Patch Notes for January 21st, 2020 - Issue 26, Page 4 (Release Candidate 5)

[GM Korvin]

3 minutes ago, Fortuneteller said:

Kay i guess i just don't understand what that means then. Like why is there RC1, RC2, RC3, RC4? Is that not just a pile of unreleased things? Why is RC1 not released if we are up to RC4?

I'm not a game developer so most of this stuff is comparable to being written in a foreign language. 😛

"Release candidate" is just a phrase for a beta version of software that's almost ready to be considered a stable release (hence the 'candidate' part). Here's a link explaining the term.

[dangeraaron10]

I have to say I'm a little disappointed in the reduction of the cone boost from 100% to 50%.  It was the one change I was looking forward to the most with these changes, in spite of each new iteration that seemed to scale back buffs.  Before the Tanker changes hit Release Candidate status, people argued about the actual damage output either exceeding or even falling short of Live, and back then many cited the amazing AoE changes for Tankers giving it something of its own niche separate from Brutes.  So seeing this aspect getting rolled back is ...not inspiring?  

 

I'm pretty pleased with the Brute changes, though.  It'll make gaining and maintaining Fury a lot easier.

[Jimmy]

2 hours ago, Fortuneteller said:

It kinda feels like all the faffing around with Tanker/Broot changes is holding back a lot of other things at this point. Is there a reason for that that i'm not perceiving?

It’s primarily because the Tanker changes are coming alongside some behind-the-scenes technical changes. That’s what’s actually been holding the patch back for the last few months.

[Myrmidon]

On 1/21/2020 at 11:14 PM, Captain Powerhouse said:

As noted: will be reviewed if the goal is not met.
 

There will also be some set specific buffs in the future that I need to taken into account.

Looking forward to seeing those when they eventually show their faces.😀

[Myrmidon]

5 hours ago, Jimmy said:

It’s primarily because the Tanker changes are coming alongside some behind-the-scenes technical changes. That’s what’s actually been holding the patch back for the last few months.

Years from now, we will look back and be very happy that Homecoming took the time to update the technical aspects of the game from the start.

[Mystic_Cross]

14 minutes ago, Myrmidon said:

Years from now, we will look back and be very happy that Homecoming took the time to update the technical aspects of the game from the start.

I agree with this sentiment... but at the same time, it's difficult to admire a painting when you're not allowed to see the canvas. Right now we're all blind to what the end result will look like, and I for one was never particularly good at "having faith". 

[Captain Powerhouse]

13 hours ago, csr said:

And if he isn't, then hopefully he isn't simply assuming these powers can reach - or in many cases, even approach - their target caps.

 

That has never been my assumption. The average enemy has a diameter of 3ft, as do players. When doing on-paper calculations i tend to go for a variety of measures to estimate "effective" target cap, using a 3ft diameter area test for enemies when looking at saturated encounters and a 5ft when measuring slightly more casual situations (that means 2ft of separation between every foe.) For PBAoEs, I always discount one target since the player also occupies space on that sphere (and I never account for 3D space and the possibility of enemies hanging above the player, as that is a rare thing to find in game.) After that, if the "effective" target cap is higher than the max targets value, I limit it to that.

 

Even the 3ft diameter test is "lose" since only an inch of an entity's collision sphere need to be inside the attack area for it to be considered within the area.

 

My goal with the increase in radius/arc is not necessarily to make every power hit the target caps, but instead to allow tanker versions of aoe powers have an easier time hitting more targets than the versions of the tanker peers. There are some sets that lack AoE, those need looking at independently. Even at +100%, Shadow Maul still ended just being 40 degree arc.

 

I need to give a lot of thought about how I'll address the issues for existing sets. There are various paths I can take and they all have their problems. Dark Melee and Super Strength are great examples. Both are lacking on the AoE department, but have powers that can drastically boost the power of Epic AoE powers beyond what anyone else can. That cant be dismissed even if not everyone is expected to pick pool AoE powers. At the same time, I want any improvement to a set to be near-universal, this means it needs to help Stalker versions of the sets, and that is hard when some sets with just one AoE lost it on their Stalker transition.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Captain Powerhouse

[Redlynne]

On 1/21/2020 at 5:08 PM, The Curator said:

Changes from RC4

• Target cap changes:

Request:

• Change Target Cap for Telekinesis (Mind Control ... all variants) from 5 to 16.

 

It's a single parameter in a single field in the powers database (for each variant of the power).

Select Field ... DELETE ... 1 ... 6

 

Is that too much to ask?

[siolfir]

1 hour ago, Redlynne said:

Request:

• Change Target Cap for Telekinesis (Mind Control ... all variants) from 5 to 16.

 

It's a single parameter in a single field in the powers database (for each variant of the power).

Select Field ... DELETE ... 1 ... 6

 

Is that too much to ask?

Probably (autohit toggle hold with a target cap of 16?), but in the meantime, it's too late for this patch:

 

[Myrmidon]

2 hours ago, Captain Powerhouse said:

 

That has never been my assumption. The average enemy has a diameter of 3ft, as do players. When doing on-paper calculations i tend to go for a variety of measures to estimate "effective" target cap, using a 3ft diameter area test for enemies when looking at saturated encounters and a 5ft when measuring slightly more casual situations (that means 2ft of separation between every foe.) For PBAoEs, I always discount one target since the player also occupies space on that sphere (and I never account for 3D space and the possibility of enemies hanging above the player, as that is a rare thing to find in game.) After that, if the "effective" target cap is higher than the max targets value, I limit it to that.

 

Even the 3ft diameter test is "lose" since only an inch of an entity's collision sphere need to be inside the attack area for it to be considered within the area.

 

My goal with the increase in radius/arc is not necessarily to make every power hit the target caps, but instead to allow tanker versions of aoe powers have an easier time hitting more targets than the versions of the tanker peers. There are some sets that lack AoE, those need looking at independently. Even at +100%, Shadow Maul still ended just being 40 degree arc.

 

I need to give a lot of thought about how I'll address the issues for existing sets. There are various paths I can take and they all have their problems. Dark Melee and Super Strength are great examples. Both are lacking on the AoE department, but have powers that can drastically boost the power of Epic AoE powers beyond what anyone else can. That cant be dismissed even if not everyone is expected to pick pool AoE powers. At the same time, I want any improvement to a set to be near-universal, this means it needs to help Stalker versions of the sets, and that is hard when some sets with just one AoE lost it on their Stalker transition.

My Martial Arts/Dark Armor Stalker approves of this message.

[Jimmy]

Locking this to keep the discussion focused in the live release patch notes thread 🙂