Splash Damage still borked?

[2coolforu]

In the stream it looked as if Flak explosions were doing very little to the aircraft and people seemed unfazed by rockets going off right next to them, was AoE damage fixed and my eyes just terrible. It all happened so quickly in the stream I couldn't really go back and check.

[Razicator]

Originally Posted by 2coolforu

In the stream it looked as if Flak explosions were doing very little to the aircraft and people seemed unfazed by rockets going off right next to them, was AoE damage fixed and my eyes just terrible. It all happened so quickly in the stream I couldn't really go back and check.

If you want noobtubes and rocketspam galore, go play MW2 or BFBC2. I'm all for unlrealistic explosion damage radius if it means less spam.

[2coolforu]

Originally Posted by Razicator

If you want noobtubes and rocketspam galore, go play MW2 or BFBC2. I'm all for unlrealistic explosion damage radius if it means less spam.

FLAK

[Razicator]

Originally Posted by 2coolforu

FLAK

...and people seemed unfazed by rockets going off right next to them, was AoE damage fixed and my eyes just terrible.

Don't mention rocket explosions if you want to talk only about the flak. And flak was fine, multiple airplanes went down to AA maxes on stream.

[2coolforu]

Originally Posted by Razicator

Don't mention rocket explosions if you want to talk only about the flak. And flak was fine, multiple airplanes went down to AA maxes on stream.

Why the hell should I not mention the rocket explosions? At multiple points it appeared as if rockets landed near MAX units and did no damage, I'm just wondering if someone with sharper eyes than myself noticed AoE damage as I was more captivated by the pretty colours/ the rockets could have been a trick of perspective and had infact missed their target.

Why shouldn't rockets have splash, splash =/= instakill, why shouldn't splash effect the things rockets are strong against. Your kneejerk reaction was just so hilariously over the top that I had to clarify. My question relating to flak was simply because I saw the Lib get enveloped in flak but it's health meter didn't seem to go down, at some points the mosquitos hovered in flak explosions for quite a while and didn't go down even to sustained fire. I was just wondering if that was because the ones that did go down were taking more damage or if it was because AoE was still jiggered and direct hits got the others, that's all.

[Razicator]

Originally Posted by 2coolforu

Why the hell should I not mention the rocket explosions? At multiple points it appeared as if rockets landed near MAX units and did no damage, I'm just wondering if someone with sharper eyes than myself noticed AoE damage as I was more captivated by the pretty colours/ the rockets could have been a trick of perspective and had infact missed their target.

Why shouldn't rockets have splash, splash =/= instakill, why shouldn't splash effect the things rockets are strong against. Your kneejerk reaction was just so hilariously over the top that I had to clarify. My question relating to flak was simply because I saw the Lib get enveloped in flak but it's health meter didn't seem to go down, at some points the mosquitos hovered in flak explosions for quite a while and didn't go down even to sustained fire. I was just wondering if that was because the ones that did go down were taking more damage or if it was because AoE was still jiggered and direct hits got the others, that's all.

So what do you want to talk about? Your original post seemed as if you wanted to talk about "fixing," ie increasing the radius of, rocket/flack damage. And in my head I was thinking ok, 2000 man battles, increased explosion radius is absolutely not what we needed. Am I misunderstanding? If so, my apologies.

[Virulence]

I felt like visible explosion radii were exaggerated compared to actual explosion radii, really.

[2coolforu]

Originally Posted by Razicator

So what do you want to talk about? Your original post seemed as if you wanted to talk about "fixing," ie increasing the radius of, rocket/flack damage. And in my head I was thinking ok, 2000 man battles, increased explosion radius is absolutely not what we needed. Am I misunderstanding? If so, my apologies.

I was just wondering if anyone had noticed splash damage being a bit schizophrenic at times. For example with the dual burster max he must have put only 10-15 shells into one mossie for it to go down but a bit later on he sprayed a hovering mossie with a good 30-40 and it seemed relatively unfazed. It also looked like the liberator was completely unaffected by some flak going off near it.

At another point a magrider opened fire on a TR MAX and must have landed about 8-9 shells around it. Maybe with one direct hit, the MAX seemed totally fine and just buggered off, It was completely inside the explosion effect so I was just thinking maybe the AoE is borked because for a trooper to take 8 tank shells landing within a metre radius of him is a bit...strange.

[Razicator]

Originally Posted by Virulence

I felt like visible explosion radii were exaggerated compared to actual explosion radii, really.

Originally Posted by 2coolforu

I was just wondering if anyone had noticed splash damage being a bit schizophrenic at times. For example with the dual burster max he must have put only 10-15 shells into one mossie for it to go down but a bit later on he sprayed a hovering mossie with a good 30-40 and it seemed relatively unfazed. It also looked like the liberator was completely unaffected by some flak going off near it.

At another point a magrider opened fire on a TR MAX and must have landed about 8-9 shells around it. Maybe with one direct hit, the MAX seemed totally fine and just buggered off, It was completely inside the explosion effect so I was just thinking maybe the AoE is borked because for a trooper to take 8 tank shells landing within a metre radius of him is a bit...strange.

I feel like Virulence is on the right track here explaining that. In the liberator clips, the explosion and smoke covered practically a whole corner of the base. I can't imagine one shell from a lib doing aoe damage that wide suggested by the graphics. Perhaps the shaking camera limit is much wider than the actual explosion radius, making it seem like a player was right next to an explosion when really it was a bit farther away.

[Haro]

To address the OP, I think flak was definitely better off in this build than previous. I thought the detonations looked pretty good, you could definitely tell they were hitting something, so they fixed proximity detection. I think the radii are largely fine, but damage could be another matter. It looked like it was most effective against fighters, but even then it would take like 5-10 seconds to bring one down. I think that's tolerable for that level of craft, but it may not be ideal against larger craft. I think we need to see other forms of AA in action, definitively, before we really judge this. I'd be fine with Maxes making up light AA if other forms pick up the pace. I think liberators should take no longer than 20-30 seconds of continuous fire from one max. Galaxies should probably take more to really encourage flying with them. Maybe a minute. Really would be nice to have hard numbers though...

As for rockets... again, it's complicated. Really wishing I could refer back to the stream, but I'd rather see rockets start weak and get tuned up rather than the other way around.

From what I could see, splash damage looks fine. Tank rounds seemed to really be effective, and flak seemed to be exploding reasonably enough. I think it's more a matter of number tuning rather than mechanics fixing, but again, working with a slim body of evidence here.

Another thing, the actual physical explosion is a poor way to judge the actual effects. It's just an animation or sprite put in place, and it doesn't actually represent the mechanics at work. Maybe it represents an artists interpretation that developers try to follow, but ultimately it comes down to how the mechanics are coded.

[2coolforu]

Originally Posted by Razicator

I feel like Virulence is on the right track here explaining that. In the liberator clips, the explosion and smoke covered practically a whole corner of the base. I can't imagine one shell from a lib doing aoe damage that wide suggested by the graphics. Perhaps the shaking camera limit is much wider than the actual explosion radius, making it seem like a player was right next to an explosion when really it was a bit farther away.

It could be that, especially with the liberators XBOX HUGE explosion effect, that did pass through my head but the incident with the mag spending a good 30 seconds shooting up a MAX and landing quite a few shots in a close radii around it to no effect and the general Flak tomfoolery I wondered if the AoE was still glitchy or incomplete.

[Blackwolf]

Originally Posted by 2coolforu

I was just wondering if anyone had noticed splash damage being a bit schizophrenic at times. For example with the dual burster max he must have put only 10-15 shells into one mossie for it to go down but a bit later on he sprayed a hovering mossie with a good 30-40 and it seemed relatively unfazed. It also looked like the liberator was completely unaffected by some flak going off near it.

At another point a magrider opened fire on a TR MAX and must have landed about 8-9 shells around it. Maybe with one direct hit, the MAX seemed totally fine and just buggered off, It was completely inside the explosion effect so I was just thinking maybe the AoE is borked because for a trooper to take 8 tank shells landing within a metre radius of him is a bit...strange.

I think the whole trailer was specifically designed so that few, if anyone, died or anything was destroyed. It was something that stuck in my head how damn near every bullet missed and most explosions occurred around or near the target but rarely directly on target.

In short I think it was a carefully choreographed movie rather then a series of actual battles. If something was destroyed it was meant to be destroyed. I also noticed little to no vehicle battle damage so it's very likely that damage in general was temporarily turned off for the making of that movie.

I also agree with Haro completely, Raz's response was 100% uncalled for. Particularly the part about explosions not being needed. This is a massive game and explosions are effective ways of eliminating large numbers of infantry rapidly. Stop thinking of it as a selfish FPS player and start thinking about it with an unbiased mind. You're gonna die, get over it now.

If the devs decide to implement nuclear bombs, so be it. I doubt they will since they probably want to keep some source of revenue going. But I'd play a game based in a nuclear war.

[Razicator]

Originally Posted by 2coolforu

It could be that, especially with the liberators XBOX HUGE explosion effect, that did pass through my head but the incident with the mag spending a good 30 seconds shooting up a MAX and landing quite a few shots in a close radii around it to no effect and the general Flak tomfoolery I wondered if the AoE was still glitchy or incomplete.

Hmm I can see maybe a side effect of plasma weaponry being since plasma isn't really an "explosive," the radius of them are smaller. It would go with the whole "plasma is more precise" theme. Total scifi lore pandering I know

[Razicator]

Originally Posted by Blackwolf

In short I think it was a carefully choreographed movie rather then a series of actual battles. If something was destroyed it was meant to be destroyed. I also noticed little to no vehicle battle damage so it's very likely that damage in general was temporarily turned off for the making of that movie.

Sorry to double post, but wow you just turned on Conspiracy Keanu in my head. What if the 12 accounts that were played at E3 had their own unique ID that everyone knew? And thus the SOE employees were told to take it a bit easier on those people? Like shooting around them to give cool effects, rather than outright backstabbing in the back. Hmm...

[Bags]

I'm fine with small AOE damage, but flak should be working properly in the future.