The Energon Pub

no. it's a little off. but your forgetting how END works with NTAs

So once you have a 5 str. its more effective to stop using weapons?

klimkcoC wrote:So once you have a 5 str. its more effective to stop using weapons?

No, it means that 5-upgrade purely in weapon stats do the same damage as 5-str. pure brawling, and if we take pure upgrades strength rulez over the same number of weapon upgrade over 5.

It doesn't contain info of combined upgrades though...

4 upgrades and under weapons do more damage, 5-19 brawling does more damage 20-30 weapons do more damage

so yeah pretty much once you can get 5 STR ditch the weapons, there are a few factors, like if you're strafer, the FRP may be better, and the fact you can put 30 upgrades into weapons against brawlings 10, but that's later in the game...

Tammuz wrote:4 upgrades and under weapons do more damage, 5-19 brawling does more damage 20-30 weapons do more damage

so yeah pretty much once you can get 5 STR ditch the weapons, there are a few factors, like if you're strafer, the FRP may be better, and the fact you can put 30 upgrades into weapons against brawlings 10, but that's later in the game...

??? i'm hella confused??? 30 upgrades? huh?

10 in STR
10 in FRP
10 in SKL
30 in TOTAL

thank you.
im tryin to figure out numbers and figures but its impossible on my own.
Are there any other charts or a place i can goto to figure out all this stuff?
Someone posted a str vs end chart somewhere but i cant find it again.

it's not impossible on your own, it just takes a very long time. the RDD has most of the formulas for the game, but i rarely put them in chart form. this was just to emphasise what i mean by un balanced.

thanks for all your help tammuz. you're one of the few people who's post's i trust.

not sayin rest of y'all are untrustworthy, Tammuz just seems to have alot more facts than hypothesis'.

i have more spreadsheets is what i've got.

Absolute Zero wrote:Well, obviously since he's a autobot, he's never faced a majority of his missions outnumbered.

I'm an Autobot?!? Back on topic, my other points were understood and Tammuz covered it best.

Tammuz wrote:the point is, balance or matched or whatever, we want a game where you aren't forced to do something just to survive

Overwhelming numbers will always play a factor (and players who spend 12+ hours a day are difficult to compete with), but having elements in the game like the Quint missions made for opportunities to compete and made things more interesting. Events made the game about competing where you're at rather than trying to gobble up more XP to survive.

tonight i have nigh completed the thing that will make bun-bun leave his wife and child.

there are advantages to overwhelming numbers against you, strafe is nasty when that happens.

Psychout wrote:

Absolute Zero wrote:

Psychout wrote:I think he means that there is more potential XP in a 6v6 than a 4v4 so the bots and cons would theoretically develop faster.

At least, thats how I understood his comment.

Well, obviously since he's a autobot, he's never faced a majority of his missions outnumbered. There may be less potential XP in a 4v4 then 6v6, however, there's more potential XP in a 4v4 then a 6v2, 6v3, or 6v4.

But thats not in debate. 4v4 would be equally matched missions for you guys, but its not balanced as the G!'s still having 6v6 means the potential xp for bots and cons is higher so they would gain faster.

Therefore, matched and balanced are different.

I disagree. Bots and especially cons are gaining XP at a much more rapid rate then Preds and Maximals. All you need to prove that is to look at the millionaire club and the war room list. Top 40 has 5 preds. Top ten has 8 cons, and is where you see the first Maximal, 15 is the first pred. If things were as effective for 6v6 as you seem to think, then there would be a better balance, likely with more bots in the top ten. Maxi v Pred can work at 6v6, but Bot/Con v Maxi/Pred does not work at 6 v 6. On average, I have 7 missions to chose from. Atleast 4 are Autobot missions with a full 6 and maybe one Pred in 2 of those. 4v4 missions will allow the beast factions to gain XP faster, and, overall, it wont really effect the growth of the Gen 1ers, since they're going to still have more missions against us with little to no opposition.

AZ, Im not arguing that you need them, thats painfully obvious already.

Tammuz wrote:4 upgrades and under weapons do more damage, 5-19 brawling does more damage 20-30 weapons do more damage

As a solution, do you think altering the weapons to 'fit' the curve and stay better than brawling between 5-19 would work?

Wingspan wrote:

Absolute Zero wrote:Well, obviously since he's a autobot, he's never faced a majority of his missions outnumbered.

I'm an Autobot?!? Back on topic, my other points were understood and Tammuz covered it best.

Sorry, your name quite literally says Autobot. I guess that'll teach me for reading.

Psychout had to read deeper into your points, which tammuz covered. And I still say... dun dun dun... you're wrong.

If the beast vs gen 1 missions were lowered to 4v4, that's easier for us to fill those missions, easier for us to win, easier for us to gain XP, and less time for us in the CR and unable to gain XP. Yes, that means the Gen 1ers can concievably get less XP from us, but even then, if you think about it logically, then you'd understand that smaller missions mean more missions we can put people into.

In 6 on 6 missions, a vast majority end up with 3 or 4 preds in them. There are missions where we get a full team in, but they're less common by far then the ones where we only get 3-4. This means, that those missions where the other two people would have joined, now have to join a mission that has 2 people in it. Another common sight in missions. That means they're helping out their faction more then they were in 6 on 6 missions.

Thus, smaller mission numbers in the gen 1ers vs beasties means more missions with people in them, meaning more XP.

It's really pretty simple logic. As it stands, I average about 400 or so XP per mission, and about 300 XP from the arena. At this low a level, 100 XP is quite a bit, however, when I'm winning nearly 2 of 3 arena battles and losing every other mission, that's less CR time and more time out getting XP.

Winners get more XP then losers. Smaller missions vs the gen 1ers means a better chance to win, meaning more XP for winners.

Negatives against the bots/cons? None really. Since they will either have 4v4 or 6v6 missions, it works out that, on average, they'll still gain the same ammount of XP. They'll generate more of the 4v4 missions, likely at a +1 increase, meaning for every 6v6 gen 1 vs beast faction missions currently generated, they'll generate 1 more 4v4, translating to pretty much the same XP, since, from what I've seen going to missions, 1 out of 6 actually has preds in it.

Absolute Zero wrote:

Wingspan wrote:

Absolute Zero wrote:Well, obviously since he's a autobot, he's never faced a majority of his missions outnumbered.

I'm an Autobot?!?

Sorry, your name quite literally says Autobot. I guess that'll teach me for reading.

It does?

Caelus wrote:

Absolute Zero wrote:

Wingspan wrote:I'm an Autobot?!?

Sorry, your name quite literally says Autobot. I guess that'll teach me for reading.

It does?

Yep. Clicked on his name, and it leads me to his profile. Registered Users and Autobots are his groups.

With so many people taking names of canon characters and using them for whatever they want, I don't really take the source of a name literally. How many people have canon autobot names in another faction they never appeared in, or canon decepticon names as Autobots? *shrug*

Psychout wrote:AZ, Im not arguing that you need them, thats painfully obvious already.

Tammuz wrote:4 upgrades and under weapons do more damage, 5-19 brawling does more damage 20-30 weapons do more damage

As a solution, do you think altering the weapons to 'fit' the curve and stay better than brawling between 5-19 would work?

no. well yes, it would balance, but because brawling's exponential you're looking at median damage of 88 for a 10/10 weapon. the problem is that it isn't weapons that are broken, it's brawling, and it's not a good path to start down by fixing the game to by breaking stuff. and with tactics nerfed since the restart having weapons and brawling overpowered would really compound them as useless upgrades.

AZ, either you like the look of your own type or you haven't actually read what's been written, as you are arguing a moot point. No one is disagreeing with you.

Tammuz wrote:

Psychout wrote:AZ, Im not arguing that you need them, thats painfully obvious already.

Tammuz wrote:4 upgrades and under weapons do more damage, 5-19 brawling does more damage 20-30 weapons do more damage

As a solution, do you think altering the weapons to 'fit' the curve and stay better than brawling between 5-19 would work?

no. well yes, it would balance, but because brawling's exponential you're looking at median damage of 88 for a 10/10 weapon. the problem is that it isn't weapons that are broken, it's brawling, and it's not a good path to start down by fixing the game to by breaking stuff. and with tactics nerfed since the restart having weapons and brawling overpowered would really compound them as useless upgrades.

Your facts are not in question Tammuz.

The tactic nerf looks like its from a coding rollback from after the Ike crash so its not likely that it will be changed now. I'm just wondering if the weapons could supply us with a potential solution.

Psychout wrote:AZ, either you like the look of your own type or you haven't actually read what's been written, as you are arguing a moot point. No one is disagreeing with you.

Actually, my last post was because I said Wingspan's name told me he was a autobot, you posted pictures of Gen1 Wingspan to correct me, and I linked to his profile under his name. That's kinda, you know, disagreeing with someone. Or at the very least correcting them.

But no, I don't like my own type, and I rarely read why I type (probably why it makes little sense), but I have been waiting for someone to say how horrible my sig looks.

Absolute Zero wrote:Caelus posted pictures of Gen1 Wingspan to correct me, and I linked to his profile under his name.

fxd

Quite like the sig to be honest, the middle pic of the 5 looks like the corrupt/evil demon from Fable...

Absolute Zero wrote:Sorry, your name quite literally says Autobot. I guess that'll teach me for reading.

Don't stop reading or you'll offend LeVar Burton!! Forum access hasn't been fixed since joining the Predacons. Multiple PMs hasn't lead to any changes yet so I'm guessing that there is a larger plan to fix that long term.

Absolute Zero wrote:Psychout had to read deeper into your points, which tammuz covered. And I still say... dun dun dun... you're wrong.

Fair enough; your points are valid and echo a discussion in the suggestions thread about bringing back single level missions & tag teams, smaller mission totals for beasts, and having an intelligent engine that controls what faction missions are generated against. Preds competition would likely improve if they were the only ones who generated missions against the G1 factions. (So that you know there are Preds around to fill the missions, etc...)

So to possibly get a change from this discussion, if the general consensus from beast players would be to request an adjustment to mission size for their factions how feasible is it to get that done? (Naturally this question is to mods and the powers that be) I imagine just changing the max entrants for the beast missions would be far simpler than changing the mission generation algorithm - although I still like the blackjack idea.

Oh, and AZ, your sig looks horrible. I think that covers everything now.

Wingspan wrote:if the general consensus from beast players would be to request an adjustment to mission size for their factions how feasible is it to get that done?

I'm working on it.
The admin panels from before the crash are borked and so OS is going to build new ones, and altering mission numbers/types is one of the things I've asked to be able to do.

We'll just have to wait and see if its possible, but these panels wont just appear overnight.

Psychout wrote:

Tammuz wrote:4 upgrades and under weapons do more damage, 5-19 brawling does more damage 20-30 weapons do more damage

As a solution, do you think altering the weapons to 'fit' the curve and stay better than brawling between 5-19 would work?

no. well yes, it would balance, but because brawling's exponential you're looking at median damage of 88 for a 10/10 weapon. the problem is that it isn't weapons that are broken, it's brawling, and it's not a good path to start down by fixing the game to by breaking stuff. and with tactics nerfed since the restart having weapons and brawling overpowered would really compound them as useless upgrades.[/quote]Your facts are not in question Tammuz.

The tactic nerf looks like its from a coding rollback from after the Ike crash so its not likely that it will be changed now. I'm just wondering if the weapons could supply us with a potential solution.[/quote]

no.

which is cheaper, a weapon or a fist, which costs nothing to buy?
i doubt anyone will be able to max a stat anytime soon, so you're looking at the choice of having brawling broken to be the only option or having weapons broken to be the only option.

bottom line; brawling needs to me nerfed, tactics need to be fixed.

EDIT: there is also the advantage that in a smaller beast mission the G1s have less allies, splitting the xp from 4 beasts 4 ways means more xp each than splitting it six ways.

Tammuz wrote:bottom line; brawling needs to me nerfed, tactics need to be fixed.

Which is not gonna happen. You know this, and you also know it is completely beyond my control.

Modifying the weapons however isn't, so Ill ask again...

which is cheaper, a weapon or a fist, which costs nothing to buy?

Is there is a way to make the weapons worthwhile between 5-19 upgrades?