38 réponses à ce sujet

[Deerber]

I'm completely baffled by the logic that you take 140% damage out of cover and 100% in cover. Like really? WTF? 

 

Should't it be 100% out of cover and less in cover? 

 

 

It's exactly the same thing.

[Darth Volus]

It's exactly the same thing.

 

Not really. 

 

If the Phantom does 1000 damage for example then it should do 1000 damage when you're out of cover and 600 in cover. Not 1400 out and 1000 in. It's confusing and stupid. 

[Deerber]

Not really.

If the Phantom does 1000 damage for example then it should do 1000 damage when you're out of cover and 600 in cover. Not 1400 out and 1000 in. It's confusing and stupid.

And who says it does 1000 damage? Maybe it does 1400. You have no way to tell which one is right. Apart from looking at the code, maybe, but that doesn't mean much.

[Darth Volus]

And who says it does 1000 damage? Maybe it does 1400. You have no way to tell which one is right. Apart from looking at the code, maybe, but that doesn't mean much.

 

Wat? Of course we look at the code. 

 

The whole idea of this damage model is 

[EnemySpinach]

And who says it does 1000 damage? Maybe it does 1400. You have no way to tell which one is right. Apart from looking at the code, maybe, but that doesn't mean much.

Pretty sure Damage Reduction from powers proves it.

 

Example: http://kalence.drupa...53X51384!8E..GG

This Defensive Bubblecar has 80% damage reduction. An attack that would just barely come short of shield gating her without this DR (Say 1000 damage out of her 1100 barriers) would be expected to do 1/5 of that, due to only taking 20% damage, right?

 

Well, if we look at the numbers... 140% - 80% = 60%. So no, you'd still be taking just under half of the damage. And we know it works this way due to it being how we discovered it in the first place; Tech armor should negate 50% of damage taken, but 140% - 50% = 90%, or a little over 1/3.

 

So... either we take more damage out of cover... or ALL the DR percentages on powers are infuriatingly wrong. I'm leaning towards the former, you know?

[Deerber]

^

That only proves that DR is fucked up. In fact. The truly mesmerisingly stupid choice is having the DR interact additively with the out of cover bonus/malus. That makes up for stupid behavior like the one you talked about.

But having the damage increase when you're out of cover, or decrease when you're in cover is exactly the same thing as considering the base damage as the out of cover, or the in cover one, and it's a completely arbitrary matter...

[acicm2]

I'm completely baffled by the logic that you take 140% damage out of cover and 100% in cover. Like really? WTF? 

 

Should't it be 100% out of cover and less in cover? 

 

And there are games where you literally never go into hard cover even with kits that can do that, because it's poinless and slows you down. 

 

well MP was just a tack on part of mass effect 3 so they didn't need to use logic making it.

[Kushiel42]

^

That only proves that DR is fucked up. In fact. The truly mesmerisingly stupid choice is having the DR interact additively with the out of cover bonus/malus. That makes up for stupid behavior like the one you talked about.

But having the damage increase when you're out of cover, or decrease when you're in cover is exactly the same thing as considering the base damage as the out of cover, or the in cover one, and it's a completely arbitrary matter...

 

But if the out-of-cover damage was 100% of whatever the damage value for attack X is, and being in cover reduced that, on-screen information about DR from powers would actually be accurate, which would be good because there's way too much hidden or incorrect info presented to the player in this game.

 

Or did I do the maths wrong?

[Terminator Force]

For a cover based shooter, Sinful is disappointed this game has too much cover that looks like can be used as hard cover, only is not and in turn is terminated via butt lazer. Seen this happen to Sinful today during a clutch. 

[DaemionMoadrin]

For a cover based shooter, Sinful is disappointed this game has too much cover that looks like can be used as hard cover, only is not and in turn is terminated via butt lazer. Seen this happen to Sinful today during a clutch. 

 

If you don't know the maps well enough now after more than 3 years of playing, then you will always stay a scrub.

[Terminator Force]

If you don't know the maps well enough now after more than 3 years of playing, then you will always stay a scrub.

 

Bet Sinful knows them better then you. But still room for surprises or forgetting a thing or two every now and then.

 

EDIT - it was Ghost in the middle room just down the small stair (not ladder) to the right when going down next to ammo box. Praetorian was in the middle room next to ammo box. Cover looks massive and legit hard cover, but is not.

[Deerber]

But if the out-of-cover damage was 100% of whatever the damage value for attack X is, and being in cover reduced that, on-screen information about DR from powers would actually be accurate, which would be good because there's way too much hidden or incorrect info presented to the player in this game.

Or did I do the maths wrong?

Well, it would be accurate for when you're out of cover, just as it is accurate now for when you're in cover. But it would become inaccurate in cover, just as it is inaccurate now for out of cover.

Now, one might argue that the out of cover portion is more important than the in cover one, given the way we bsners play the game... And I might actually agree with that, if not for the fact that we represent a very tiny portion of the player base, and the most informed one.

But what I'm saying is... Wouldn't it be better if it was accurate for both in and out of cover? And all that would take is make the DR from powers multiplicative with the out of/in cover thing. It makes perfect sense, and it preserves the value of percentages as people know them.

In short, I agree with Helix and ya all, but I think the source of the problem isn't the decision to take the in cover damage as a base, but rather making the DR interact additively with the in/out of cover thing.

[capn233]

I would lean towards saying enemy damage is based on being in cover.  But it is largely neither here nor there, which is what Deerber is saying, you get hit for a certain amount of damage that is higher out of cover.  That could work in the current regime where in cover damage taken multiplier is 1x and out of cover is 1.4x, or in a different one where in cover multiplier was a fraction and out of cover was 1x.  Cover does grant DR in the frontal cone though, in addition to the loss of the OOC penalty (decays as you lean out though).

 

The damage taken effect consisting of a bunch of different little "bonuses" added together isn't really much different than most weapon or power damage bonuses though.  DR just gets bandied about more often as not adding up, or not getting your whole DR's worth, when the same is true of any passive weapon damage bonus or weapon amps.  Just less complaints about Rail 3 not really being a 30% bonus, for example.

[StoxRegalia]

Someone stole my magic desk that let me grab pyros