Jump to content

Can We Finally Get a Fix for the Conclave Fall-Off Bug?


Kontrollo
 Share

Recommended Posts

Edit: Thanks for the fixes that were brought with this:

On 2022-04-27 at 5:02 PM, [DE]Megan said:
  • Conclave: Fixed Weapons (notably particular shotguns & AoE guns) minimum falloff damage not properly respecting the correct Conclave specific values. 
    • From a community standpoint this was considered a significant exploit/bug for Conclave, it was not fair play or intended.

I've had a look at (hopefully) all the potentially affected weapons, and made a summary in this latest post. Short version: looks fine now, except Astilla was overlooked, but isn't much of a problem.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posting in General because at least here it might be seen by someone.

@Mods: before you move it to the black hole that is Conclave Feedback, at least mention it to someone from the community team. Preferably one of the devs who can do something about it, though.

 

TL;DR: PvE fall-off values of some weapons got changed at some point over 15 months ago. These have bled into PvP because the calculations aren't separated cleanly enough. They have affected balance negatively, because damage of some weapons is now way too high, mainly certain shotguns and snipers.

 

The increased damage values are clearly caused by a bug and had been documented and reported at the time by @Triplinster

Options to fix:

  • separate PvE and PvP fall-off calculations (preferred, would be the cleanest method)
  • revert the changes (easiest, but would impact PvE negatively)
  • extend the maximum ranges in a way that the slope remains intact for PvE (hacky, but better than nothing; will do the calculations when I have time in a follow-up post here)

 

Affected weapons:

  • Primary Snipers: Vectis, Vulkar, Vulkar Wraith, Rubico Prime, Vectis Prime
  • Primary Shotguns: Strun, Boar Prime, Vaykor Hek, Strun Wraith, Sobek, Tigris, Sancti Tigris, Tigris Prime
  • Other Primaries: Buzlok, Hema
  • Secondary: Twin Rogga
     
  • Of all of these, the following are still ok:
    • Vectis: only got a minor increase and is in a good spot now
    • Buzlok: shows 60 instead of 36 in UI, still deals 36 vs neutral ingame (because projectiles work differently, and are not directly tied to the UI)
    • Hema: shows 45 instead of 24.8 in UI, still deals 25 vs neutral ingame (because projectiles work differently, and are not directly tied to the UI)


Here's the screenshot from one of the original threads which documents the damage changes and the cause (see %centage Difference column to understand how much stronger these weapons are than they should be):

Spoiler

Qw5P82z.png

 

The original threads were made over 15 months ago now:

Spoiler

 

 

And another one by myself later because at that point, the old ones were already locked automatically:

Spoiler

 


 

These threads have later been locked again by a moderator due to -- paraphrased -- "old age", but the values are clearly the result of a bug that needs to be fixed. Since locking them, two mainlines, Tennocon and several hotfixes happened, but without a resolution.

So it's definitely justified to bring it up again.

 

 

P.S.: It has also been mentioned -- probably several times -- in the Conclave Bug Megathread.

Edited by Kontrollo
Bug is mostly fixed now, thanks; added summary
  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, (PSN)Pragmatic_2015 said:

Would it be bad form if I'm using a Daikyu with Spring-loaded Broadhead and Eagle Eye ????

Not really, no.

Daikyu is not one of the affected weapon and was balanced for Conclave with the Spring-Loaded Broadhead mod in mind. Although originally, it had higher draw-time and that was before shield gating made it into Conclave, too.

So if anything, it'd need some stat tweaking, but there are far more severe problems right now, the fall-off bug is one of those.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

Looks like this is not the full list of affected weapons, after all. But we still need to do more tests and gather more pieces of the puzzle, so to speak.

Basically any weapon that has fall-off over distance and is enabled in Conclave could be affected in some way, although for some it doesn't make a big difference.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 2021-08-09 at 2:59 PM, Kontrollo said:

Options to fix:

  • separate PvE and PvP fall-off calculations (preferred, would be the cleanest method)
  • revert the changes (easiest, but would impact PvE negatively)
  • extend the maximum ranges in a way that the slope remains intact for PvE (hacky, but better than nothing; will do the calculations when I have time in a follow-up post here)

It's been a while, but it's been a lot longer since this was introduced, anway.

As mentioned in the OP, another way is to adjust the values so that the fall-off itself remains the same, but the minimum is adjusted so it works as before the bug got introduced. It's quite a bit of effort to compile this, so I'll be doing it one by one. Starting with:

Vectis

(Although this weapon is only mildly affected and is still somewhat alright.)

Here are the UI stats of Vectis with +300% damage, so 4x base in total:

NyzzWHq.png

Base total damage is 225 before mods. And that is enough information to get precise IPS weights: 40%  35%  25%

After quantisation the weights are: 37.5%  37.5%  25%

Shield damage before fall-off kicks in is then 225 with the quantised weights. Screenshot shows 375 vs shields:

Spoiler

pHlSrN5.jpeg

Vectis gets 1.5x combo bonus with the first shot already. Damage calc: 1.5 * [(225 * 37.5% * 1.5) + (225 * 37.5% * 0.8) + (225 * 25% * 1)] = 375.46875 which is rounded to 375.

 

Beyond 600m is min. fall-off damage. Screenshot shows 793.5m and 209 damage:

Spoiler

7JzlZVn.jpeg

Filling in the min. damage of 125, which is known to us but not exposed in the UI: 1.5 * [(125 * 37.5% * 1.5) + (125 * 37.5% * 0.8) + (125 * 25% * 1)] = 208.59375 which is rounded to 209.

 

So this gets us to 125 being, in fact, the current PvP damage which is overridden by PvE min. fall-off. Conclave UI screenshot:

mXlv7XF.png

 

Now how to fix this with stat changes:

In PvE the slope starts at 400m with 225 damage and ends at 600m with 125 damage. It loses 50 damage per 100m. This and the required correction for PvP are best shown with some graphs:

cU25JFp.png

 

To keep that kind of fall-off intact, but bring Vectis back to its previous Conclave damage, the values would have to be corrected as follows:

0QAmIuF.png

 

Maximum fall-off distance: 630m

Minimum fall-off damage: 110

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

Same deal as with Vectis before, another suggestion for changing the fall-off min. damage.

 

Vulkar

(This weapon is somewhat affected, but I guess is still kind of unproblematic.)

Here are the UI stats of Vulkar with +300% damage, so 4x base in total:

pvvgfg2.png

Base total damage is 225 before mods. With 4x it's enough information to get precise IPS weights: 80%  15%  5%

After quantisation the weights are: 81.25%  12.5%  6.25%

Shield damage before fall-off is based on 225 total with the quantised weights. Screenshot shows 311 vs shields:

Spoiler

X0sibQv.jpeg

Damage calc: (225 * 81.25% * 1.5) + (225 * 12.5% * 0.8) + (225 * 6.25% * 1) = 310.78125 which is rounded to 311.

 

Beyond 600m is min. fall-off damage. Screenshot shows 642.8m and 173 damage:

Spoiler

DTqJsw1.jpeg

Filling in the min. damage of 125, which is known to us but not exposed in the UI: (125 * 81.25% * 1.5) + (125 * 12.5% * 0.8) + (125 *6.25% * 1) = 172.65625 which is rounded to 173.

 

So this means that 125 is, in fact, the current PvP damage which is overridden by PvE min. fall-off. Conclave UI screenshot:

hZ2qqdu.png

 

How to fix this with stat changes:

Vulkar used to deal 101 damage in PvP.

In PvE the slope starts at 400m with 225 damage and ends at 600m with 125 damage. It loses 50 damage per 100m. As before, this and the required correction for PvP are best shown with some graphs:

1LKlqNq.png

 

To keep that kind of fall-off intact, but bring Vulkar back to its previous Conclave damage, the values would have to be corrected as follows:

E5msFEQ.png

 

Maximum fall-off distance: 648m

Minimum fall-off damage: 101

Edited by Kontrollo
typo
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After Vulkar, next is of course its Wraith variant.

 

Vulkar Wraith

UI stats of Vulkar Wraith with +300% damage, so 4x base in total:

8P0Ekf0.png

Base total damage is 273 before mods. With 4x it's enough information to get precise IPS weights: 90%  10%  0%

After quantisation the weights are: 87.5%  12.5%  0%

Shield damage before fall-off is based on 273 total with the quantised weights. Screenshot shows 386 vs shields:

Spoiler

8gy8x9F.jpeg

Damage calculation: (273 * 81.25% * 1.5) + (273 * 12.5% * 0.8) = 385.6125 which is rounded to 386.

 

Beyond 600m is min. fall-off damage. Screenshot shows 638.2m and 177 damage vs shields:

Spoiler

4ZcGHkh.jpeg

Filling in the min. damage of 125, which is known to us but not exposed in the UI: (125 * 87.5% * 1.5) + (125 * 12.5% * 0.8) = 176.5625 which is rounded to 177.

Bonus: Had some trouble with resistances, so to make sure, I managed to get one shot vs a neutral target, which confirms the 125:

Spoiler

7cMT2Tk.jpeg

 

This confirms yet again that 125 is, in fact, the current PvP damage which is overridden by PvE min. fall-off. Conclave UI screenshot:

mLCJZCK.png

 

Again, how to fix this with stat changes:

Vulkar Wraith used to deal 98 damage in PvP.

In PvE the slope starts at 400m with 273 damage and ends at 600m with 125 damage. It loses 74 damage every 100m. As before, this and the required correction for PvP are best shown with some graphs:

2gQfAts.png

 

To keep that kind of fall-off intact, but bring Vulkar Wraith back to its previous Conclave damage, the values would have to be corrected as follows:

aZ2TqU9.png

 

Maximum fall-off distance: 636.5m

Minimum fall-off damage: 98

Edited by Kontrollo
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Rubico Prime

UI stats of Rubico Prime with +300% damage, so 4x base in total:

Tt1akGD.png

Base total damage is 187 before mods. Same as before, with 4x there's enough information to get precise IPS weights: 80%  15%  5%

After quantisation the weights are: 81.25%  12.5%  6.25%

Shield damage before fall-off is based on 187 total with the quantised weights. Screenshot shows 387 vs shields:

Spoiler

AeOIX09.jpeg

Rubico Prime gets 1.5x combo bonus with the first shot already. Damage calculation: 1.5 * [(187 * 81.25% * 1.5) + (187 * 12.5% * 0.8) + (187 * 6.25% * 1)] = 387.440625 which is rounded to 387.

 

Beyond 600m is min. fall-off damage. Screenshot shows 606.8m and 207 damage vs shields:

Spoiler

CDUiZyC.jpeg

Filling in the min. damage of 100, which is not exposed in the UI but we know from PvP: 1.5 * [(100 * 81.25% * 1.5) + (100 * 12.5% * 0.8) + (100 * 6.25% * 1)] = 207.1875 which is rounded to 207.

 

So this another confirmation that 100 is, in fact, the current PvP damage which is overridden by PvE min. fall-off. Conclave UI screenshot:

uHUeB1T.png

 

Again, how to fix this with stat changes:

Rubico Prime used to deal 76 damage in PvP.

In PvE the slope starts at 400m with 187 damage and ends at 600m with 100 damage. It loses 43.5 damage every 100m. As before, this and the required correction for PvP are best shown with some graphs:

hkCLI8j.png

 

To keep that kind of fall-off intact, but bring Rubico Prime back to its previous Conclave damage, the values would have to be corrected as follows:

HLRQ9Rw.png

 

Maximum fall-off distance: 655m

Minimum fall-off damage: 76

Edited by Kontrollo
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next one is probably the worst offender in the Sniper category:

 

Vectis Prime

UI stats of Vectis Prime without any mods (base damage is high enough to get precise IPS weights):

heCGean.png

Base total damage is 350 and precise IPS weights are: 40%  45%  15%

After quantisation the weights are: 37.5%  43.75%  12.5%

Note that this is one of the weapons whose IPS weights after quantisation don't add up to 100%. This problem has been brought up to the devs a number of times without ever getting fixed, so we can only assume it's by design. It only affects this bug insofar as the damage calculations might look wrong, but they still match what's shown ingame. So this issue is entirely separate from the fall-off bug. Also, object damage shows the actual total damage without any quantisation, and I was lucky to have an Eximus Globe as target with this one, see further below.

Shield damage before fall-off is based on 350 total with the quantised weights. Screenshot shows 363 vs shields:

Spoiler

7PYG0io.jpeg

Damage calculation: (350 * 37.5% * 1.5) + (350 * 43.75% * 0.8) + (350 * 12.5% * 1) = 363.125 which is rounded to 363.

 

Beyond 600m is min. fall-off damage. I only managed to get a critical hit here, critical multiplier is 2x. Screenshot shows 908.5m (note that before the distance update due to recoil the distance was 671m) and 342 damage vs shields:

Spoiler

Mli50kv.jpeg

Distance before recoil:
MVw7pE4.png

Filling in the min. damage of 165, which is not exposed in the UI but we know from PvP (also a 2x critical multiplier): 2 * [(165 * 37.5% * 1.5) + (165 * 43.75% * 0.8) + (165 * 12.5% * 1)] = 342.375 which is rounded to 342.

 

Arctic Eximus Globes have object health which simplify the whole thing because there's no quantisation and no damage calculations to deal with (except through various boni, of course, but this was all without mods, etc).

Object damage before fall-off is of course 350:

Spoiler

LPO44x9.jpeg

 

Beyond 600m is min. fall-off damage. Screenshot shows 694.8m (note that the distance didn't update due to recoil yet) and 165 damage vs object, as shown above:

Spoiler

JdDTioS.jpeg

 

So this is another confirmation that 165 is, in fact, the current PvP damage which is overridden by PvE min. fall-off. Conclave UI screenshot:

Av9dXDm.png

 

Now how to fix this with stat changes:

Vectis Prime used to deal 106.9 damage in PvP.

In PvE the slope starts at 400m with 350 damage and ends at 600m with 165 damage. It loses 92.5 damage every 100m. As before, this and the required correction for PvP are best shown with some graphs:

j4MIfEc.png

 

To keep that kind of fall-off intact, but bring Vectis Prime back to its previous Conclave damage, the values would have to be corrected as follows:

uVMFmAq.png

 

Maximum fall-off distance: 663m

Minimum fall-off damage: 106.9

Edited by Kontrollo
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

This is what's really keeping me from coming back to Warframe full-time rather than popping in for a fissure or two and being done for the week. When the community heals and I can be playing Conclave for four hours every night, I'll be enjoying the game much more. I'll be able to contribute to the market too, meeting demand for Conclave rewards.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2022-02-15 at 6:09 AM, standardheadache said:

... When the community heals and I can be playing Conclave for four hours every night, I'll be enjoying the game much more. ...

Not sure about that, quite a few people have probably given up on the game as a whole by now. Problems introduced in the Old Blood and since are still not resolved, either.

But yes, I hope it might entice some to give it another try.

 

Alright, so next up would be Lanka, but I'm having a hard time to even create a showcase for this. I'm not entirely sure, either the projectile despawns before it gets into the fall-off range or hit detection is disabled outside some radius. In any case, I don't get to see it deal any damage that far out.

Why even have that fall-off when it has no impact in the game due to engine limitations? 🙄

Anyway, Lanka is not mentioned in the OP, but is one of the extra candidates, as alluded to here. I've tried different things, but I guess I need a special Riven to even be able to showcase the whole thing.

Lanka is also not that much of a problem despite its high numbers because it's hard to use and (sadly) there's Shield Gating in PvP, too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Posted (edited)

Over the past days since the update/fixes here:

On 2022-04-27 at 5:02 PM, [DE]Megan said:
  • Conclave: Fixed Weapons (notably particular shotguns & AoE guns) minimum falloff damage not properly respecting the correct Conclave specific values. 
    • From a community standpoint this was considered a significant exploit/bug for Conclave, it was not fair play or intended.

I went through the list of potentially affected weapons.

Everything looks good now with the exception of Astilla, which neither has ranged fall-off on its slug nor on it explosion (which is separate from the fix, anyway). But its numbers are low enough that it isn't really a problem. Also, Hema and Buzlok still show wrong UI values (were candidates for being affected by the bug once), but that's a separate bug, too. (Their in-match damage is fine.)

 

Especially in cases where PvE min. fall-off damage is vastly higher than PvP damage, this makes a big difference and is much appreciated. E.g. Tigris Prime dealt 100 damage per pellet whereas now it's back to ~9.5-18.5, depending on distance:

Spoiler

Tigris Prime: has fall-off from 10-20 both in PvP and PvE. deals 8x19 max. as expected (UI per pellet is 18.525, rounded up), min. fall-off is 8x10 damage (PvE has 51.3% min. fall-off, more precisely: 20/39), which would be 9.5 rounded up in the case against neutral, as expected. (total max. damage now is 148.2, with the bug it was 800, no fall-off):

tigris-prime-fall-off.jpg

 

I've tested the following weapons and with the mentioned exception of Astilla all of them look like they deal the correct amout of damage:

  • Primaries:
    • Snipers: Lanka, Rubico, Rubico Prime, Snipetron, Snipetron Vandal, Vectis, Vectis Prime, Vulkar, Vulkar Wraith
       
    • Shotguns: Arca Plasmor, Astilla, Boar, Boar Prime, Corinth, Hek, Mk1-Strun, Sancti Tigris, Sobek, Strun, Strun Wraith, Tigris, Tigris Prime, Vaykor Hek, Zarr: Barrage
       
    • Other: Baza, Buzlok, Hema
       
  • Secondaries: Brakk, Bronco, Bronco Prime, Detron, Euphona Prime: Buckshot, Kohmak, Mara Detron, Pyrana, Pyrana Prime, Twin Kohmak, Twin Rogga
Edited by Kontrollo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...