Warframe Revised: >100% Status Chance / Shotgun Megathread

[Andele3025]

3 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Disproven again!

Why do you insist on this charade. You were wrong, shotguns got nerfed by pellet count and multiple posts prove so, thus stop spamming trash.

3 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

The Vaykor Hek should always have been better than the Tigris Prime, because its fire rate and reload efficiency give it almost twice the pellet per second output and it did not have half the status chance.

And no, tigris had a 30% status chance and starting at 8 pellets with 2 shots per 1.9 down to 1.61s if relying on auto reload, hek had a 20 at 7 and 3 shots a second, using only optimized builds/builds that dont nef each guns kill potential, so no removing PPB, HC for either, no dropping SS for TP and no dropping PRavage and a crit chance mod for hek) tigris prime always beat the vhek. Worst case scenario where you can only use the hek while bunny hopping the tigris is merely beating it by 4~5 procs (depending on how you round and multishot goes) a second (sustained, bunnyhop has without reload cycles actually just 1 less proc). Seriously, stop spamming the thread with trash. Especially after GilgaMelchi was even so nice to make a table that very clearly shows the nerf being pellet based.

3 hours ago, .durandle. said:

basically what i have been complaining about regarding the nerf to shotguns but most weapons don't really care about the greater than 100% status without rivens anyway other than shotguns

Tools (aka pox equivalents) do, as do actually a decent chunk of fake shotguns and multi tick non-beam weapons (aka all cernos bows as the mutalist cernos became really beef as unlike the pox it didnt lose its innate toxin aoe).

Quote

for me it will kill frames about as fast as shields are still useless and the shield gating is actually a negative for me about 90% of the time as it just screws with rage/hunter adrenaline

Id say thats more to do with a lack of options for players to select their rankup stats or a good corrupt version of vitality, redirection and flow (draining shields for hp, energy for shields, hp for energy, etc).

 

Edited March 17, 2020 by Andele3025

[Andele3025]

12 minutes ago, CopperBezel said:

Fanged Fusillade, New Shotgun Savvy, and the Viral dual stats would get you something like 20% instead of the old 50% of your procs going to Slash if I remember correctly from the last time I worked this out five pages ago or whatever, while also averaging one sad Viral proc per shot. So you can freely blame either depending on how you build. 

Most old slash heavy weapons at 4x 60/60 had circa 70%+ weighting at least (remember, elemental mods counted only for 25% their total damage for the weighting %), e.g. tigis had circa 69% of all procs going into slash (so circa 30 a mag), now it has 54% (aka 9 a mag) with your suggested setup assuming you can make up for the drop of damage withe either a godly rolled riven or sticking to around 12m range (lets say a generous 16 if the targets are at least jackal big) and vicious spread.

Thats over 60% less slash procs worth of damage.

[nslay]

8 minutes ago, Andele3025 said:

Most old slash heavy weapons at 4x 60/60 had circa 70%+ weighting at least (remember, elemental mods counted only for 25% their total damage for the weighting %), e.g. tigis had circa 69% of all procs going into slash (so circa 30 a mag), now it has 54% (aka 9 a mag) with your suggested setup assuming you can make up for the drop of damage withe either a godly rolled riven or sticking to around 12m range (lets say a generous 16 if the targets are at least jackal big) and vicious spread.

Thats over 60% less slash procs worth of damage.

No, he means the proc priorities with the 4 60/60s and 4x weighting were such that only 50% of your pellets proc slash on average (for Tigris Prime).

EDIT: For example:

IPS: 156, 156, 1248

Total: 1560

With 4x 60/60s, a pellet will proc slash with probability (in the old system with 4x IPS proc priority weighting)

4*1248/(4*1248 + 4*156 + 4*156 + 4*0.6*1560) = 0.5

Edited March 17, 2020 by nslay

[Andele3025]

8 minutes ago, nslay said:

No, he means the proc priorities with the 4 60/60s and 4x weighting were such that only 50% of your pellets proc slash on average (for Tigris Prime).

EDIT: For example:

IPS: 156, 156, 1248

Total: 1560

With 4x 60/60s, a pellet will proc slash with probability (in the old system with 4x IPS proc priority weighting)

4*1248/(4*1248 + 4*156 + 4*156 + 4*0.6*1560) = 0.5

Thats without Sweeping Serration (which is BIS 3rd slot mod for the tigris P either way around 1/3rd better than blaze or reload mods) where in the new model the slash weighting is 37%~ (possibly 36%, sorry for napkin math).

Point was tho that either way it doesnt help the idea that somehow the new models virals can make up for slash proc loss when before the viral weight didnt matter as long as it procced once.

[TRPBWhite]

1 hour ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Actually, in the old system, with all other stats being equal, you barely gain any net procs per second at sub-100% status chance regardless of your base pellet count increasing.

Considering that the difference in the example provided is of 0.7 that is a small but not non-existing difference, it is exactly what i said. To put this in a different, much more biased perspective, the difference per shot of a 1 pellet gun with 40% status and the Strun Wraith was +9.8%.

1 hour ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

I grabbed out the Tigris Prime row on my spreadsheet, tweaked pellet counts to 4 and 80 and the 30% base status chance column for procs-per-second only increases 4.3% between the two rows - since the changed pellet count is absorbed into the distribution of the base status chance.

It is a 4.3% because massively increasing the pellet count does not really change the outcome due to how the formula was written. The major changes you have at smaller numbers: 1 to 2 changes more than 2 to 4 and so on. The difference also gets absorbed into rounding. You would notice that between 80 and 2700 there's barely any difference. This doesn't mean that 2700 is a meaningful number for the dataset we have.

1 hour ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

The 340% status column (=100% per pellet, old style) sticks at precisely the pellet count in difference, 20 times the procs per second.

I would honestly be surprised if it didn't.

1 hour ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Going over to the new maths, if the status per pellet doesn't change then the procs per second remains static at 20x - no reduction in efficacy at higher pellet counts.

And that's a good way to implement new maths... how? It is obvious again that if two different shotguns have both 100% chance of proccing with a pellet under the new system both will have exactly the number of pellets as the number of procs. What this example gives us however is that under the new system the 30/4 shotgun has a converted higher base status chance per pellet calculated in a way that means that, overall, with the same modifiers will have the same average proc chance as the other gun. Before, as you noted, this wasn't true - the higher pellet count at numbers that mattered had a small but distinct advantage. This means that in the transposition the higher pellet count advantage, no matter how small, has been lost.

1 hour ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

The pellet proportion and status-per-pellet proportion directly equate to the difference in expected procs per second regardless of the modified status chance in the new maths.

Which is exactly what i'm saying shouldn't have been done, because it removes the higher pellet count shotguns advantage - an advantage that was baked in the weapons at their balancing board when included in the game. I think i know how it works. Telling me why it works how it works doesn't address the concerns i'm expressing, however.

1 hour ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Conclusion: Unless they buffed the status chance significantly differently between two otherwise identical guns based on the number of pellets (which the charts have shown not to be the case) then pellet count did not factor into it. If anything, higher pellet guns only benefitted (where incapable of hitting 100% before).

Disproven again!

A non-zero difference is a difference. Since you like to compare weapons, you should understand that something as small as a 0.7 difference could end up meaning as much as a +5% flat difference overall per shot at a base in "buff amount". Which increases as the increases in multiplier stack. Which is probably again "relatively small". But it is a change for no good reason i can fathom. And overall it becomes a bigger deal as soon as the comparison translates to single fire weapons, where the delta is "more dramatic".

Hiding behind a "overall is not a big deal" is not disproving that the change exists, albeit small. And moreso BECAUSE it is small it makes less sense for it to be there, given that other, prossibly simpler solution might have been availlable. Your images posted and that particular sheet should provide indication of what i mean: if you set the different weapons to a single pre-change status chance (or simply set a single status chance and different pellet numbers from 1 to 15), you should see that the "buff" number is reduced as the number of pellet increases. You might see it as insignificant, but bear in mind that as the multiplier stacks, the difference increases.

Again, that's with my understanding and use of maths. Which might be wrong.

Edited March 17, 2020 by TRPBWhite

[TheLexiConArtist]

50 minutes ago, Andele3025 said:

Why do you insist on this charade. You were wrong, shotguns got nerfed by pellet count and multiple posts prove so, thus stop spamming trash.

And no, tigris had a 30% status chance and starting at 8 pellets with 2 shots per 1.9 down to 1.61s if relying on auto reload, hek had a 20 at 7 and 3 shots a second, using only optimized builds/builds that dont nef each guns kill potential, so no removing PPB, HC for either, no dropping SS for TP and no dropping PRavage and a crit chance mod for hek) tigris prime always beat the vhek. Worst case scenario where you can only use the hek while bunny hopping the tigris is merely beating it by 4~5 procs (depending on how you round and multishot goes) a second. Seriously, stop spamming the thread with trash. Especially after GilgaMelchi was even so nice to make a table that very clearly shows the nerf being pellet based.

Howl all you want. It won't change the facts. You are literally reaching flat-earther levels of personal delusion and confirmation bias.

I especially like how you tried to bury the point in arbitrary waffle (again) despite the fact that right there in the post I said that it's naked statistics and the actual performances shift up if you try to factor in duplex fire and manual reload.

 

The point, however, does not change: The proc-per-second expectation completely spikes favourable to the Tigris compared to 'natural', based solely on hitting the Magical 100% Threshold, whereas the relationship is completely static as it should be in the new system - because the only variable changing is 'net pellets per second', the status chance for each is using the same multiplier increase for both weapons between 'baseline' and 'modded' so it should not change the ratio at all.

10 minutes ago, TRPBWhite said:

Considering that the difference in the example provided is of 0.7 that is a small but not non-existing difference, it is exactly what i said. To put this in a different, much more biased perspective, the difference per shot of a 1 pellet gun with 40% status and the Strun Wraith was +9.8%.

It is a 4.3% because massively increasing the pellet count does not really change the outcome due to how the formula was written. The major changes you have at smaller numbers: 1 to 2 changes more than 2 to 4 and so on. The difference also gets absorbed into rounding. You would notice that between 80 and 2700 there's barely any difference. This doesn't mean that 2700 is a meaningful number for the dataset we have.

I would honestly be surprised if it didn't.

And that's a good way to implement new maths... how? It is obvious again that if two different shotguns have both 100% chance of proccing with a pellet under the new system both will have exactly the number of pellets as the number of procs. What this example gives us however is that under the new system the 30/4 shotgun has a converted higher base status chance per pellet calculated in a way that means that, overall, with the same modifiers will have the same average proc chance as the other gun. Before, as you noted, this wasn't true - the higher pellet count at numbers that mattered had a small but distinct advantage. This means that in the transposition the higher pellet count advantage, no matter how small, has been lost.

Which is exactly what i'm saying shouldn't have been done, because it removes the higher pellet count shotguns advantage - an advantage that was baked in the weapons at their balancing board when included in the game. I think i know how it works. Telling me why it works how it works doesn't address the concerns i'm expressing, however.

A non-zero difference is a difference. Since you like to compare weapons, you should understand that something as small as a 0.7 difference could end up meaning as much as a +5% flat difference overall per shot at a base in "buff amount". Which increases as the increases in multiplier stack. Which is probably again "relatively small". But it is a change for no good reason i can fathom. And overall it becomes a bigger deal as soon as the comparison translates to single fire weapons, where the delta is "more dramatic".

Hiding behind a "overall is not a big deal" is not disproving that the change exists, albeit small. And moreso BECAUSE it is small it makes less sense for it to be there, given that other, prossibly simpler solution might have been availlable. Your images posted and that particular sheet should provide indication of what i mean: if you set the different weapons to a single pre-change status chance (or simply set a single status chance and different pellet numbers from 1 to 15), you should see that the "buff" number is reduced as the number of pellet increases. You might see it as insignificant, but bear in mind that as the multiplier stacks, the difference increases.

Again, that's with my understanding and use of maths. Which might be wrong.

I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle, and tripping yourself up.

Higher pellet counts were strictly disadvantageous in the old system - all other stats being equalised - unless at 100% per pellet whereby the procs were simply 1:1 with pellet count, obviously.

In the new system, higher pellet counts are always 1:1 with proc expectations, all else being equal, as there's no magical threshold where the maths break.

 

Ergo, first point of judgement, intra-weapon balance - does a theoretical, otherwise identical weapon simply with a higher pellet count suffer in the new system? No. It is equal (hit 100% previously) or better (any sub-100%).

 

The second question is whether the inter-weapon balance favoured less pellets; i.e. did higher pellet guns gain a better net proc-per-second from the change than different lower-pellet guns, after accounting for all other differences in fire rate, reloading, pellet count and status base.

This is where the charts come in. Generally speaking there is an upward trend among all weapons - using the base status chance in both Old and New since we're not discussing the result of the broken equation.

There are two major outliers to this trend - the Corinth which is lower pellet and got a vastly superior increase in potential (proportionally speaking, though it's a poor status weapon overall) and the Strun Wraith which is higher pellet and got a notably inferior increase in potential.

Charting the results shows that on average, higher pellet guns actually got (marginally) greater benefits than lower pellet guns, at a baseline.

 

Cherry-picking results - especially those anomalies - may make it appear that pellets made a difference, but objectively considering the data points we have, any negative relationship can be considered purely circumstantial.

Ergo, inter-weapon balance was not disfavourable to higher pellet weapons.

Edited March 17, 2020 by TheLexiConArtist

[nslay]

33 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Howl all you want. It won't change the facts. You are literally reaching flat-earther levels of personal delusion and confirmation bias.

I especially like how you tried to bury the point in arbitrary waffle (again) despite the fact that right there in the post I said that it's naked statistics and the actual performances shift up if you try to factor in duplex fire and manual reload.

 

The point, however, does not change: The proc-per-second expectation completely spikes favourable to the Tigris compared to 'natural', based solely on hitting the Magical 100% Threshold, whereas the relationship is completely static as it should be in the new system - because the only variable changing is 'net pellets per second', the status chance for each is using the same multiplier increase for both weapons between 'baseline' and 'modded' so it should not change the ratio at all.

The ratio is changed not because of the nerf, but because the 4x IPS proc priority weighting scheme was removed.

In other words, the Tigris Prime suffers doubly with this change. The status chance is lower and its Slash damage is no longer 4x weighted like before (which would ordinarily favor Slash procs over elemental damage). Throw 4 60/60 mods and you ruin the proc priorities considerably for Tigris Prime. Shotgun Savvy can help, but ultimately the reduced status chance and the removal of 4x weighted IPS proc priority has absolutely demolished Tigris Prime.

EDIT: Just to be clear, the removal of the 4x weighted IPS scheme helps Impact shotguns a lot (Boar Prime, Strun Wraith)!

Edited March 17, 2020 by nslay

[TheLexiConArtist]

1 minute ago, nslay said:

The ratio is changed not because of the nerf, but because the 4x IPS proc priority weighting scheme was removed.

In other words, the Tigris Prime suffers doubly with this change. The status chance is lower and it's Slash damage is no longer 4x weighted like before (which would ordinarily favor Slash procs over elemental damage). Throw 4 60/60 mods and you ruin the proc priorities considerably for Tigris Prime. Shotgun Savvy can help, but ultimately the reduced status chance and the removal of 4x weighted IPS proc priority has absolutely demolished Tigris Prime.

I'm talking about net proc potential. Not one weapon's ability to proc one specific status. It made no sense that the Tigris should suddenly increase its potential nearly fourfold as compared to the Vaykor (by naked stats going from 0.47 to 1.8, an improvement to 383%) simply because it could reach 100% in a build with which the Vaykor could not.

Equal mods should not magically change this proportion at any point.

Ignoring those two specific weapons for the sake of getting some rounded numbers:

If Weapon A puts out 20 pellets per second with 25% net status chance and Weapon B puts out 5 pellets per second and has 50% net status chance then the difference in expectations should still be:

(PPS_(A) * SC_(A)) / (PPS_(B) * SC_(B)) = (20 * 0.25) / (5 * 0.5)  = 5 / 2.5 = A=B*2

Modifying the status chance of both equally (let's say 300%) should be a neutral operation that could simplify out from both. 20*0.75 / 5*1.5 = 15/7.5 = A=B*2

 

Since the old maths did not perform this way, it was objectively broken.

[(PSN)Irmao2Vigilante]

Hello,

Regarding Viral

I tested on ps4. Viral is too strong, change it or nerf it. I suggest the first viral raise the damage, and subsequent viral status become randomly puncture, impact or damage raise as if they were stronger symptoms of the infection/disease/virus

 

Regarding Shotgun status

- Kohm is still clearly a spreadsheet error. The consequence of a busy team working in the new content  and an ill defined equation. It can reach 306% status chance with only 60/60 mods, add hell's chamber and vigilante armaments then one shot can produce an absurd amount of status. Fully spooled? 21,6 status x 4.17 (fire rate). Kohm received a stupid buff whereas most status shotguns got nerfed.

luckily it is easy to fix, i wonder why hasn't been done yet. It would take about 2 hours for someone not used to math. "take the old data, take the highest status chance, exam how shotguns perfrom with all 60/60 mods, define how many pellets one wants proc with those mods on, normalize others shotguns using the highest as reference".

DE is too busy producing new content, after all the last nightwave intermission is almost 5 months long now. 

So, let me help you - in this instance/example, i choose Strun Wraith to have 119% chance with all mods (before the update it would require only 3 mods to achieve this),  leading us to 35% status per pellet. Now, normalizing other shotguns in order to bring them to the new world

Shotgun        Status/pellet    Using4-60/60mods    Using4-60/60mods+90%one
Strun Wraith        35,00%        119,00%        150,50%
Kuva Brakk         34,00%        115,60%        146,20%
Exergis               33,00%        112,20%        141,90%
Twin Rogga         32,00%        108,80%        137,60%
Mara Detron        31,00%        105,40%        133,30%
Boar Prime        30,00%        102,00%        129,00%
Kuva Drakgoon        30,00%        102,00%        129,00%
Kuva Kohm            30,00%        102,00%        129,00%
Tigris Prime        30,00%        102,00%        129,00%
Akbronco Prime        30,00%        102,00%        129,00%
Bronco Prime        30,00%        102,00%        129,00%
Detron            30,00%        102,00%        129,00%
Sancti Tigris        25,00%        85,00%        107,50%
Tigris            25,00%        85,00%        107,50%
Sobek            24,00%        81,60%        103,20%
Hek                22,00%        74,80%        94,60%
Kohm                22,00%        74,80%        94,60%
Vaykor Hek        22,00%        74,80%        94,60%
Drakgoon            20,00%        68,00%        86,00%
Kohmak            20,00%        68,00%        86,00%
Twin Kohmak        20,00%        68,00%        86,00%
Akbronco            20,00%        68,00%        86,00%
Bronco            20,00%        68,00%        86,00%
Boar                18,00%        61,20%        77,40%
MK1-Strun            18,00%        61,20%        77,40%
Strun            18,00%        61,20%        77,40%
Brakk            15,00%        51,00%        64,50%
Corinth            11,00%        37,40%        47,30%
Pyrana Prime        11,00%        37,40%        47,30%
Pyrana            9,00%        30,60%        38,70%
Euphona Prime        2,00%        6,80%        8,60%

Observe, things were adjusted in a line, but one that doesn't produce monster buffs and stupid nerfs

does this example produces overpowered status shotguns? if yes, reduce status chance according to proportion.

does this example still nerfs status shotguns too much? if yes, please raise status chance according to proportions.

At least now, one can do this in a short amount of time, and hopefully fix these matters soon.

 

Godspeed

 

[nslay]

2 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

I'm talking about net proc potential. Not one weapon's ability to proc one specific status. It made no sense that the Tigris should suddenly increase its potential nearly fourfold as compared to the Vaykor (by naked stats going from 0.47 to 1.8, an improvement to 383%) simply because it could reach 100% in a build with which the Vaykor could not.

Equal mods should not magically change this proportion at any point.

Ignoring those two specific weapons for the sake of getting some rounded numbers:

If Weapon A puts out 20 pellets per second with 25% net status chance and Weapon B puts out 5 pellets per second and has 50% net status chance then the difference in expectations should still be:

(PPS_(A) * SC_(A)) / (PPS_(B) * SC_(B)) = (20 * 0.25) / (5 * 0.5)  = 5 / 2.5 = A=B*2

Modifying the status chance of both equally (let's say 300%) should be a neutral operation that could simplify out from both. 20*0.75 / 5*1.5 = 15/7.5 = A=B*2

 

Since the old maths did not perform this way, it was objectively broken.

Vaykor could also reach 100% status with 4 60/60s and Motus Setup or Nano-Applicator before the change. Although it would preferrably proc puncture.

In the new change, Vaykor Hek can proc more statuses than Tigris Prime given that it has the crit chance to use Hunter Munitions. Tigris Prime was purely a status weapon... that was its bread and butter. There is no redeeming Tigris Prime without properly balancing it to be a status weapon again. Vaykor Hek is fine since it's made for hybrid builds (most shotguns are not).

[Andele3025]

42 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

It won't change the facts.

Yes, the fact you keep lying, denying that the nerf was pellet based and somehow have insane asspull numbers that arent even vaguely based on reality when everyone has both the wiki, the historical pages of the wiki, in game numbers and multiple data sheets in this very thread consistently proving you wrong.

42 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

I especially like how you tried to bury the point in arbitrary waffle (again) despite the fact that right there in the post I said that it's naked statistics and the actual performances shift up if you try to factor in duplex fire and manual reload.

Nice projecting.

42 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

The point, however, does not change: The proc-per-second expectation completely spikes favourable to the Tigris compared to 'natural', based solely on hitting the Magical 100% Threshold, whereas the relationship is completely static as it should be in the new system

No, there is no #*!%ing graph on performance for a full build, its a binary yes it does something or no it doesnt. Status shotguns right now no longer perform as they should based on what was promised during the stream (tripling status on in game sheet and then adjusting it to per pellet), something that would have been a decent approximation of keeping status performance calc as per burst rifle.

42 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Higher pellet counts were strictly disadvantageous in the old system - all other stats being equalised - unless at 100% per pellet whereby the procs were simply 1:1 with pellet count, obviously.

No they werent, it still meant more procs on average once modded. Its why bullet hose rifles with low status are better than snipers. The only thing that was S#&$ in the old math is the effective value of status chance mods till that 100% which is why DE wanted to make this change and where they #*!%ed up nerfing by high pellet count.

42 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

IThere are two major outliers to this trend - the Corinth which is lower pellet and got a vastly superior increase in potential (proportionally speaking, though it's a poor status weapon overall) and the Strun Wraith which is higher pellet and got a notably inferior increase in potential.

No, they got the same changes as everyone, 3x total chance increase and then nerf by pellet count. Corinth just benefitted the most from the increase in value of status mods in practical terms because it had complete dogS#&$ status before. Same as Pyrana prime.

42 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Cherry-picking results - especially those anomalies - may make it appear that pellets made a difference, but objectively considering the data points we have, any negative relationship can be considered purely circumstantial.

Except that the nerf was literally by pellet count and you are the only one ignoring reality.

Take any shotguns current per pellet status chance, multiply it by the active pellet count (aka the multishot value, or in case of the phage, 6 since the middle beam doesnt count as true multishot for calc/its the beam hitcheck and the one that the others get fused into when converged) then divide by 3 and youll get the shotguns prior status probability.
Notice how it nerfs by pellet count instead of re-calculating the per pellet status chance from the new probability per shot value?

[TheLexiConArtist]

 

12 hours ago, Andele3025 said:

Take any shotguns current per pellet status chance, multiply it by the active pellet count (aka the multishot value, or in case of the phage, 6 since the middle beam doesnt count as true multishot for calc/its the beam hitcheck and the one that the others get fused into when converged) then divide by 3 and youll get the shotguns prior status probability.
Notice how it nerfs by pellet count instead of re-calculating the per pellet status chance from the new probability per shot value?

Wait.

Your entire premise is that dividing the ABSOLUTE NUMBER THREE by increasingly larger numbers results in increasingly smaller numbers?

That doesn't make it a 'nerf by pellet count'. That makes it a basic mathematical operation.

Everything predicated on that operation results in completely pellet-agnostic results because it's the same operation on each of them.

Your 'nerf by pellet count' is actually a 'reduced gains by original status chance'.

Here, let me show you:

[(XBOX)Onyx Schnee]

3 hours ago, Traumtulpe said:

I believe you are fighting weak enemies that die to the initial shot. The big thing about the Tigris were it's slash procs - and those are pitiful compared to before.

You believe wrong. I'm using it against level 130 corrupt bombards and gunners(AI off as well.)

using a viral rad setup with the exact same build i had before. It still immediately butchers them just as it did before.

 

[Andele3025]

10 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

"nerfiny by pellet count instead of recalculating probabiliy"  doesn't make it a 'nerf by pellet count'. That makes it a basic mathematical operation.

Its nice that you yourself are now admitting you dont understand math and keep making S#&$ up. Now please stop spamming the thread with crappy lies and asspulling numbers because you cant wrap your head around the point that not recalculating per pellet probability from new status chance but instead dividing by pellet count is a nerf by pellet count over 3.

Edited March 17, 2020 by Andele3025

[rstripn]

If you're counting old slash weighting as part of your testing then yeah any high slash weapon just got screwed, shotgun or not. There's no argument there so please stop including it. It's been awhile now. All the complaints have been made. You're hurting your own arguments trying to roll the slash weighting into the overall shotgun status discussion.

 

[Andele3025]

1 minute ago, rstripn said:

There's no argument there so please stop including it.

The slash proc potential (not average output) change is a good demonstration of how hard the nerf to status guns was tho.

[rstripn]

@ DE:

I retract my previous suggestion of upping pellet counts universally. If you wish to address this it will require a shotgun-by-shotgun adjustment in either pellet count or status chance per pellet.

Your status chance changes to shotguns were more than fair for any reasonable calculation. The problem is that the old system allowed guaranteed status effects per pellet via unreasonable calculations. Due to this the balance of shotguns is completely thrown off; shotguns that used to be bad status weapons are now good and shotguns that were previously great status weapons are now merely okay.

I don't know if this should be changed. But it's very understandable that status shotgun enthusiasts are a little upset.

 

3 hours ago, Andele3025 said:

The slash proc potential (not average output) change is a good demonstration of how hard the nerf to status guns was tho.

I'm not saying don't talk about it, but don't include it in the same discussion as the shotgun changes. It makes your argument stronger if you have clearly separated paragraphs for the two subjects or even different posts.

Edited March 18, 2020 by rstripn

[TheLexiConArtist]

12 hours ago, Andele3025 said:

12 hours ago, Andele3025 said:

"nerfiny by pellet count instead of recalculating probabiliy"  doesn't make it a 'nerf by pellet count'. That makes it a basic mathematical operation.

Its nice that you yourself are now admitting you dont understand math and keep making S#&$ up. Now please stop spamming the thread with crappy lies and asspulling numbers because you cant wrap your head around the point that not recalculating per pellet probability from new status chance but instead dividing by pellet count is a nerf by pellet count over 3.

Performing a basic operation equally on all weapons DOES NOT make the result a nerf by pellet count.

If all weapons had equal stats but differing pellets, they would be affected EQUALLY.

The actual direct negative causation - as the previous chart shows - is the original status chance.

 

Correlation does not equal causation, so even if the results did show low-pellet weapons having a consistently better benefit than higher-pellet weapons (hint: they don't, we've shown this) then that would only be true if and because higher-pellet weapons consistently had more base status in the old system than lower-pellet weapons did.

 

Your whole 'nerf by pellet count' argument is predicated on the fact that 3/10 does not equal 3/5. To which anyone will tell you of course it doesn't, because they're not so dug into their false presumption that they can't understand the most basic mathematical operations. What next? You're going to argue basic multiplication? Basic addition? Is 2+2 equal to 4+4 in your mind?

[TRPBWhite]

3 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle, and tripping yourself up.

Higher pellet counts were strictly disadvantageous in the old system - all other stats being equalised - unless at 100% per pellet whereby the procs were simply 1:1 with pellet count, obviously.

Being "equalized" or being "equal"? Because at "being equal" i mean the same firerate, magazine, chance for at least one proc and so on. Not "being equalized" as to be fit to reach the same average proc chance.

Let's take the 100% status chance out: We agree that 100% per pellet the ratio was 1:1. This also means that any increase over the 100% mark was "wasted" points in allocation over other stats given that the system did not account for higher than 100% status: The UI status and what status meant for shotgun-like weapons was "the chance of at least one proc".

For every other case, including shotguns that could reach 100% but for some reason are not in our analysis, a higher pellet count would mean a the exact same chance of applying one status AND the unique ability to apply more status procs than what the lesser-pellet-armed variants would. This would mean an higher average expectations of proc per shot (and so on), not a lower one. And you did agree with the above in your post before this. There is a difference and that difference is exacerbated at 100% chance.

I don't see how what you wrote is true and what i did isn't. Care to provide math? Because you can say that it isn't, but without numbers and formulas to compare if i'm making a mistake i can't see it.

For example: It is obvious that throwing one d4 is less appealing than throwing 4d4 if we are trying to get at least one 4. Each individual die could end up on a 4, so the 4d4 throw, having 4 times the dice, would have an higher possibility of having "at least one" 4, while also having the unique possibility of having multiple 4s.

For our shotguns the maths are not that simple, as we have an equal chance of obtaining the equivalent of "at least one 4" with different amounts of different faced dice depending on the case.

But the maths still works out that there is an advantage in having more pellets: the chance of scoring an incredible success. That is enough to tilt the average up a bit.

3 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

In the new system, higher pellet counts are always 1:1 with proc expectations, all else being equal, as there's no magical threshold where the maths break.

Old shotguns with higher pellet counts at an X status level had an advantage over every other gun with the same stats but a lower pellet count in expected procs. Not a disadvantage. In the transition this has been lost.

The proc expectations remain the same no matter how many pellets i have assuming the other stats are the same. In the new system if i have 11 pellets, i have the exact average as the shotgun that has 5 as long as our old status chance pre transfer is the same. Higher pellet count is completely irrelevant for expectations. Higher pellet multiplier is. Which is a consequence of pellet count being neutral.

3 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Ergo, first point of judgement, intra-weapon balance - does a theoretical, otherwise identical weapon simply with a higher pellet count suffer in the new system? No. It is equal (hit 100% previously) or better (any sub-100%).

But your assumption doesn't hold thus your conclusion is incorrect. And the conclusion doesn't address the concern anyway. The disfavour is for all the weapons involved, not just for those with higher pellet count over those with less pellets. It is a "systemic (systematic?) error" (as in, i'm not making an assumption this is not intended anymore. Just using those words to convey a meaning that is only lateral) that affects all of them, just in different degrees.

Spoiler

 

More pellets = lesser increase. It leads to flattening the average procs disregarding pellet count, while before pellet count increased that amount (albeit not by much) as a base.

3 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

The second question is whether the inter-weapon balance favoured less pellets; i.e. did higher pellet guns gain a better net proc-per-second

I don't care about procs per second and i'm SPECIFICALLY not talking about procs per second - when everything else is equal we can forget about time, fire rate and so on. I've never reached the point of caring, yet. I've not done the maths enough times or on enough samples to care or know. Procs per second dilutes the issue. Again, "not big enough to care" doesn't mean that there isn't an issue to begin with. Or that it doesn't have ramifications.

3 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

This is where the charts come in.

Then it is already too late for the issue. Charts that rely on a "mistake" will carry on the "mistake" even if they show good results overall.

The good results could have been there even if the status % were assigned at random. This doesn't mean that the values or the method used to establish those values are good. Or bad. Or it isn't a good thing overall for the game. Again, i'm not judging. I'm stating a mathematical fact. Before the higher amount of pellets had an advantage when everything else was the same - for the status the old ui status chance. In the conversion the advantage of that number has been lost.

3 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Generally speaking there is an upward trend among all weapons - using the base status chance in both Old and New since we're not discussing the result of the broken equation.

There are two major outliers to this trend - the Corinth which is lower pellet and got a vastly superior increase in potential (proportionally speaking, though it's a poor status weapon overall) and the Strun Wraith which is higher pellet and got a notably inferior increase in potential.

 

We are necessarily speaking of the results of the broken equation. There's no escaping it. However we are not talking about the most broken aspect: the 100% chance.

And what i stated above still stands: It is not an issue of general trends on weapon design. It's that every single weapon would have been better served by having a smaller amount of pellets due to how the increase has been calculated. Bringing general results at most will show that, based on fixed status chance, the will always be a resulting "lesser buff" amount as the number of pellets increase. So, by virtue of having more pellets, the effect is less. Therefore, higher pellet counts weapon "suffer" more in the transition.

If the exact same Corinth had every single stat equal and the number of pellets halved before the transition it would be now a better status weapon. It's as simple as that.

3 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Charting the results shows that on average, higher pellet guns actually got (marginally) greater benefits than lower pellet guns, at a baseline.

I am not discussing applied weaponry. If the "mistake" is above that level, every single calulation that has been made after is going to be "faulty". Even if the results are "good enough".

3 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Cherry-picking results - especially those anomalies - may make it appear that pellets made a difference, but objectively considering the data points we have, any negative relationship can be considered purely circumstantial.

Ergo, inter-weapon balance was not disfavourable to higher pellet weapons.

Cherry-picking what? It is a consistent pattern. That the result on the weapon is more or less impactful on certain weapons is irrelevant for the complaint. It might have been a conscious choice, but stating that the "problem isn't there" just because the results are "good enough to be competitive for the most part" doesn't mean that there can't be a different method where "more results are good enough to be competitive, prehaps more so, within reason".

Edited March 18, 2020 by TRPBWhite
whoops fixing a link

[Nox_Terminus]

On 2020-03-13 at 5:03 AM, CopperBezel said:

The changes were strictly to weapons with innate multishot. The Arca Plasmor and Astilla are shotguns in category but not in mechanics, the same as the Akbronco is a shotgun in mechanics but not in category. The Astilla is a grenade weapon like the Acceltra and the Arca Plasmor is a wave gun like the Catchmoon and Fulmin semi-auto mode.

The Akbronco is the only shotgun in the bronco series to not receive 3x status per pellet. Even the prime and its akimbo variant received this change, so it is obvious it should have been increased.

The Arca Plasmor is a pump action shotgun, regardless of what kind of projectile it fires. Whereas the Astilla is an automatic shotgun in the same vein. While both fire slugs it is important to realize they use shotgun mods, unlike the Fulmin which uses rifle mods, and has an SMG alt-fire mode.

[Andele3025]

 

Quote

Performing a basic operation equally on all weapons DOES NOT make the result a nerf by pellet count.

ONLY IF ALL WEAPONS WERE EQUAL. I swear you're that kid that keeps removing remainders from multiple fraction conversions to decimal and then argues that the number is correct resulting in 20 trucks existing in question that asks about how many boxes are there in 12 trucks.

In very simple then going from a point of operations, since r1 is sum of probability of N count of x1 chances and the operation of the table is r1x3:N=r2, the higher m2 is, the more r2 is nerfed in comparison to r1 and the lower x2 will applied to N count giving us R3 instead of R2.
e.g. 30x3/8= 11.25, 30x3/3 however remains 30. No matter how far you scale it, if its above 3 it will be lower, thats the problem when not reverse calculating probability. Let me guess you also think that a radshare has a 40% chance to give a rare instead of 34.3~ish.
Aka its nerfing by pellet count.
 

[(PSN)Irmao2Vigilante]

Hello,

@TheLexiConArtist i have to agree with @TRBWhite - and i wil add, beam/continuos shotguns worked distinctly from non-beam ones,  Beam shotgun like phage didn't had their status chance altered by multishot, they almost behaved like pellet based status chance so for phage suffered a huge nerf. DE applied its equation equally without regarding all distinct mechanics they had (continuous, astilla, kohm 100% status pellet shotgun etc) and as consequence all distinc functions/procedures that evaluate status chance produced anomalous outcomes. The result are motrous buff for kohm (more than 3 status per shot) and many stupid nerfs.

 

Apply something equally when so many diferent procedures evaluates if a status procs or not requires careful study about what to apply. Weight down all mechanics, define expected behavior, design method/procedure  and exam if the proposed method will actually create the desired outcome.

 

For some unknown reason, maybe too many things to update at once, they didn't define a procedure that would make a transition without creating so many distortions. They just grabbed the box and shook it without care - as they said during devstream- (unfortunate sad)

Hopefuly, DE will aknowledge that something needs to be done here, and they ll fix things

Edited March 18, 2020 by (PS4)Irmao2Vigilante
sintax - finish phrase

[CopperBezel]

28 minutes ago, Nox_Terminus said:

The Akbronco is the only shotgun in the bronco series to not receive 3x status per pellet. Even the prime and its akimbo variant received this change, so it is obvious it should have been increased.

The Arca Plasmor is a pump action shotgun, regardless of what kind of projectile it fires. Whereas the Astilla is an automatic shotgun in the same vein. While both fire slugs it is important to realize they use shotgun mods, unlike the Fulmin which uses rifle mods, and has an SMG alt-fire mode.

The Akbronco is an obvious oversight, yes. I wasn't referring to that in bringing it up, though - the only weapons that got new numbers were weapons that used shotgun status mechanics. Strictly. What mods they use doesn't matter. Arca Plasmor and Astilla were not affected and should not have been, for the same reason that secondary shotguns were and were meant to. None of this is about shotguns as in the category for mods or for sortie weapon restrictions, it's everything with innate multishot where status chance was calculated after said multishot.

[rstripn]

For anyone confused about why status shotgun enthusiasts are upset:

For every pellet-based status shotgun, (old status chance / inherent multishot) * 3 = new status chance.

This seems not only okay but great; average procs per second should go up significantly. And this is true for any shotgun that was modded for less than 100% status chance.

Old system: Status chance was the chance that at least one of the barrage of pellets would proc something.

90% status: on average a single pellet had a extremely low chance of proccing.

95% status: on average a single pellet had a very low chance of proccing.

99% status: on average a single pellet had a low chance of proccing.

So far so good. Here's the problem:

100% status: every single pellet is guaranteed to proc a status.

The game rounded 99.xx% at some point up to 100%. The majority of shotguns could hit that value.

It was super broken for several shotguns, and was just getting worse as more mods came out to increase status chance. And with the new statuses all stacking, it would have become even more insane.

But it was an effective nerf of almost every status shotgun. Once you hit the magic number, the more pellets you shot, the more status effects you got, period. The more pellets it could shoot after reaching 100% status, the harder it got nerfed.

I'm not saying the change was good or bad. I'm not a shotgun enthusiast. I have no horse in this race. I'm just explaining for the several people who have posted saying they don't understand the issue.

[.durandle.]

6 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

based solely on hitting the Magical 100% Threshold

 

6 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

 unless at 100% per pellet

 

6 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Ergo, first point of judgement, intra-weapon balance - does a theoretical, otherwise identical weapon simply with a higher pellet count suffer in the new system? No. It is equal (hit 100% previously) or better (any sub-100%).

the thing it that usable shotguns are that ones that you didn't build fir status or DID hit 100% status
and these where all significantly nerfed across the board

and the thing is even if you consider the old status equation for shotguns to be broken or nonsensical if was the status quo for how many years?