Moonfire Bow is Overpowered

Since he probably don’t know, guess I will answer this before I head off.
Premium Vehicle changes in the 8.6 patch
The relevant part being in the T26E4 Super pershing paragraph where it says “once the changes have been made to the T26E4 SuperPershing, owners who purchased the vehicle prior to the changes will have the opportunity to sell it for the full retail price in Gold (7,200). Please be aware, these changes and the refund option will take place in a future patch.”

You won’t really find anything more relevant than that in the games history. You can also note it only refunds the gold and not actual hard cash.

4 Likes

Yeah, also sounds like something the devs are offering, rather than something they’re obligated to do. Even the forums there are all commenting on how nice it is they’re doing that.

There a two examples which were personally experienced. 1) the pz38 nerf which was refunded in full, 2) when wargaming “reworked” carriers in warships and all premium carriers were refunded in full (got a few hundred bucks back like that). The EU law in question has to do with a vendor not being able modify goods to the point they are not as advertised, in both cases, the hard stats of the tank/carriers and, in the latter case of the carrier the entire play style was reworked so they were “not as advertised”.

The T-26 nerf that was refunded in gold was another thing, but they got away with refunding it in gold simply because it was also sold through in game gold. Another tank the 703ii was refundable in real cash after they changed the mechanics of double barrelled tanks.

In short, there’s precedent that if goods are changed, you can obtain your money back. The question realy is, is anyone going to file a class action because they’re annoyed enough.

@Lord_Giggles

re: numbers down

So ran some numbers on an unarmoured training dummy on WS for fun.

Charged shot MFB:

Rate of fire: 5x initial volley before charge depletion, rate of fire, 1/second, 4x additional shots in the next 20 seconds, 2 shots every 4-6 seconds before recharge (it’s somewhat weird as it’s not consistent, despite clicking as fast as possible sometimes the shots would fire one at a time, or two in a row immediately). 9 shots total.
Damage 32.75+7.25 impact damage, 9.25 x 2 ticks for 12 ticks over 4.5 seconds.
Damage per shot, 151 x 9 = 1398 damage over 20 seconds. 2 critical hits observed at 59.5 impact damage.

Charged shot LB:
Rate of fire, 1/second, 20 shots total.
Damage per shot, 60.25, 165.5 critical. 5 critical hits. Total: 907.5 + 827.5 = 1735 over 20 seconds
Critical hits seemed a bit high here, another set of 20 shots net 3 critical hits for a total of 1525

Charged shot HB:
Rate of fire, 1.25/second, 25 shots total
Damage, 8.5 + 1.75 impact, 7.25 x 5 ticks, 3.25 x 3 tick, total damage per shot 49, total damage 1253
HB critical hits for 17 +1.75 damage, 4 critical hits observed).

Charged shot SB:
Rate of fire 1.5/second, 30 shots total
Damage, 31.5, 67.75 critical, 8 critical hits. Total damage 1235
Damage with serrated shots, 31.5/67.75 critical + 5 x 2 damage. Total 1535

So comparatively speaking, over 20 seconds damage output of charged shots as follows:

MFB: 1398
LB: 1735 (higher crit), 1525 (more average crit)
HB: 1253
SB: 1235/1535 (serrated)

LB performance seems to be quite high here simply due to volume of fire increasing chances to land critical hits and the high critical damage multiplier. HB is bottom tier, worse than even SB in damage output. SB with serrated out damages MFB. Granted MFB does better if it’s a 5 second burst of unloading all 5 shots but it loses out over duration. Thus the pressure issue others have commented, MFB does horribly under pressure and cannot maintain the high initial damage.

We do not see how this is even remotely “overpowered”, MFB essentially delivers damage similar to a LB headshot (141.5) over 4.5 seconds but without ability to pierce multiple targets, without ability to zoom in to get more accurate shots, and with a cool down time if you fire too many off at once.

No because you see I never came in here saying it’s unreasonable to voice an opinion that impacts how other people play the game. There’s nothing inconsistent about my viewpoint. I will advocate for the changes I think will bring about the best state of the game and you are equally entitled to do so. Then at the end of the day Fatshark makes the ultimate call on what they think is best. You are the one who came in here telling others not to make suggestions that impact how others play the game, while telling others how to play the game (don’t use it if you don’t like it).

I find this to be a silly argument. Balance certainly matters in all games, you will find plenty of accounts here and elsewhere how overperformers negatively impact their experience with a game, as they are made a spectator to events even in the game’s highest official difficulty. Balance matters to a lot of us, because it has a big impact on the game actually being played cooperatively. Nobody cares about green circles, they just want to be able to actually play the game.

I’m not going to reiterate the wealth of discussion on what the issues with moonbow and similar overperformers are, you can browse through and see all the arguments for yourself. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not all opinions are equally backed up or defensible, I find your opinion on the state of moonbow not at all convincing, I don’t see much evidence you have a solid grasp on what makes something strong. I’ve seen plenty of very convincing arguments on why moonbow is extremely overpowered, and they line up with my experience in both Legend and Cata.

No I wouldn’t. That would only increase the disparity between high and low performers, and cement an even more inflexible meta than we currently have. That would worsen the experience of the game for myself and many others who actually play Cata, and there are a lot of limitations on how you can increase difficulty without leading to inflexibility, or unfun gameplay. At some point nerfs are simply necessary for balance and diversity.

I don’t even know how to start on this one honestly. I don’t know how on earth you make different difficulty levels that are meaningfully differentiated without some of them being inaccessible to people who either cannot put in the hours, or are unwilling to learn core mechanics and turn their brain on. Challenge has always been the lifeblood of Vermintide. However, from your comments I don’t think you have any idea how to realistically achieve that either, so I won’t waste my time delving further into they incredibly complex discussion point.

I never said nerfing Moonbow wouldn’t affect other difficulties. I just fail to see an issue with that. It’s so strong even after a nerf as heavy as what was done in the Onslaught Tourney Balance mod, there’s no way it wouldn’t still perform its job admirably on lower difficulties. It would still be a perfectly viable, even competitive option. I actually did play around with the Onslaught balance mod and specifically Moonbow on Cata and Legend. It still worked great and was a more than respectable option. Again, that mod nerfed it very heavily, more so than Fatshark would even be inclined to, so I have no fears of Moonbow fading into obscurity.

5 Likes

You obviously did not read our post that started this discussion. We stated a few things there which remain our opinion.

  1. “MFB 1 shots specials”, retort: special can still action for the 4 seconds it takes to die be it throw, hook, or fire at your team, perhaps to lethal results if a pack rat hooks someone into a horde despite being a dead rat walking from the burn.
  2. “it 1 shots SV”, non shield SV are so weak they should not be used as any sort of example through which to gauge how strong a weapon is, a mauler or a CW would be a much better example.
  3. we noted the game is quite balanced on legend and below for the (opinion) vast majority of non power gamer players who push games to their breaking points just to demonstrate “X is broken, nerf pls”.
  4. we noted that observing guides by power gamers is often disappointing to many as they are not able to replicate the results as demonstrated.
  5. We have not observed many MFB used in QP games or many non SoT elves in general.

We proceeded to note that it seemed the vibe was the nerf was supported by people who wanted increased challenge in cataclysm and that legend and below would be unaffected anyways so we shouldn’t bother even commenting. This is patently untrue as any damage nerf would affect all difficulties.

The theme of discussion appears to have gone back and forth between these themes, cataclysm is “easy mode” because of overpowered builds, any changes would not affect players playing on lower difficulty, they shouldn’t care anyways, and or they should “get good” because obviously they’re playing beyond their weight.

We have found in all our 2500 hours only three games where one was reduced to a spectator. All 3 games had a cheater. 1 was a slayer using some sort of hack with an infinite medikit, movement speed and attack speed. Bell tower, the guy was at the end when we were still in the town square. The entire team was spammed nonstop with the heal voice over your character makes when they use a medikit. Another game was a pyromancer in Karak, speed hack and ultimate hack, F skill every 2 seconds, no targets in sight, burned the entire map down. Last game was an elf, Shade with heal, speed and ultimate hack on skittergate - joke was on him and he left as we were left in the dust and he got frustrated waiting.

While anecdotal, we note that one player, regardless of how strong the class is (bar hacks), literally cannot prevent the rest of the party from playing the game, unless the party decides to not play the game and stand there watching. A WS with SB can shoot down entire hordes at choke points but that does not prevent the other players from moving to engage the horde in melee on open ground where the WS can no longer do her thing.

Nerfing good equipment (frankly given the rough testing we did, having some serious doubts these claims of “overpowered” are even true), increases the disparity between skilled and unskilled players as it removes a crutch the latter can use to recover from a mistake where as the former is less likely to make any to begin with.

Most games have cheat codes to ensure players who cannot play those difficulty levels normally can play them anyways.

Mods are a good solution, it’s a shame FS only “sanctions” so few.

MFB doing 40 direct with 120 burn for 160 per shot

You seem to think the DPS is the issue and that being brought down would fix the issue. But the boss DPS isn’t what people complain about.

For example, in a cata chaos horde with elites and trash (say 10 targets are within the AoE, 2 maulers, 4 marauders, and 4 fanatics) MFB will deal ~740 damage in a single shot, and kill everything.

Longbow might deal ~110 damage, killing nothing. Swiftbow might deal ~60, killing nothing. Hagbane might deal ~250 damage, killing nothing.

Extrapolation of the above data based on ammunition capacity: Longbow: 2200; Swiftbow: 3000; Hagbane: 4000; MFB: 3700.

Extrapolation of the above for DPS factoring time to deal that damage: Longbow: 110 dps; Swiftbow: 150 dps; Hagbane: 240 dps; MFB 740 dps. This data is important because it allows you to increase melee output as the ranged weapon need less time deployed in order to successfully deal with targets.

Extrapolation of the above based on up time of 25/50/75% for ammunition based weapons and 25% based on heat for MFB: Longbow: 27.5/55/82.5 dps; Swiftbow: 37.5/75/112.5 dps; Hagbane: 60/120/180 dps; MFB: 185 dps. Such as base/RV bags/big RV bags.

Extrapolation of reduced damage because long range specials aren’t going to be surrounded by crowds. This only affects the AoE based weapons. Dealing with 2 specials in 15 seconds: Hagbane loses 15% dps: 51/102/153; MFB loses 35%: 120 dps. Dealing with 6 specials in a minute, or 1 every 10 seconds: hagbane loses 28% dps: 43/86/129. MFB loses 26%: 137 dps.

Now take those numbers and apply Lanchester’s Law to find some projected combat efficiency at a rate of the power of 1.6, and assuming no RV ammo supply, such as a QP without him:

Longbow: 201
Swiftbow: 330
Hagbane: 411
MFB: 2623

Now can you see the issue? MFB isn’t just head and shoulders above, it’s an entire decimal place above!

7 Likes

These numbers are just white room maths, they’re not useful at all. Single target DPS is not generally speaking a relevant metric for a ranged weapon, and as far as I can see you didn’t include aoe in any of them, leading to silly things like hagbane being the lowest damage weapon.

You’d want to compare breakpoints for most weapons, and absolutely would need to include aoe damage if you were trying to do an actual overall damage comparison. You’d also need to consider factors such as reload time, ammo economy, aim punch and potential differences between hipfire and ads.

Moonfire bow has extremely good breakpoints (killing almost everything in 1-2 bodyshots, with no reload), while also having aoe damage and no need to really worry about running out of ammo, or your shot not going where you want it to. It’s those things that make it OP, not damage on a fort dummy.

What does this even mean? Who is incapable of bodyshotting a special? Why are you using people who I can only assume have never played a videogame before or have some sort of physical disability as a sample for your discussion?

Again, you’re ignoring what ranged weapons are actually used for. If a damage decrease does not change a breakpoint in lower difficulties, it might as well not have happened at all for them. Going from oneshotting things to oneshotting things is not an actual change.

Oh no, wouldn’t want skill to be relevant factor in this skill based action game. Clearly everyone should be able to play at the exact same level no matter what, that’s a very healthy design philosophy.

Last point, because I honestly don’t think you’re arguing in good faith at this stage, but a company choosing to do something is not legal precedent lmao. Companies regularly change things with patches, and unless a patch actually breaks the title you’d have absolutely zero right to a refund.

6 Likes

Whatever MFB you’re using, want one. The AOE is not nearly as large as you’re suggesting per our experience (waste horde spawns, firing from above as they’re climbing and hyper dense, hit maybe 5 max on fully charged shots). Also, you’re forgetting that LB/SB pierce where as MFB does not. We consider perhaps you simply forgot, however, piercing headshots will easily kill 2-5 targets per shot in waves for LB/SB.

Are cata hordes 2x the size of legend ones in density? There’s no other reason why you can possibly conclude with the 10 target example. Marauders soak up hits and act as shields very much like gors, a few marauders in the wave and you’re not splashing anything but them. With maulers in the wave a single mauler would absorb the entire shot leaving what’s behind it completely untouched.

LB headshots deal 141.5 damage, can pierce 2-5 targets depending on what they are, these are instant kills on any non mauler so the actual realized damage for a LB firing into a horde at head level piercing 2-4 targets is in the range of 283-566/second. Not the 110 you’re suggesting.

SB headshots deal 69.25 damage, these are instant kills on anything below a marauder (slave/clan rats and fanatics). Marauders absorb one shot and die, the rest can be pierced 2-3 deep. So SB shot into a horde is roughly 70-210/second x 1.5 rof which is 135-305/second.

Omitting pierce ability artificially infllates MFB ability and suppresses LB/SB.

@Lord_Giggles

Dummy is the best anyone can do in testing. If you want to record AoE you have to record piercing shots as well. WS with SB is an easy way to farm damage as you’re firing shots that pierce 2-3 targets on average for example.

Despite my better judgement, I think I’ve read just about every post in this thread. I do not speak for other people and am not arguing points I did not personally make. I find it strange that you assume some sort of hive mind rather than responding to me about the points I’ve actually made.

Regarding your individual points in defence of Moonbow, I’ve participated in numerous discussions on the topic here already, so you’ll have to forgive me for being a bit too exhausted of the topic to rehash them all with you. As I stated already you can find all the arguments on these forums or elsewhere already, or you can engage on that specific point with people who are more willing than me to dig all that back up. I do; however, take issue with you speaking for the “vast majority of non power gamer players”. Unless you have actual data to back that up, speak for yourself and your group of friends only, thank you very much.

I also don’t appreciate the implication that I and others who don’t like Moonbow are power gamers pushing the limit of the game. I mostly play FK with greatsword these days… Good luck finding someone who thinks that is a meta build. I also don’t use the damn Moonbow or SotT practically at all since shortly after their release, because when I did I suddenly started winning Cata duos first try when that had been a brick wall I’d been fruitlessly banging my head against for months prior. I didn’t want that victory handed to me so easily, so I stopped using them. Don’t make assumptions about how I play the game.

The rest of your response is anecdotes that are entirely different to those of my own and many others here. Not much point in me arguing anecdotes frankly. My anecdotal evidence is that I used a very heavily nerfed version of the weapon on the highest official difficulty and it still performed very well.

If you want to argue the actual stats of the weapon, which is significantly more objective than anecdotes, there seem to be others here willing to have that discussion, so continue that with them. My main point was that your suggestions for how to rectify the difficulty issue were not practical and would not give good results for people who actually play said difficulties. Also to call you out on your extremely questionable take that balance doesn’t matter in a cooperative game. It matters to me, it matters to many others, because it intrinsically affects the way a coop game is played and the actual level of teamwork required to get a win. To me that’s core gameplay being removed when overperformers are added to the roster, as the characters increasingly become four one man armies, rather than one four man army that requires a certain level of coordination, skill, and good decision making to push through difficult odds.

2 Likes

Lmao, yeah you have to be trolling at this point. Good one I guess?

3 Likes

You may not appreciate it, but “overpowered” builds are generally created by power gamers with the express intent to break the system forcing developers to nerf content that would otherwise be fun for a lot of people. They exist in all games, VT2 is no exception. You used SoT and breezed through cataclysm, you didn’t like it. Surely you’ve read other replies stating that this is why “overpowered” things need to be removed, so others cannot breeze through them. This is in essence why we are against nerfs, because said overpowered class is being enjoyed by others out there.

We might be someone who’d enjoy SoT if not for the fact that it doesn’t seem right from a lore perspective. Never had a wood elf unit like that after all.

Yes, anecdotes are anecdotes.

On your point of balance, you’d essentially rather people fail more runs, waste more of their time because you want team work, in a game mode with 4 random strangers from across the globe meeting to play in a game without ever interacting with another (text or voice) for a whole 15 minutes. Random strangers are not exactly conducive to team work. This is why, for example, playing deeds in QP is essentially unheard of. One man army capable characters are essential with this sort of matchmaking or failure rate goes way up (wasn’t legend QP fail rate in the range of 80-90% initially before they buffed both classes and weapons repeatedly?).

Fairly sure FS knows this or they’d not have bothered buffing anything to begin with just to raise the average run success rate. Teamwork may be desirable but it’s not exactly feasible unless players somehow decide to communicate. Then you have teamwork, regardless of what builds anyone uses.

Clearly I didn’t omit anything, I felt a flat 200% damage dealt modifier was sufficient to account for horde damage by penetration, special headshots, etc. Maybe that’s too much for the Swiftbow given its lower penetration and reduced finesse multiplier.

Anyone who has played with Swiftbow knows it’s not “better” than longbow in Cata. And the reason is simple: rapid shots are very likely to overkill a target and do no damage or they flat out miss. And Swiftbow certainly doesn’t compete against Hagbane in dense horde clear.

You admit you don’t play cata. This cements it. Your opinion on the balance matter is pretty irrelevant when you talk about balancing something you have not even tried.

MFB could do half damage tomorrow and you wouldn’t notice! The change literally would be too small to affect you.

I personally haven’t come across a single person who enjoys SoTT at her current power level. She could be power capped at 450 tomorrow and you wouldn’t notice it. A ~30% nerf wouldn’t touch her ability on legend, let alone other difficulties.

3 Likes

This is such an incredibly bad faith, borderline nihilistic view of other people I’m a little in awe frankly. I didn’t know you had such insights into other peoples’ heads that you could confidently state their motivations for them. There’s no point in me continuing any form of discussion with you if you are going to insist on such a bleak view of me and others in spite of the reality of how I actually play the game. I don’t think I’ve made any such bad faith arguments about your motivations, but you are painting a poor enough picture of yourself already.

I’m sure I can’t convince you at this point that I do not, in fact, simply hate the idea of others having fun or having an easier time than me. I like variety and a good difficulty curve, and I like actual cooperation in a coop game. In QP especially, overpowered stuff significantly reduces both. I agree QP has a myriad of problems, but I have indeed seen both communication and coordination in QP an awful lot. Mostly in Cata, and actually quite a lot in Legend as well, at least before the game was power crept so much. Almost like having less crutches that let you brainlessly waltz through content actually encourages these things. You see the player base will actually adapt to what’s available to them, and if given a lazy way out many will take it. If forced to co-operate and communicate (again only on Cata, Legend is at no risk of requiring serious team work for victory at this point), many players will actually do so, despite the fundamental failings of QP.

6 Likes

Good man, so do I :stuck_out_tongue: although I go for the Greatsword Stagger build on Footknight.

@swpz

Again, name me ONE other game where people insist that they should be able to clear every difficulty. There is a reason for different difficulties and some will not be able to see all of them. They are not missing even much in Vermintide as 98 % of the content (outside Weaves) is available in Champion. Even WHEN content would be hidden behind difficulty it would be okay because it is a commonly accepted practice. Nobody complains that he can’t beat Hell Temple in La-Mulana, nobody complains that he can’t do a no-death run in Outlast and nobody complains that he can’t beat Ys: Oath in Felghana on Inferno difficulty.

Also, as EU citizen I can tell you that there exists no regulation that forbids post-release changes to content. It would actually be really silly if it did because it would cripple bug fixing. If you try to say that bugs are different than weapon balance then I will simple for argument’s sake that MFB (and other stuff) definetely can be counted as some sort of bug. If it is broken fix it. Also, if it comforts you, FS can argue that they didn’t nerf MFB. They simply buffed all enemies and other weapons and normalized them then. Result is the same. There is also no promotional issue. The DLCs grant you the access to new weapons. A video where a boss is one-shotted is pointless as there is no reference of difficulty. So if the weapon can do it on Recruit it would still hold true. It doesnt mean it should be able to do this on Cataclysm.

Also, the argument about damage changes affecting every difficulty is not true. Let us take a simple example:

Weapon X does 150 damage. Enemy A on Cataclysm has 100 health, 75 on Legend and 50 on Champion. We now tone down damage of Weapon X to 75, so it doesn’t one-shot enemies on Cataclysm anymore. However, it is still as effective on Legend as it was before (minus bosses which are usually killed by other means anyway, so this is not an argument).
There are a LOT of possible and NECESSARY nerfs which do hardly affect the casual difficulties of Chmapion and below. The challenge difficultes of Legend and above should be more balanced though.

5 Likes

I don’t know what exactly “the stagger build” is but I do run Opportunist, then use Have at Thee, Comrades In Arms, EP, and power properties to hit specific stagger breakpoints, and Bull of Ostland + 2 attack speed properties to cover the lack of Swift Slaying. Using staggering force is giving up a bit too much damage and cleave for my liking, so I guess I’d call what I run a hybrid CC/DPS build :wink:

2 Likes

There are always winners and losers in any form of complaint type feedback and generally the one complaining feels sufficiently aggrieved that they believe the only way to alleviate the grievance is to implement blanket changes. As such, if the content is nerfed, someone must lose for another to win. If someone must lose, you’re at net zero of winners/losers. There is no actual improvement. You may view our take as “bleak” and we agree, it is.

We never said you didn’t like others having an easier time than you. However, we note this is a very prevalent theme in people who are against “overpowered” things as it creates an method for players who are otherwise unable to complete certain content to complete said content. This sort of thinking is what creates the illusion of “disliking others having an easier time”. This theme is repeated on MMOs where paying usually nets you the same result as “farming” for players who have low skill or perhaps no time to bother gaining those skills but are given an option to complete all content through transactions. VT2 is not an MMO but overpowered options give otherwise low skill players a chance to play at a higher level than otherwise possible, something you noticed when playing cata for the first time as SoT.

Or take ourselves who played SoT just to unlock the cataclysm citadel portrait with minimal headache.

Cooperation and coordination may be a good thing but do recall at least a year ago when legend QP success rates were extremely low and people complained nonstop about wasting their time for nothing. The same themes used currently in this discussion “players can should work together”, could have been used back then. However, FS decided to steadily buff each class to be capable of independent operation instead.

Personally do not mind teamwork, but it’s not something one expects unless one has already interacted with the party while forming the game before one enters the map.

@Adelion

Diablo 3 for instance where Blizzard has made everything available to everyone by progressively buffing classes so that even the most low skill player could compete in greater rifts+ but not still not push the upper extremes some extremely dedicated players could. Ancient gear, gems, runestones, etc (essentially gear with better stats) was locked in higher level greater rifts before buffs made them doable by the average player. All of which helped people farm inferno 15 for drops as well.

If you played D3 you might also recall the initial drama of every class but DH being stuck in act 1 because of act 2 ranged monsters that would 1 shot everyone not ranged. This was also rectified through nerfs to allow people to push the content in safety as were bosses deemed “too difficult” for the average player - take the key bosses.

That damage changes affect every difficulty holds true so long as there are monsters which have HP sufficient to survive changed damage vs the unchanged damage. But we mostly agree there, changes to the numbers can be done with minimal impact on other difficulties so long as they remained at above most HP values of existing.

Buffing everything to bring them up to parity would be preferred, if simply for the optics of “we’re not taking anything away from anyone, we’re simply bringing other options up to par”.

???

are you high?

2 Likes

Are you? You nerf something, whoever was having fun with that something no longer has fun. But now you get to have fun because your nerf went through.

1-1 = 0

What have you improved beside change who the winners and losers are?

Balance is not a contest, nor is it a situation where there is one winner and one loser. There is an entire playerbase to consider, and seeing as neither of us have actual numbers, the standard response is to avoid massive outliers.
This is true almost across the board in all games, suggesting that people enjoy a more balanced game than one that is not balanced.

Or to put it in pointless math terms, 1 person in a game uses moonfire, 3 do not, when you nerf it one loses but three win.

There, I’ve used entirely ridiculous numbers to prove that I’m objectively right and you are not. Can you please try to discuss the topic like an actual human being now?

8 Likes

Advocating for nerfs is not asking for balance as balancing requires having access to all the data which none of us have. This is data only FS has and unless FS makes some statement that the game is not balanced, must be tweaked, etc, we can regard the game as balanced regardless of how you and others feel about it.

In our case, we regard the game as balanced (unless presented with credible evidence to the contrary) and thus we advocate against nerfs and for the status quo - thus this entire fairly nonsensical conversation to begin with.