so far, but of course it was basically brushed over in the absence of hard numbers
    I think Templar was able to get some actual data and passed it up...
    but at this point there is probably no chance of any correction before the end of the event.
    sending in a ticket may be the only chance at getting any consideration...
    "Every time there is a change in the game it seems the general reply is a complaint about the changes before they ever happen.  However every time the game changes we use strategy and adapt to the changes and we get used to them. .....without these changes, the game would become boring." -captaindirty 10/31/2017
  • The_Vengeful_One
    The_Vengeful_One
    Moderator
    Joined Jun 2012 Posts: 4,223
    It is being looked into. I wouldn't expect a fix for it before the event ends though.
  • Shadow527
    Shadow527
    Strike-force Captain
    Joined Sep 2011 Posts: 635
    im having the same issue...noticed the r15 of sb4 is not applying 
    image
  • Carlo DeNauw
    Carlo DeNauw
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Aug 2012 Posts: 4,036
    So everyone that is running SB should be sending in some tickets? Gotcha.

    "I'll admit- I avoid the forums, it's where motivation goes to die."
    -Unknown Game Developer... or is it?
  • Shadow527
    Shadow527
    Strike-force Captain
    Joined Sep 2011 Posts: 635
    It is being looked into. I wouldn't expect a fix for it before the event ends though.
    LOL of course it wont be fixed till after the raid...more damage = more coin......
    image
  • Carlo DeNauw
    Carlo DeNauw
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Aug 2012 Posts: 4,036
    It was FAR more important to 'fix' the armor rather than the special that everyone uses for a siege target, right?? lol
    "I'll admit- I avoid the forums, it's where motivation goes to die."
    -Unknown Game Developer... or is it?
  • TigerAceR
    TigerAceR
    Force to be Reckoned With
    Joined Sep 2011 Posts: 1,951
    Because they have known the retro wasn't being applied for a while now. Thats the short answer why Siege Battery is not protecting you as well as FLCMS. But I guess it was much more important to "fix" the C1-C armor instead. 
    Former Battle Vortex Arbiter
  • Carlo DeNauw
    Carlo DeNauw
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Aug 2012 Posts: 4,036
    Is anyone familiar with the term warranty of merchantability? I mean, I'm just curious...
    "I'll admit- I avoid the forums, it's where motivation goes to die."
    -Unknown Game Developer... or is it?
  • bort
    bort
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Oct 2011 Posts: 8,257
    Is anyone familiar with the term warranty of merchantability? I mean, I'm just curious...
    are you thinkin siege battery is out of warranty?
  • Carlo DeNauw
    Carlo DeNauw
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Aug 2012 Posts: 4,036
    bort said:
    Is anyone familiar with the term warranty of merchantability? I mean, I'm just curious...
    are you thinkin siege battery is out of warranty?
    Maybe there's a recall? lol
    "I'll admit- I avoid the forums, it's where motivation goes to die."
    -Unknown Game Developer... or is it?
  • Tywin_Lannister
    Tywin_Lannister
    Incursion Leader
    Joined Jan 2018 Posts: 1,233
    klington said:

    Siege bat is 40%, flcm is 50%. Yes I know seige stated 49.5% but it broken. The r15 is not apply now till Kix fix it.

    So all that time & effort & Unobtainium retrofitting it is down the gurgler?

    Any man who must say, 'I am the king' is no true king
  • King Pin
    King Pin
    Strike-force Captain
    Joined Oct 2013 Posts: 772
    With the current trend Kixeye has been pulling in the last year of fixing things they have broken, Do not expect a fix ever, they will tell you they are working on it, but if it generates coin for them they will not be working on it.
  • Fry lock
    Fry lock
    Force to be Reckoned With
    Joined May 2013 Posts: 1,702
    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.
    Are you sure it's statistically significant? I have been paying attention and am less sure because there is a fair bit of single target damage that can happen. Not saying you're wrong, but pointing out some randomness can throw things off easily unless your sample size is very large.
  • blackhawk4040
    blackhawk4040
    Force to be Reckoned With
    Joined Feb 2013 Posts: 1,817
    edited 14 Jan 2018, 4:44PM
    Fry lock said:
    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.
    Are you sure it's statistically significant? I have been paying attention and am less sure because there is a fair bit of single target damage that can happen. Not saying you're wrong, but pointing out some randomness can throw things off easily unless your sample size is very large.
    Chart done by one of the MODS no less...


  • BigDogDGS22
    BigDogDGS22
    Potential Threat
    Joined May 2013 Posts: 46
    It might be as simple as 'working as intended'. The reason the OP found the bug is that the KW has a lot of health over which the turret defense is applied. I suspect that the issue is not related to a bug but due to the nature of the specials themselves. FLCM and Garrison battery add a flat 50% turret defence and can't be retroed. Unfortunately, all Siege battery specials can be retroed and in the retrofit research, the turret defense % is increased. As a result, the turret defense never actually reaches 50% like LFCM and Garrison battery but remains at 49.%. In game, specifically in the shipyard, this is rounded to 50% but Huggy's shipbuilder actually shows the real value if you hover your mouse over it, which is 49.5%. 
    In normal cases such as PvE this isn't an issue because the ship health is rather low and therefore the discrepancy in effect between the 50% and 49.5% turret defense is negligible. However, with the high health of the KW, these values become a problem. Huggy's also shows a field with the resistances for turrets if a turret defense special is applied. As you can see in the fleet below, 50% turret defense with garrison battery acts as if the KW has double health numbers, which equals 350,000 (175,000 *2). However, the second ship has Siege batter IV equipped and you can see that the values are slightly off. Instead of 350,000, the field displays 346,727 which equals exactly 49.5% turret defense. Because of the high health of the KW, this issue is starting to present a significant problem. I've also added two Levi's to demonstrate the health difference between ships with much lower armour number. 
    https://www.dahippo.com/bp/ship#!H07W00000007200000000000000000000000000000007W00000004R00000000000000000000000000000000700000007200000000000000700000004R0000000000000ZZdD
    https://www.dahippo.com/bp/ship#!H0810000000004R00000000000000000000000000081000000000440000000000000000000000000000700000007200000000000000700000004R0000000000000ZZdD

    Did the same comparison with the new buc lead....interesting stuff
  • Fry lock
    Fry lock
    Force to be Reckoned With
    Joined May 2013 Posts: 1,702
    You know....it would just be nice to see someone official acknowledge the issue.

    A little communication would go a long way.

    But I guess that's asking too much.    :/


    Certainly would, if they only knew. I was just trying to recap the earlier parts of the thread since the person who asked hadn't read. That said, there's a lot of speculation as there often is.

    I wish there were a lot less hidden stats in this game, but I still like it.
  • Fry lock
    Fry lock
    Force to be Reckoned With
    Joined May 2013 Posts: 1,702
    Fry lock said:
    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.
    Are you sure it's statistically significant? I have been paying attention and am less sure because there is a fair bit of single target damage that can happen. Not saying you're wrong, but pointing out some randomness can throw things off easily unless your sample size is very large.
    Chart done by one of the MODS no less...


    I know that chart was correct, since I (sorta) know the methodology he used. I was referring to your more annecdotal comment which could have easily been caused by random factors unless repeated (and tracked) an awful lot.
  • RandySpeedo
    RandySpeedo
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Sep 2014 Posts: 317
    I had hoped that kix would have fixed this issue, but it seems not to be a priority.
  • kixeyeuser_1387864116824_100007309512820
    kixeyeuser_1387864116824_100007309512820
    Force to be Reckoned With
    Joined Apr 2015 Posts: 1,934
    so wait is better to hold off on putting this on anything till its fixed or is it still put on just wait for them to fix it so it works cause it seems that battery makes big difference.
  • SIF
    SIF
    Incursion Leader
    Joined Apr 2012 Posts: 1,385
    edited 14 Jan 2018, 11:42PM
    Fry lock said:
    Fry lock said:
    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.
    Are you sure it's statistically significant? I have been paying attention and am less sure because there is a fair bit of single target damage that can happen. Not saying you're wrong, but pointing out some randomness can throw things off easily unless your sample size is very large.
    Chart done by one of the MODS no less...


    I know that chart was correct, since I (sorta) know the methodology he used. I was referring to your more annecdotal comment which could have easily been caused by random factors unless repeated (and tracked) an awful lot.
    There shouldn't be any random factors in my test. I let my Ironclads stand in fire, stacked, then compared the damage taken. I did it a 2nd time with Res Cap instead of SB4 and Garrison and FLCM came back identical while SB3 was still lower (health). And Res Cap provided 0% help even though the Turret Defense stat shows up in the Defense block rather than the Special Ability block where it should be if it only applies when triggered.

Sign In or Register to comment.