/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

next time the test rolls around there will be a weapon damage multiplier instead of a human health change

it's 30% extra damage taken atm, not a health reduction

hornygranny what's the point

Literally every single round I have played involving actual combat has been extremely shit. 2 shots and you're typically crit from most guns.
A single disabler shot and you can almost barely move - same with a c-20r shot etc.

For what purpose HG? A more 'deadly station' is not the same as 'everything just kills you with even less skill involves or chance for an actual fight'

DEAD: Lumi Pharon stammers, "wow, these new damage values are unironically fucking terrible"

OOC: Mcrideinspace: I think less health actually encourages less RP
OOC: Mcrideinspace: because the rounds are shorter

Can we get off the HG train now?

I've enjoyed it. People die quick so they don't feel like juggernauts/flower bags of health anymore.

Flower bag would be kinda fun for skeletons, if you die you sprout.

Also try the opposite- Will reducing the overall lethality improve the game?

The mother of all nerfs.

Please just undo it and never try this again. I had the JOY of playing captain, and every round, EVERY ROUND I got murdered in 2 seconds flat by spears/armblades/wet towels

We should keep this test going forever. It's more lethal and more fun in general.

I would normally applaud these tests, seeing as I wanted to perform many of these exact same tests and was rejected and told that they're a terrible idea by many of the same people who are running the tests now. (I'm not salty at all, nope!) But when it comes to major changes in tone, I don't think forcing through a one-time "fix" really helps. When we did the much disliked "DangerCon" back in 2011, that was an attempt at forcing through a set of balancing changes and then riding the torrent of hatred until we could actually determine if the change ware a good idea or not. And it... worked. Except it didn't, like, at all. Over the course of a few months, all the balancing changes were undone, and everything returned to as it was before DangerCon. If you do a one-time major "fix" which either makes everything way more deadly, or way more safe, the change will slowly be reverted over the next few months, and the only thing which might remain will be hurt feelings.

Instead, I really think that shifts in tone need to be done slowly over the course of many months, and not too strongly against the current. I'm not saying all these changes need to be inline with the playerbase's current desires, but they shouldn't be as drastic as "Okay, you now have 50% health.". I also doubt there is much of anything you can learn from performing such a test. Will the game feel broken if everyone has 50% of the current HP? No. Will it feel broken if everyone has 200% of current HP? No. Neither of those need a test. Whether or not either of those will be better than having it remain where it is, however, isn't something a week-long, emotionally charged test will show. If you feel that going in one direction or the other will be beneficial, then start moving the codebase in that direction, observe and adapt.

PS: Were this an RTS, FPS, RPG or some other stat-heavy game where balancing numbers actually matters and eyeballing values isn't good enough (Spoiler: Eyeballing values and ensuring stuff isn't horrible broken is good enough for SS13, and is honestly the most you can reasonably expect from a game as complex as SS13) - For games where Numbers actually matters, doing it this way would have been the right approach. Overcorrecting numbers to determine what changes is how you debug balancing issues. It's however not how you'd balance SS13.

80 damage revolver shots are still pretty bullshit, honestly. Getting more or less roasted from one shot after I have only a little damage is pretty heavy bullshit and I cannot say it is very fun to deal with a ballistic weapon that's hard to mitigate the damage of and has horribly crippling damage even if you have armor, and a two shot crit with almost any armor you could be wearing.

Stunning weapons have a trillion different ways to be mitigated but a ballistic weapon, much less an insanely damaging one, is really difficult to get around.

I really don't see the point of making the game more deadly except to encourage murderboners to use the most damaging weapons and go on killing sprees that are a pain in the ass to stop. Revolvers and dual eswords both do like 80 damage and its not really hard to kill with either. The revolver has basically infinite ammo because autolathes exist and eswords fit in pockets (so you can use them with surprise) and are basically free energy shields. Two hit crits on both of them, even with armor, is really shitty.

This is my opinion. Either making it much easier to die, or making things more lethal(for example 30% more damage on weapons), doesn't make the game more fun. Instead it makes the game more annoying, makes that people avoid each other even more, and, frankly, makes you want to play less.

Sure, its all good and dandy when you are a traitor or whatever and you begin killing people. Afterall, they die faster and have less of a chance to fight back against you. But otherwise, no, it isn't.

I'm actually really enjoying this, melee weapons feel useful, and i've actually seen more people opting to fight instead of just build a stunprod for the easy win.

Zilenan91 wrote:We should keep this test going forever. It's more lethal and more fun in general.

>Zil likes the massively unpopular thing

Stop the presses

Wow eswords are really cool in this I died so fast.

I love it!

Every rev round seems to end in the rev's favor because they'll typically get the first few hits in on any given person. Spears are also more robust than ever so people die extremely fast to them. Nukeops SMGs will now kill you before you can say "I'm down!".

[youtube]YdDMrncAy4U[/youtube]

An armor rework would be a much better idea. I totally get squishy assistants going down in a few shots, but armor should have a notable impact.