I feel I am being lied to

Papacas · July 2016

I may be wrong, of course, but I really feel I am being lied to. It regards the damage numbers. NG has said loud and clear it was just a graphical adjustment, just the display, but the mechanics did not change and the damage output is the same. I did around 150 explorations missions in the last 24 hours and here are my findings (I was really paying attention to the numbers) on the critical hits I got:

- Hunters - I used them in all the missions and before 2.0 I was getting crits of 2700-2850. Last 24 hours I got nowhere near that, the best I ever got was 2661 and usually around 2200-2350
- Shooter - Just used them in around 20 missions and before I was getting crits nearing 4000 (best I remember was 3931, i think), but usually in the 3500-3700 area. Now the best I got was 3571 and the usual numbers were around 3200.

Is this just a display problem? I mean aren't these the final damage output numbers? Or are they a display only as well? And if so, where are the damned real numbers after all? Bottom line is, I find it hard to believe what NG is telling us or me in this case. And if they are in fact fooling their customers, well they will have one less customer here, whatever that is worth...

Ruthless · July 2016

@Papacas you are very right about your observations! I have noticed the damage nerf even though they claim it was only a visual bug.

For example my level 19 legend shooter with 22 pistol (dmg trait and gold increase critical was was able crit avg high at 5.6k before update. After update i played over 300 missions and the numbers have decreased below 5k! Not once again i saw 5.6k?!

We cant let this visual bug response actually blind us from what has happen! Many of us hardcore high players are seeing the difference! We have to continue to speak up about it and thank you for your thread and observations.

DLich · July 2016

Im on mobile so I can't quote properly but @Shadowkeeper said...

"Everyone concerned about survivors doing less damage, we had a visual bug issue where the damage was wrongly calculated. This was fixed with the update, but the issue was only visual, and should not affect actual combat."

Since people are clearly seeing lower damage, myself included, I believe in 1.10 the damage was based off the damage calculated by the survivor.

I don't know how the code works but im very familiar with making excel spreadsheets. If the game, which it seems is the case, was basing its damage off of what was visually displayed in the survivor screen, then when those numbers were "corrected" the critic hit numbers were corrected.

If crit danage does 180% of a number, let's call it X, and you are calculating X by taking the base damage of a survivor + 15% for marksman; when you subtract that 15% from the original number then the crit danage number is affected.

Example.

Let's suppose a 1.10 survivor displays 1150 as the damage (because it's factoring in the 15% bonus from marksman trait. 1150 base times 180% is 2070 damage (when crit)

Now in 2.0 that 15% was corrected. So the survivor displays 1000 which it should have all along. If infact yoir getting 15% bonus from marksman you would still see 2070 damage (when crit). If marksman isn't affected it's then 1000 times 180% which is 1800. Difference of 270 atk.

So either...

A. Marksman trait isn't working properly

B. Survivors were nerfed because we lost that 15% bonus.

My question is are people noticing a difference in damage output when on crit while using survivors without marksman trait?

excel spreadsheet time

A1 is base damage (1000)
A2 is A1 + 15% (1150)
A3 is A2 + 180% (2070)

If you lower the number in A1 you get a lower number in A3

DLich · July 2016

@Ruthless perfect example.

2600 is 2.0 right? 2600 times 180% is 4680

2600 + 15% for marksman is 2990. 2990 times 180% is 5382. Difference of 702.

I think marksman trait is broken possibly. Or crit damage percentage bonus was nerfed. Something's wrong clearly though

DLich · July 2016

So unless NG is saying the damage we got in 1.10 was incorrectly calculated and now the numbers were seeing on our survivors include the marksman bonus it's clreary more than visual.

Actually re reading what shadow wrote he said it was incorrectly calculated. Damn.

Ruthless · July 2016

@DLich

2.6 dmg is before update.

Below pic is after 2.0 update.

It already sucks seeing it lower to 2.3k! They say visual bug, but like many of you guys... I'm seeing our combat dmg nerfed.

Im sure us higher level players have devoted a lot of attention to our survivors and combat these past few months so I hope many of you guys pay attention and see the differences!

Please speak up and share your inputs!

DLich · July 2016

Idk what the crit damage percentage is. I'll run some calculations after dinner.

Japes87 · July 2016

I thought this was resolved in that they raised the toughness of the walkers ?
They still lied to us by saying nothing changed in combat mechanics tho .. when our survivor's damage goes down visually with no explanation and all the sudden walkers we used to kill easy are not anymore after the update , what were we supposed to think? I tell you this whole thing the past couple days just leaves a very bad taste in my mouth .. you're definitely not alone @Papacas

R2runfast · July 2016

You are being lied to. It's how I feel too.
I wrote more but deleted because I think NG should have the chance to redeem themselves.

DLich · July 2016

If they wanted to make walkers "tougher" they could have just raised their health. If "tougher" is modified by some unseen methods that causes our survivors to give less damage that's a nerf lol.

I understand what your saying japes. Im just saying if the excuse was "we made walkers harder" but it's nothing we can see im curious how it's calculated. Oh that's right we can't calculate it since is hidden numbers. Aka nerf lol

[Deleted User] · July 2016

Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony - Morpheus/The Matrix

This has happened before. Before as in very recently before. Like when the last set of new traits were released (before), you were all told something similar then that did not pan out and is still unresolved. Déjà_vu anybody?

DLich · July 2016

@Ruthless

Can you please equip that weapon on another level 19 shooter without marksman and tell me if their total damage is 2182? I think Ive found out what's the error.

Ruthless · July 2016

@DLich Sorry dont have any survivors without markmans trait.

Below guy has 10% markmans if that helps

Rorshack · July 2016

@DLich Here are two of my survivors. hopefully they can help you figure out the damage issue. I know that my best cant even take down same level walkers in one hit. they used to be able to mow down 2 levels higher.... absolute piss off disappointment.

Papacas · July 2016

Thanks for the replies guys. I just find it unbelievable that NG says nothing on this post. If I was being pointed as a potential or even likely liar on my professional life, even if it was by a not important person (as I am not to NG), I would like to set it straight. In my real professional life I am not a liar, so I am not to be placed in that situation, but NG should come in and clean their sheet, right? Unless they... cannot?

[Deleted User] · July 2016

I noticed weeks ago when my best survivors started having trouble with walkers several lvl's lower than me.
Visual bug my ass.

DLich · July 2016

@Ruthless I figured out the error. I will update this thread once I can get on my laptop. I discovered what was causing that "miscalculation"!!!

Papacas · July 2016

@bgbelden Yeah me too. But at least from 1.09 to 1.10 the nerf was kinda assumed by NG. Now it was supposed to be all graphical and I can of course live with lower numbers being displayed in the characters' stats. I find it harder to believe the graph arguments when the actual damage outputs during missions are lower. And worse of all, my L19 legendary survivors with legendary base L18/19 and proper traits seem to kill L19 walkers in one shot less and less. It is just hard to believe NG on this one...

mcbkhicks · July 2016

ok so it was a visual bug well from what im seeing its more...ok rooster before update could take out all up to bout lvl 16..now starting at lvl 11 walkers close to her & rite in front have not dropped without another shot..... grouchy could 1 shot 1 kill lvl 22 walkers now starting bout lvl 16 alot of times he needs more than 1 shot 3 pic is before update

DLich · July 2016

I'm going to try and explain this the easiest way I can. I used my own survivor whom has marksman but does not have a weapon with lethal as a base to calculate damage. Here is the first screen shot.

This is a 2.0 version survivor. Notice she has 1400 total attack (including 10% marksman survivor trait) and 543 weapon attack (with no lethal weapon trait). 1400 total attack - 543 weapon attack gives us 857 base attack (including marksman). X + 15% = 857 so X is 779. A level 19 legendary survivor (without marksman) does base 779 damage before adding marksman & weapon damage (with or without lethal)

So using 779 base I was able to calculate these other screen shots of @Ruthless survivors. We'll start with the one matching 10% marksman like I have with mine.

2.0 version Shawn has 2277 total attack (including 10% marksman survivor trait) and 1291 weapon attack (not including lethal weapon trait of 10%). Since we know that the survivor is base 779 before marksman it's 857 with marksman. Since we know that the weapon is base 1291 before lethal, and lethal is 10%, it's 1420 after lethal. 1420 + 857 = 2277 total attack.

Third example is this... also a 2.0 survivor.

2.0 version Felicia has 2316 total attack (including 15% marksman survivor trait) and 1291 weapon attack (not including lethal weapon trait of 10%). Since we know that the survivor is base 779 before marksman it's 896 with marksman. Since we know that the weapon is base 1291 before lethal, and lethal is 10%, it's 1420 after lethal. 1420 + 896 = 2316.

Now this is the one that is 1.10 version of Felicia.

1.10 version Felicia has 2619 total attack and 1291 weapon attack. Since we know the survivor base is 779 and we know the weapon base is 1291 before lethal we get 2070 total "base" attack but we're seeing 2619. So let's see how we can get to the difference of 549 points.

Survivor base 779 + 15% marksman is 896 (as seen in each example above)
Weapon base 1291 + 10% lethal is 1420 (as seen in each example above

This gives us 2316 Which is the numbers seen in 2.0 BUT let's add something...

If the survivor does 896 damage AND we add 10% lethal we get 986
if the weapon does 1420 damage AND we add 15% marksman we get 1633
1633 + 896 = 2619 (WHAT WE WERE SEEING IN 1.10)

So it seems 1.10 took the calculation of the survivor and added the marksman trait and took the calculation of the weapon and added the lethal trait.

(Base Survivor + 15% Marksman + 10% Lethal) + (Base Weapon + 10% Lethal + 15% Marksman) Weapon traits were added to survivor & survivor traits were added to weapon. It was as if the weapon got a marksman bonus & the survivor got a lethal bonus (which should not have been).

Now that it's discovered how the damage was calculated in the survivor screen, when those incorrect bonus's were removed (as it was in 2.0) your survivors are weaker. It cant be that this formula was only used when it came to the survivor Damage screen. The damage that was displaying is what was used in the game.

Survivors with Marksman we're nerfed the percentage of lethal, and survivors with lethal were nerfed the percentage of marksman, and survivors with both were nerfed the hardest.

Rorshack · July 2016

Bottom line is that they actually did have a damage decrease. If NG would have come clean with it and explained it how you did @DLich i would have said "ya ok, thats understandable" and moved on. This however is not the graphical error they were claiming it to be.

gabriel_lwh · July 2016

@DLich

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I was able to derive the Base Survivor Damage for a Level 19 Legendary survivor in each of the ranged class:

Shooter: 779 (as explained in your post above)
Assault: 519
Hunter: 693

@Shadowkeeper

Could you confirm if the formula used to calculate a survivor's total damage is as such below?

Survivor Base Damage + (Survivor Base Damage x Marksman Trait %) + Weapon Base Damage + (Weapon Base Damage x Lethal Trait %) = Total displayed survivor damage

If so, the description of the Marksman survivor trait is incorrect since it says Ranged weapons do X% more damage. Shouldn't the extra damage from this Marksman trait come from the weapon's base damage instead of survivor's base damage?

OneLessTitan · July 2016

Rorshack said:
Bottom line is that they actually did have a damage decrease. If NG would have come clean with it and explained it how you did @DLich i would have said "ya ok, thats understandable" and moved on. This however is not the graphical error they were claiming it to be.

NG did come clean about this...they explained exactly what the "display glitch" was about 24 hours ago.

Great....@DLich math revealed another "Display Glitch" with the way Marksman is currently written or applied.

OneLessTitan · July 2016

If you want to know what the base damage values for certain Level/Class Survivors were before 2.0 update (where the apparently screwed up the display value on the Survivor Profile...again...lol), here's the thread where I figured them out on July 3....it took me like 5 minutes to figure it out.

http://forums.nextgames.com/walkingdead/discussion/12467/base-damage-and-health-info-gone

DLich · July 2016

@OneLessTitan

Shadowkeeper said:

Everyone concerned about survivors doing less damage, we had a visual bug issue where the damage was wrongly calculated. This was fixed with the update, but the issue was only visual, and should not affect actual combat.

http://forums.nextgames.com/walkingdead/discussion/comment/106835#Comment_106835

So i'm to believe that the "bug issue" using the above formula was only used in the calculation of damage regarding the listed damage in the survivor screen and not actually used within the game anywhere else? so this "wrongly calculated" formula was ONLY used in that one part of the game but nowhere else? Then why does it seem so many people are noticing lower crit damage?

Assuming crit damage is 200% of "listed damage in the survivor screen" (which it seems to be at or around there) I'm suppose to believe that walkers were made "harder" without their health increasing (they are the same in 2.0 as they were in 1.10)

Now that we can see the formula how did it make its way into that "visual" calculation on the survivor screen. How is it possible that it only made it's way there.

I believe 1.10 survivors received these bonus's but weren't suppose to. I believe this formula was miscalculated somehow and made its way into the game. I believe NG realized the error in the formula and corrected it and thus why our crits aren't as high.

When people sell products they take into effect the costs of goods sold when deciding to make a price, if there's a miscalculation in determining the costs of goods sold and it needs to be adjusted you don't tell your customers there was a "visual error" on the price tag. There was a an error in determining the costs of goods sold and when that error is corrected the price of the item is adjusted.

DLich · July 2016

Shadowkeeper said:

After releasing the update, we realised that the unlocking token values were from a previous test build (the one youtubers were using); this was quickly corrected to the actual values. Sorry about that!

http://forums.nextgames.com/walkingdead/discussion/comment/106835#Comment_106835

If we can't even trust them to have their "celebrities" post accurate videos regarding tokens, how can we trust them to post accurate information regarding damage?

Papacas · July 2016

@DLich Bingo! I don't care at all about the damage display on my chars. I do see less damage done and have a harder time now killing the same walkers i did before the update. And as far as i have seen, NG have nit admited to this anywhere - in fact they said the opposite, more than once. If that is not a lie...

OneLessTitan · July 2016

@Dlich -- I would be willing to bet with a high degree of certainty that there are two formulas: one formula that works within combat, and one formula for displaying damage values in a Survivor's profile. I probably made a mistake assuming that everyone understood this. My bad.

The formula in the Survivor Profile was a new addition in a previous update, and is independent of the combat formula (which takes into account damage variance, critical %, lucky, etc...). Changing the Survivor Profile Damage display Formula would have no impact on the actual combat formula, and that's why I think there hasn't been any change in the actual combat mechanics in update 2.0 (or at least the main aspects of the combat formula, other than possibly the reduced silenced trait, which I've never used so can't comment on.)

Papacas · July 2016

OneLessTitan said:
@Dlich -- I would be willing to bet with a high degree of certainty that there are two formulas: one formula that works within combat, and one formula for displaying damage values in a Survivor's profile. I probably made a mistake assuming that everyone understood this. My bad.

The formula in the Survivor Profile was a new addition in a previous update, and is independent of the combat formula (which takes into account damage variance, critical %, lucky, etc...). Changing the Survivor Profile Damage display Formula would have no impact on the actual combat formula, and that's why I think there hasn't been any change in the actual combat mechanics in update 2.0 (or at least the main aspects of the combat formula, other than possibly the reduced silenced trait, which I've never used so can't comment on.)

@OneLessTitan I really like you as a forum member and appreciate your posts, but I simply cannot agree with your evaluation on this topic. Did you read the thread from top to bottom? I think there are 3 distinct realities being discussed:

1. Survivor Profile Display Damage
2. Combat Display Damage
3. Actual Damage (done on walkers)

As for 1 I could not care less. If that was the only change, that would be fine by me.

Regarding 2 that's a different story. NG said, as far as I can understand, that 2 has not changed. But the numbers I have been getting are quite lower. I can even add that I tried Abraham on the team on 5 missions and with his leader trait I have gone back to my pre 2.0 Combat Display Damage numbers. Without hum on the team they are clearly lower.

Finally, I would be so bold to say that 3 would be the same as 2. But even if not, I did 7 less starts this week comparing to my last 2 weeks and 19 normal walkers get more body shots now, at least for me. Again, I could be ok with all these changes but I feel I am being lied to by NG and that is definitely not ok.

JackBauer · July 2016

Hi,
sorry for interrupting your discussion, it is very interesting to learn that what is displayed is not what you get in mission :-)
Can @DLich maybe enlighten me about how the critical damage is then calculated ?

Lvl 19 Shooter
Weapon: Silver Critical Damage, 3+Distance, Gold Luck.
Displayed Damage for Weapon: 1086
Total Damage: 1959
Marksman 4 = 12%

I did 24 shots and got 6 critical, 18 normals.

Average Critical = 3735
Average Normal = 2052

Calculating the normal shot damage I have understood that it has to be:

873 + 1086*1.12 = 2089

Which fits "somehow" with the average, but how do i get now to the expected critical shot damage range of 37xx ?

OneLessTitan · July 2016

@Papacas -- Yes, I have read the thread. I was brought into this discussion by @DLich linking in my other thread. So my posts have been in reference to the Display Damage Formula on the Survivor Profile, but maybe that wasn't the post he was referring to when he linked to this thread. This aspect is what most people are referencing when complaining about the nerf, so I applaud you (and everyone else in this thread) for actually talking about combat results, and not just whining based on a display value that I think has no impact on combat, and is still incorrect, as shown above.

Like I've said, I haven't tracked exact damage values in combat; I can only speak to my experiences with actually killing walkers before and after the 2.0 update, mainly with hunters as the variables haven't changed for me (same level, same weapons). My results have been the same; I've been killing the majority of Level 22 Normal Walkers with one shot (with the expected variance happening where it will sometimes take 2 shots, and every once in a while 3 shots). I still get the occasional body shot on level 18 walkers (with increasing frequencies every level above that).

As for my critical shots, I still almost always take out level 24 walkers with the Hunter Charge (level 19 Legendary with a level 20 epic weapon with Destructive Trait), but less with my Level 19 Legendary with level 21 epic weapon with no Destructive Trait. Level 25 Walkers is where I stop killing almost all of them with the Critical Charge, but take their health down to basically nothing.

I just haven't noticed any difference in my gameplay results. Despite the Forest being a harder challenge map IMO (especially the top right map, and the far right map), I still did the same # of Stars on each map this week after I accounted for my severe lack of Bonus Stars this week, and not maximizing my gas. And my explore missions yesterday and today have been the same as last week; I'm still getting 30-40k XP from micro-farming maps. I'm still getting forced to exit around level 26-28 walkers, depending on the map since some of them have tougher spawns, or any dumb mistakes I make during gameplay which happens from time to time.

Welcome.

Quick Links

I feel I am being lied to

Comments