patch 5: it is clearly identified as a bug
between patch 5 and 11: cries on forum
patch 11: they say they revert
At no time they said that it was intended to get a light attack that does more damages than an heavy one. In fact, this is a non sense and this is enough to tag it as a bug.
After the revert, it does not work better than before the patch 5. They just reverted cause people cried a lot. At no time they said it was intended. In fact, their only statement is that “it is a bug”.
And I know you were one of the guys that wanted that they revert. Guess what, I preferred the situation between patch 5 to 11, and even if the light attack damages were lowered. I remember perfectly you answered me that they made a mistake and lowered the light attack instead of increasing damages of heavy.
But, I even prefer that than the current situation.
I have found that you had just same discussion a little more than one year later:
Great. Now, I will say it. Guys you are not in charge of this forum. You have a problem with a post or topic, you have a button for this. They think it needs to be moved, not a big deal on a forum, you press a button it moves. So, now the ayatollahs of this forum, press the button if you think so, or remain on topic.
Tell us why an heavy hit should do less damages than a lighter.
Then they must have changed it by accident.
And accidentally included it in the patchnotes.
Seems plausible.
You are so right.
Yes. You are not the only person who does not understand what it means, when something is done intentionally, or when something works as intended.
We do not claim that we are.
We are just telling you that you are objectively wrong about something.
Yet you are unable to understand, and are hellbent on dying on that hill of “they made it this way and even said it in the patchnotes, but i want it to be changed, so i claim that it is a bug”.
No… And you know it. They reverted cause several guys cried here.
And you just want to ignore facts
It was labelled a bug, and it is obviously one
They just reverted to what it was before the change. It does not change the fact that they have identified the current situation as a bug.
You just want to change the topic of the discussion
Just arguing for arguing about is it a bug or no.
At first, I have said it. Moderators can move a topic. So, this is not the topic if it is a bug. I believe it is cause fatshark said so and never said it was intended. You can disagree, however the topic is not here (feel free to open a new thread to discuss the definition of what is a bug).
Secondly: The topic is about a problem in the weapon damage table of 2 weapons.
So maybe you should explain us the logic of the why only 2 weapons have a light attack that does more damages than an heavy one but just for one specific category.
This is at contrary of everything in the game, at contrary of all damages table charts and it has been labelled as a bug.
That’s enough in my book to be allowed to be discussed as a bug.
So, if you want to discuss the definition of a bug, i suggest you to create a thread for this.
Oh ok. So it was intentional then.
Thanks for confirming.
It WAS.
You seem to be unable to understand the concept of “time” and “change”.
And that if something is put in the game, functioning exactly as mentioned in the patchnotes, it probably exactly as intended and should not be called a bug.
They have not.
No. From the start, i have simply said that you should refer to your opinion as such, and not hide behind a false claim of “this should be changed because it is a bug”.
The only reason that we even have this conversation is that you started off by being dishonest and then kept misrepresenting and lying about basically everything.
If you had not misrepresented your personal wish of change as a bug report, i would not even have commented.
And if you were an honest person, you would have moved your post into a different section after being called out. I would have stopped commenting there.
Instead, you kept lying and misrepresenting, as you so often do, still trying to sell your personal opinion as an objective truth by claiming that it is still a bug.
You lied about it still being a bug.
You lied about them not having intended the change back (although it was mentioned in the patchnotes).
You lied about my reasoning for commenting, and claimed that i am just going after you, despite me having stated multiple times that the only issue here, is that you are misrepresenting your opinion as a bug report.
The only reason that we are even having this discussion, is because you just can’t stop lying.
If you can’t stop lying, maybe you should just stop posting all together.
It is up to Fatshark staff to decide which bug report is valid and which is not. And even if something is working as intended, if it gets reported as a bug because players still think it makes no sense then that is valuable feedback too. They don’t need, or want, other users playing backseat mod in these threads. Knock it off.
I’d call it an intentional difference between weapon types. Combat axe has no actual weakness without that. Tactical axe has no problems with maniac but is weaker on carapace. All seems well in my head.
Combat axes all need a bit more hit mass over anything else. Maybe 2.1 or something so brutal momentum doesn’t feel so necessary at all times, but would still have huge benefit if you do run it.
I agree on this and totally. The maniac weakness needs to stay here.
What I point here is the fact that the heavy attack should do more damages than the light one.
I don’t ask that they remove this weakness, cause I think that it is really important that this weapon has a weakness.
I would be in favor of this cause BM is too strong even I would qualify it mandatory.
But then I don’t know if it would not increase BM…
I have nothing to add to this thread other than it’s not a bug though it’s bizarre and is not the case for most weapons, nor does it make much sense (unless maniacs have a tougher upper cranium than other enemies). But reading this made me remember how mad I was until this was changed finally. I still am mad about it post change in fact “This man shooter, this man not shooter because even if have gun, he have short sleeve!”
I would agree if it was not just for maniac and not light strikedown vs heavy strikedown.
But the idea is not bad to see it on a different weapon that could have heavy that would stagger a lot but do less damage than light… but we are not in such situation.
Heavy strikedown does just less damages and less stagger than a light strikedown ONLY on maniacs.
Something is wrong here.
I agree with the principle, but I don’t feel it applies here.
One one hand, you have a quick light attack that kinda rebounds off the target a bit.
On the other, an overhand hacking heavy attack that chunks squarely into the enemy.
Maniacs — trappers, bombers, flamer, mutant… these are targets worthy of your inner lumberjack. It’s significantly less fun to me that I have to use my generic horde-clear light attack spam to kill them over a let-me-show-you-how-I-really-feel chop.
I still do it anyway, but it’s annoying that I’m pulled out of the moment because I ‘should just be light attacking for a higher number’.
I am glad that Fatshark will look into it and that it is clearly labelled, again, as a bug.
I thank also Hank_jw for putting an end to the off-topic “what is a bug?”
“This man shooter, this man not shooter because even if have gun, he have short sleeve!”