PVP Balance Fixes

CM Major_Rampage
CM Major_Rampage
KIXEYE Community Manager
Joined Jul 2017 Posts: 1,257
edited 6 Jun 2018, 9:45PM

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


If you have technical questions, please submit a ticket here.
Having trouble submitting a ticket? Try this link.
Not sure about the rules
  • SI_SE_PUEDE
    SI_SE_PUEDE
    Potential Threat
    Joined Feb 2013 Posts: 36
    20 DAYS? LMAO

  • snowman518
    snowman518
    Potential Threat
    Joined Feb 2012 Posts: 45
    YA REALLY 20 more days? FFS
  • Pirate_L1
    Pirate_L1
    Greenhorn
    Joined Mar 2013 Posts: 7
    YA WTF  you needed us to point out the difference between additive and multiplicative....  still won't balance 
  • AerialVictini
    AerialVictini
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Apr 2011 Posts: 4,611
    And will the deflections on the hulls will come down as well? Because heavily nerfing defense while doing nothing to the attacker will ensure the turrets do nothing.
    Many things can change in 3 years. Some for the better, some for the worse. I think I know what happened here...
  • Ryan Baum
    Ryan Baum
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Apr 2012 Posts: 136
    Do You realize that you just made every turret useless.. You just made the problem worse. If this goes through you will get even more players to quit.. Do you even have any clue about the damage needed to kill a fleet? Does any Kixeye employee actually play the game? Im sorry to say but this is just plain retarded. This will probably flagged but it doesnt mean that what i said isnt true. 
  • tjking5476
    tjking5476
    Potential Threat
    Joined Mar 2015 Posts: 28
    edited 6 Jun 2018, 11:17PM
    kix you all are out to lunch. this was released in march 25... and has been pretty much spot on. so ya. this was known for a long while. 


    https://forsakencove.blogspot.com/2018/03/so-how-does-turret-damage-work-again.html

    with that said, are they going to also re do the calculations for fire support stacking??


  • Spack
    Spack
    Master Tactician
    Joined Jun 2011 Posts: 2,202
    edited 6 Jun 2018, 11:50PM
    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*3/2 = 1874636.13 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.



    DESTRO said: 
    The Almighty Spack

    KIXEYE Swag said:
    Spack is actually my Tyler Durden.
  • Corp_Hellrazor
    Corp_Hellrazor
    Force to be Reckoned With
    Joined Oct 2012 Posts: 1,964
    edited 6 Jun 2018, 11:54PM
    You mean the "bug" that [Insert name here] has been speaking about for the past 3-4 weeks or longer ?

    Give credit where credit is due.    Thanks [insert name here]


    But thanks to the BP team for trying to sort this mess out. I for one, appreciate any effort put forth in an attempt to try and keep this game on track, which I'm sure is not an easy job.

    Yeah...I admit that sometimes I, as well as some others, get a "bit" carried away with our rants about the way things are going within the game. And sometimes the anger gets misdirected, but that's because we ALL have passion for the game. Or...we did anyway.

    So, I apologize for anything I have said that has offended anyone personally.

    But just don't expect me to sit quietly in my corner with my coloring book and box of crayons.  :p:p:p
    #FARM
  • Cpt_Clueless
    Cpt_Clueless
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Sep 2014 Posts: 227

    Right before bounty..ofc lol

  • OsiasTheGreat
    OsiasTheGreat
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Sep 2015 Posts: 581
    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.



    By doing this, we almost dont even need to use a Siege Bat type special, as we can get close in just armors alone to combat the new damages
  • Ryan Baum
    Ryan Baum
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Apr 2012 Posts: 136
    Every turret this year they will make garbage if this is what they do... They have no clue on how to fix it but this is not how. If i have all 8 missle turrets i should be doing some damage to ICs and ONS. With this change I wont be doing any. Even howies will be reduced to nothing when they should be doing damage to MSCs and ONS. It shouldnt have taken weeks to come up with an idoitic plan like this. If this goes through their will be more boycotts but this time it wont be just SDS7 itll be the whole game. KIXEYE will lose players and more and more profit. Dont do this. Actually run numbers and see what the best options are. 
  • mauijewels
    mauijewels
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Apr 2012 Posts: 165
    Swing time.. do see do.. time to be a farm again. Will that be in time for the next bounty?  
  • tjking5476
    tjking5476
    Potential Threat
    Joined Mar 2015 Posts: 28
    Swing time.. do see do.. time to be a farm again. Will that be in time for the next bounty?  
    will most likely be right before bounty week..

  • Justice2020
    Justice2020
    Potential Threat
    Joined Jun 2013 Posts: 55
    Nerf one single turret and it will be my last day. What you are doing is illegal. You cannot continue to sell people a BMW and then take it back and say here is your Pinto. 
  • HowHigh
    HowHigh
    Strike-force Captain
    Joined Sep 2014 Posts: 967
    will just result in another extreme shift and imbalance again as always in this insane cycle 
  • OsiasTheGreat
    OsiasTheGreat
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Sep 2015 Posts: 581
    Not everyone has all T7 turrets, so the only people being affected will be those that worked for staying current. I personally feel that I shouldnt have to have my base nerfed because I worked for what I have achieved. If anything, my base inspires others to participate in bounty, so they can have a solid base. Also, by nerfing the turrets, you remove the need for Pinches, which was supposed to be a part of the strategy in base hitting
  • TheSkullhunter
    TheSkullhunter
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Jan 2015 Posts: 142
    The only strategy involved in this game now is how quickly you can whip your CC and type in the numbers correctly.. oh wait, it saves all the info for you now.. jeesh
  • smartynwa
    smartynwa
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Sep 2013 Posts: 177
    So what this means, is that the already super power fleets a number of people have will be even more powerful because Kixeye will reduce my defensive capabilities that I worked hard to build.  Does that seem to favor the big players, or is it just my imagination?
  • orioles506
    orioles506
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined May 2012 Posts: 261
    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
  • Players_First
    Players_First
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Apr 2018 Posts: 212
    Back and forth, back and forth... This is getting to be really freaking annoying FIND A **** BALANCE AND GO WITH IT.  WTF!

  • CourtneyL
    CourtneyL
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Sep 2012 Posts: 187

    Two months to acknowledge, and three weeks to fix. And as Spack said above, this is by far not a solution. Unbelievable, by far not suprised.

  • Toshiyuki Morikawa
    Toshiyuki Morikawa
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Sep 2012 Posts: 562
    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.
  • Rich_0
    Rich_0
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Apr 2013 Posts: 121
    This is wrong  to just change the turrets and not change new armors also. It will swing to attacker 100%. I know several who coined those turrets  and do not have max capacity. So you will succeed in killing game after all. you put out chores  with no hull available now you remove base defense.
  • OsiasTheGreat
    OsiasTheGreat
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Sep 2015 Posts: 581
    Guess this will work very well. With the 2.3mil armor, DoT damage from Cor weaps wont even hurt


  • michael.west.750
    michael.west.750
    Force to be Reckoned With
    Joined Mar 2013 Posts: 1,598
    Yes I know some bases could insta kill fleets, but it wasn't a huge % of bases that could.

    Now no matter if your base could or couldn't insta death fleets, they will now no longer be able to do much, if any, damage to the incoming fleet.

    So much for those that enjoy base defense.

    Hopefully kix can come up with some middle ground fix instead of swinging from one end of the spectrum to the other. Although five years of playing has shown me it's not likely kix knows how to do a middle ground fix.

    Oh well, in a month or so kix will swing it back to base defense.
    .
  • Bob Remauro
    Bob Remauro
    Greenhorn
    Joined Nov 2011 Posts: 6
    I have paid to build a base to stop the current conqueror fleets and now I hear you are going to nerf the turrets.. I built this base to balance out what was 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 to where it is. Nowhere is it legal to take something sold and change it after the fact because you guys didnt do your homework. Have you noticed all the abandoned bases? .. can you figure why? nerf my turrets and I will join the abandoned but I will try to get reimbursed for what was done here .. 
  • ClintEastwood03
    ClintEastwood03
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Nov 2012 Posts: 180
    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
  • Spack
    Spack
    Master Tactician
    Joined Jun 2011 Posts: 2,202
    edited 7 Jun 2018, 12:33AM
    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 ;)
    DESTRO said: 
    The Almighty Spack

    KIXEYE Swag said:
    Spack is actually my Tyler Durden.
  • MayorOfTheQR
    MayorOfTheQR
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Oct 2011 Posts: 224
    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
    Shh. Guard fleets will do a whole bunch of jack **** as well. 
    Mayor of the QR -- OI_Legend
  • jon pirate
    jon pirate
    Incursion Leader
    Joined Jan 2016 Posts: 1,158
    This is all BS you sell us a these turret then Nurf. them.  Just like you did with Fire support i'm sick of paying for a product just for you to nurf it. The bug you claim is all BS you are screwing customer do to you never test what you put out this is . This is just plan theft I'm over this crap and will be one of your dead bases you have out all over 
    think you forgot about players first 
Sign In or Register to comment.