Test Discussion Solar Amplifier Bug

You claim solar amp isnt broken? Guess your wrong then as developers (makers of the game) think otherwise, and data speaks louder then anything else.

The fact that everyone uses solar amp on adds tells you something is up.

That... isn't even remotely true... Anyone can go hit a sparring target to see you're lying here. They will see that damage most commonly begins splitting after 2 targets. The other standards mentioned exist and have existed since before and after revamp.

Actual data:

https://forums.daybreakgames.com/dc...olar-amplifier-bug.311348/page-5#post-4345136
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/dc...olar-amplifier-bug.311348/page-5#post-4345137
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/dc...olar-amplifier-bug.311348/page-5#post-4345138

^ That, which is based on extensive testing with methods and evidence shown, proves that Solar Amp never overperformed compared to other artifacts in even its most contrived and unrealistic best case scenario and that it underperforms in AoE relative to every other artifact in normal AoE scenarios compared to non-HV builds. Stop making things up, you are not contributing anything to the conversation.

That's not a fact at all. Most people go short-range since it's almost 40% more DPS potential and most scenarios non-HV will outperform HV in AoE, it's just an option. There's also no logic to your claim here, because the number of people who use or don't use a thing is not an indicator of that thing's performance in any way or that they're using the best thing they could be using. This has all already been covered extensively.

AOE explosion damage is added at level 120, at 160 AoE dot, and EC mod at 200. This is clear from the description. It’s not otherwise.

Explosion damage at level 120 and 160 behaves differently than at level 200.

What does it mean? it can mean 3 things.

1. Description is incorrect.

2. Levels 120 and 160 are not working properly.

3. Level 200 is not working properly.

Any of the 3 options implies the presence of "Bug".

You're getting those results because you've used a weak non-HV rotation that would have never been competitive, effectively strawmanning your opposition in an antipodal approach to how I steelmanned yours. You are effectively, whether intended or not, lying.

This is, again, a loadout I just pulled out of thin air that beats the non-HV rotation you tested with: Freezing Breath (2 ticks)(tap cancel)>Ice Boulder Strike>Frost Blast>Avalanche>Repeat. It does about 8-10% more damage than the rotation you used. There may be even stronger rotations... I didn't check because it wasn't required to prove you wrong. This would have placed your non-HV damage in the range of 11672176 to 11888327. Your 8 target summary then becomes, in your best case scenario where I have steelmanned your position (corrections in green):

8-Target Summary Live Server
BiS: 12,634,293
Strat replaced: 11,056,057 -> 12.5% DPS loss vs BiS
Solar replaced: 11672176 -> 7.6% DPS loss vs BiS 7.6% DPS Drop HV Rotation vs Non-HV Rotation
Trans replaced: 11,281,032 -> 10.7% DPS loss vs BiS
*This means that, in its best case scenario using the most conservative values, Solar Amplifier provides the weakest DPS contribution of all BiS artifacts, 3.1% below the next lowest contribution (Trans) and 4.9% lower than the highest DPS contribution (Strat). This makes it the weakest AoE artifact, especially when factoring in its especially poor 3-target performance. There may be better non-HV rotations that reduce Solar Amp's relative contribution even further.

Again, the rotation I just pulled out of thin air, despite being better than yours, may not even be the best option available. Solar Amplifier could be even less impactful that this, but as we can see here it's already underperforming compared to both of the other BiS artis.

Your methods were sloppy in that you assumed your rotation was effective and you got bad data as a result. Literally the first thing that popped into my head was a more competive non-HV rotation than the one with which you set out to advance your agenda. Not only did you actually prove the opposite of what you intended, but in your example Solar Amplfier isn't nearly as good as in mine, and I even cheated on Solar Amplifier's behalf to make it perform better to give your agenda every benefit of the doubt to try to get the results that you did and I still couldn't get it to overperform because I'm not a hack and the (honest) science wouldn't allow it. In your study, Solar Amplifier is the least impactful of all BiS artifacts by a notable margin... And you didn't even look at 3-targets where it underforms by a significant margin... which is to be expected because the PI is of no value to Ice so a third of the benefit is being wasted. You just went straight to Solar's artificial, doesn't-happen-consistently-in-real-play best case scenario and pit a bad loadout against my own proven HV loadout to make it look like Solar's performance is better than it is. Either you're disingenuous or you don't understand the game well and in either case you shouldn't be giving the devs advice.

Despite your error, let's play devil's advocate and assess what your results would have meant if they were true (and again, they aren't). If your results had been accurate (they weren't) it would have indicated only a 1.4% advantage in our cherry-picked, artificial, Solar Amplifier best case scenario which we both know doesn't hold water in the real world. We both know it doesn't perform well in the more realistic 3-target scenario, which I'm guessing is why you ignored it, resulting in a 25-50% disadvantage. So, again using your cheery picked, erroneous results, the average of all scenarios still places Solar Amplfier firmly and unequivocably at a complete disadvantage overall compared to other artifacts, losing outright to the other BiS AoE artifacts in all but this one, artifical, stationary 8-target scenario that is no way a reflection of reality and in which you only had it winning by a single percent in an erroneous comparison against a non-competitive, extremely derpy non-HV AoE alternative that any good player would recognize was terrible. Even if I didn't catch and correct your error, your study still would have shown that Solar Amplifier wasn't overperforming if you understood the game. Thank you though for demonstrating that even an average player with average build skills will still get Solar Amplifier AoE performance inferior to that of other artifacts when factoring all scenarios.

If you're gonna take the time to try to disprove my methods, at least apply the effort to do it correctly. I laid out the evaluation science and the format. You literally just had to make a single, competent rotation... just one... and you either chose to be dishonest or you just couldn't do it. If you didn't use my own HV AoE rotation from the Master Guide, your Solar Amp performance probably wouldn't have even been so strong in the first place for you to come to your fallacious conclusion at all. I steelmanned your agenda and virtually cheated on your behalf to make your position look stronger than it is... then you strawmanned mine and your assertions still couldn't hold water in any way. Be honest... did you really think your lil Ice Boulder build was a competent testing loadout for comparison? I can't believe you got those results and didn't take a second to question them on a power that doesn't even get any benefit from the PI.

We now see conclusively that whether or not it's on a power than benefits from HV's PI application, Solar Amp still loses to other artifacts in every single scenario in terms of overall AoE DPS contribution.

Before you respond, please remember that if you want your argument to have any credibility, this is the part you need to address most. Even if you wanna argue you're not getting the same rotation results, you need to explain why you thought a 1.2% advantage in a made-up scenario that doesn't reflect reality combined with a 25-50% disadvantage when fewer targets are present equates to being overpowered, because your logic there doesn't stand up. That said, you should get better results with Freezing Breath > Frost Blast > Avalanche > repeat even still or variations thereof that flow well with Freezing Breath and they're a lot more practical/realistic in that Tempest isn't gonna work as well in actual content, but can even add Tempest if desired but not required. That will also be a lot more consistent, because your rotation swings a lot wider overall. You should also explain why you didn't consider any short ranged options with or without Dervish. There's no way you can spin your agenda here that doesn't have Solar Amp losing to other artifacts if we honestly factor in scenarios other than its best-case.

I am willing to continue to give your position the benefit of the doubt and assess this on the assumption your data wasn't flawed despite my previous post, but if you can't answer those questions, that's a serious problem. No sane person goes "1%! OMFG NERF IT INTO THE GROUND!!!!!" while ignoring all the infinitely more common scenarios where it loses badly, so we need to know why you're not being objective and what your agenda is.

3 target performance is not "ranged aoe" show me in a raid where we'll find only groups of 3 npc's and no more for the duration of their life? You want to talk about cherry picking data and then you want to use HV in your conclusions based on 3 targets. I also didn't use Frost blast in my non-hv rotation because I was thinking of actual practical raid rotations and trying them. Frost blast is not practical in content, it's nearly twice the animation of fireburst and still has the bug attached to it where if you made it through the animation successfully if in the heat of combat in a raid you even accidentally pressed the next power you just lost over 100k dmg. Also that rotation was already under performing because of how the sparring targets are spread vs using Ice Boulder throw in actual content when the tank has the npcs grouped together and it hits them like bowling pins but I wouldn't expect you do know that at all.

You say that I disregarded the 3 target section and curiously you completely disregarded my question regarding how you feel Solar Amplifier is balanced when using it only at rank 200 means that Amplified Heat Vision is the primary source of damage for the entire rotation. How about you put those fire rotations of yours into a proper tool that PC players like ourselves have access to in the log analyzer instead of just showing us a scrolling combat log with no parser read out. All of your actual data summary you keep private and don't actually share, imagine that .

Also if my non-hv rotation was so poor that gap post SA changes would have been ever greater from test server, further highlighting that SA is not needed to achieve balance but without the post SA changes in every scenario its a damage loss even from your own results.

Once again AVTV you conveniently want to pick sections of my response to reply to and not even mention the rest. Asking the might playerbase of this game to spend $250+ dollars on ranking Solar Amplifier specifically to rank 200 so they can have competitive ranged aoe damage and even melee performance is one of the biggest jokes i've heard on DCUO thus far. How can you say you care about balance whatsoever and try to rationalize that point? I am the one not being objective and have an agenda? I'm sorry sir but that is only you here. The majority of the complaints surrounding this change are attributed to the fact that it's been unfixed for an extended duration and now its being changed, where I can offer a plethora of examples from almost 10 years of playing DCUO of the exact same situation. The other complaints are related to the money they spent on the artifact but these types of players are blinded by rage that they can't see that they will continue to see the same usage out of SA for single target which is an extreme focus for episode content and its high base stats and tactical mod, and despite the changes to SA it still remains one of the top choices for a 200 rank artifact compared to others which don't even warrant nth metal past rank 160. Then there is you who doesn't care about the previous 2 points but just wants Solar Amplifier to remain the same so that it can continue to be used on every ranged rotation, hell even Electric lol, Electric has been the top ranged aoe power since its inception in the game and you have HV used for every rotation "balance right " out of anyone in this thread your agenda is the most clear to anyone, and it's one based in self-interest. My agenda is simple I want whats best for DCUO whether it be powerset based or raid mechanic based. I will continue to fight just as I always have: gemini spam, venom wrist prec imbalance, nature, rage's berserk, electric tesla ball and arc and CB, strategist card imbalance whatever it may be and whether it's tied to an artifact or not, any non-biased 3rd party looking at this would clearly see Amplified Heat Vision being the number one source of damage across 15 might powersets and it being tied to only 1 rank out of 5, let alone it being a in-game item added after the fact and see that everything isn't "fine and balanced" as you see it and that it needs adjustment.

I get the impression you may be interpreting this or reading it in more of a confrontational voice than intended, so while I may jab you a bit here and there I want you to remember that we're on the same team and want the same things. I touch more on this later but the only reason I'm disagreeing with you is not because I am in some way attached to Solar (more on this later but.. srsly dude I lvled a dang Source Shard just for the hell of it lol I'm ready for anything no matter what they do), it's because you're making a mistake and I'm trying my damnedest to get you to open your eyes to it. I am not skewing my results. I have cherry picked the data that best supports your position, not my own position, and I have given your argument every single advantage possible, no matter how minute, unreasonable, or (as long as the logic of it holds) unscientific. I can assure that you are wrong here and it upsets me that this had to make it to public test. We both want the same thing... I think your approach may be disingenuous but I don't believe it's because you're a bad person who wants bad things from the game. I believe it's because you want good things for the game and I'm trying to open your eyes to the fact that you've made a terrible mistake.

That cuts both ways. We don't hit 8 perfectly stationary targets all the time either. For your argument to hold true, even based on your false data, it would mean Solar Amp would beat other artis by 1% if and only if 99% of all of our attacks landed on 8 targets and we never lost the burst due to moving targets or either of the burst-related bugs I mentioned. Your scenario is not plausible.

Your statement is also not accurate or relevant. Neither 8 nor 3 targets is specific to either method of AoE (which will be further elucidated later)... and we can use HV in short range builds or long range builds. This is also hinting at something I already suspect which we'll discuss more in a moment: you don't seem to fully understand how split damage in this game works (I apologize if that seems harsh).

Ah... yes... those high pressure hallway trash clear situations... yes...very hard to perform the complicated task of not pressing a button. Harumpf! Not having the skill to use a power properly is not an excuse for not using it. That would be like a Gadgets player from the hay day of jump cancelling saying they didn't wanna use it because they might make a mistake, or a prec player dismissing DW flurry because of the cancel timing. I agree that reliability is important but when that reliability is a function of skill and not external factors, it's not reasonable to consider it unreliable. Eg. Rage's best ranged ST rotation is one of the most challenging rotations in the game but it's obviously no less relevant for that fact... it just means players have to practice. Also, when I tested that to reach that % difference I left those kinds of errors in, allowing myself to lose Frost Blast damage here and there to steelman your position better. Your assertion here is a strawman argument and I think you ought to reasonably know that. There's nothing impractical about that rotation.

Anyways I thought you'd say something like that so if you can't consistently perform with Frostblast do Freezing Breath (2-ticks)(tap cancel) > Ice Boulder > Avalanche > Ice Boulder Strike instead... it still wins. Still... it's silly to suggest Frost Blast is somehow less reliable when Ice Boulder's damage can be lost due to external factors, with the slightest nudge or CC at any time causing us to drop it. Regardless, non-Frost Blast builds still outperform the build you used and my previous point remains true: your data was incorrect and you actually proved my point and not your own.

Srsly though this shouldn't be a contentious point... It's an MMO ARPG, not rocket surgery. It's not like I'm trying to suggest anything that requires ungodly human reflexes or inhuman input speeds like some sort of ultimate fighter combo or anything.

I'm sorry to have to publicly do this but this is the part that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that you don't fully understand split damage rules in this game. I'll show you:

1. Go to the respec station and remove all your skill points (this part isn't actually required it just makes the math easier for us to understand because we can pull it off w/o crits due to vanilla low crit rate, so there's no math required and the parser does all the work for us).
2. Go hit 3-targets with a splits-after-2 power.
3. Go hit 8-targets with the same power.
4. Observe that the damage total is the same in both cases. If you don't believe me (because every power has min:max potency like DnD or traditional RPG attacks so the stars can align to give abnormally high or low results depending on how the "dice" land) continue to do it for both targets and average the results

Splits-after-2 means damage is evenly split beyond two targets. Maybe you didn't know this... maybe you're being disingenuous to try to make a point.. I don't know but this is pretty fundamental stuff. Hell... Fire's Fireburst almost NEVER hits all the targets due to penetration/range considerations and we still get full damage every time. Whether intentional or not... you're making a very lame an demonstrably false excuse here.

Four reasons:

- This is the least relevant of my points, but your data was questionable due to that giant error that's already been covered. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (again) while still explaining why that approach yields no valuable data whatsoever though due to the below points.

- It's simply not a relevant or meaningful metric for assessing the DPS contributions of an artifact and you're strawmanning it by combining the value of Heat Vision and Solar Amplifier, not just the artifact buff, and comparing it to a vacuum while comparing other artifacts fairly to one another. For your methods and evaluation to be meaningful in this case, you would have had to normalize it against both the asinine splits-after-1 performance we have on test and the performance we would achieve with a different power in its place... which is exactly what I did. You can't just say "Zomg hits hard! Bad!" because you're then assessing it in a subjective frame of reference with no intrinsic value. Ie. If it's not HV, it's something else in its place (both literally and figuratively), so the actual bonus of Solar Amplifier is only as potent as the difference between rotations with it and without it... which we have both just conclusively shown results in Solar Amp underperforming compared to other artifacts. Please let me know if this is going over your head (and I say that sincerely, not as a jab, as I get that this kind of comparison is more complex than typical analysis). This is the biggest part of why I didn't address it, ie not because it disproves my point (it doesn't) but because it's meaningless and actually does prove my point when you normalize your results with the field.

- Devil's advocate again: Even if we assume your data isn't flawed (which, respectfully, I doubt due to the magnitude of that initial error), Strat would be dealing the lion's share of the damage by an extreme margin if you took Solar out of the equation... and not only was Strat already doing that but they just buffed it to make it even more powerful. Again, your data is sloppy but if you were to believe it to be true then what you're saying is Strat = good Solar = bad while neglecting that fact that Strat's performance doesn't tank completely like Solar's does in real applications or when there are fewer targets. It used to tank with fewer targets... but, again, they literally just buffed it so that wouldn't happen. You're arguing a paradox and applying a double standard. Now, and this is still only playing devil's advocate and negating the previous two points that demonstrate the holes in your logic, I would then ask you "If it's ok for Strat to do that, then why not Solar?" To which I believe you would reply, based on your previous sentiments, "Because Solar is an ST artifact," to which I would then point out, "It actually explicitly and quite intentionally becomes an AoE artifact as well and we have both just demonstrated that it's a weaker AoE artifacts than other artifacts that could be considered to apply to AoE... so not only is your assertion flawed but Solarl, when compared to other DPS artis, is still a predominately ST artifact and, in fact, one of the most ST artifacts." This is what I was trying to point out when I pointed out that Strat does better in AoE than ST and that Solar does better in ST than AoE. It still fits the niche you feel it should be fitting and by a degree that is comparable to that of other artifacts in filling their own niches.

- The overwhelming majority of artifacts don't show their true value by looking at them that way. Strat is literally the only artifact in the entire game where that value 100% correlates to the artifact's DPS contributions. Most artifacts are either strictly buffing everything else or, like Solar Amp, provided a combination of effects that don't translate to that kind of analysis. This is why Solar did better on Fire than it did on Ice, for example, because I was actually benefiting from the PI. If we were to try to evaluate Grim, for an other example, using that, it would look like ti was barely doing anything because that can't actually show the area under the curve properly, which is the only thing that matters.

(Continued in next post)

- Points from the previous quote apply to this one.
- Because extreme long form parses remove the variability with everyone being able to see for themselves that I'm not lying about my data, making a mistake, or cooking the books. It puts our cards on the table more, which is important because if we do make a big mistake like you did we can actually recover because it becomes clear we weren't trying to intentionally mislead anyone (same reason I steelmanned tf outta your position, so there's no question of bias). This is also kinda why traditional rotation comparison testing shouldn't be done with Trans or Strat on until the very end (ie once we've separated the wheat from the chaff), because by increasing the crit variable and introducing a non-constant damage source it requires us to do longer parses for the performance to average out. Your non-HV rotation is especially vulnerable to this, which I already mention, in that Ice Boulder is more chaotic than other powers (hits fewer targets so crits can skew data more if not sufficiently averaged over an extensive period) and can yield artificially low/high rotation values. It's like if a Gadgets player did a single rotation and got Suprise Attack crit and called it a day. It's just bad testing (but obviously not to such an extreme extent).

Your premise is flawed because you are, again, comparing Solar Amp to a vacuum without Solar Amp. This is why we don't test by just doing the same rotations and removing HV from it. By your logic, Strat would also be unbalanced because not only is it currently outperfoming but because if you remove Solar from the equation, it beats all other artifacts by a pretty extreme margin on average and they literally just buffed it more. That's why we look at how much each artifact is actually contributing and we both just conclusively proved that Solar's contributing less than other artifacts, therefore it cannot be overperforming by any metric.

I was trying to help you save face because I was really hoping my guess about your split understanding was wrong and I didn't want to have to point out why the methods used in your other assessment were not logically sound and that the data wasn't of value. If this was in the private testing section I would have.

Chill... everyone knows this is a lie. We both just showed that we do better in ranged AoE overall without Solar and to say that melee would feel in any way pressured to have it to remain competitive is just ludicrous. There's nothing else to say on that, man. Cmon... we gotta be realistic about this.

You're either not being honest with us or yourself, or you're not being objective about this whole situation. If this misconception came about because all of my ranged builds used it then I sincerely apologize if you feel mislead but Solar is not the "best" objectively. If someone played with me and thought I beat them on adds because of it, I can assure them that it wasn't the case as I only run Solar for trash clear because I like the look/feel of it and that Grim build would generally crush it because of how mobile, bursty, consistent, and reliable it is in comparison. Most of my general damage is coming from bosses. I tried to convey all this in the guide by pointing out, on every single ranged HV rotation, that other things would beat it and that I only list it because it's a reliable standard and it makes life easy in that it creates similarities between all powers, so it's easier for people to switch. It's really just a viable preference but it's not gonna turn any heads in general damage. If anyone feels I mislead them in that regard, I sincerely apologize. It's "fine," it just isn't some god tier "use this and you are unbeatable" artifact, it's just a preference because it's fun. I'm getting the impression that may have been a contributing factor so when I have time I will move stuff around so I can fit proper non-HV builds in to show that every single power can do better without it... I just... didn't think it was necessary with my disclaimer and I honestly didn't want to keep bugging Mepps to help with the organization cuz the forum is quite restrictive (eg a lot of the powers are at their character limit so I can't add anything without removing stuff, which is why ppl may notice notes get a bit thinner when new rotations go in). Maybe I'll just remove the HV ranged builds in general because they do underperform in real-world application compared to alternatives and we both demonstrably agree that reliable, consistent performance is more important than the flash in the pan results we get on sparring targets (which is also why I only listed the Elec "god" aoe for academic purposes but suggested not actually using it since it loses to burstier and more mobile stuff anyways that doesn't depend on pull size and long-lived stationary adds).

Look.. I don't know for a fact if you were being intentionally disingenuous with your presentation or if you just weren't looking at it the right way. If this change was in any way called for or justifiable, I would be on your side here. Despite what you think, I don't have a personal stake in this besides trying to keep the game healthy and the science you're using to reach your conclusions is just wrong, plain and simple. I wasn't exaggerating: I inflated Solar's results in every way I could to give your perspective an honest shake and reality just doesn't align with your beliefs here. I am trying to be constructive and prevent the devs from making an even more colossal mistake than they already did by publicly adding this to test. This should have been discussed, and this isn't your fault at all, in the advanced testing section of the forum where we could have had a level-headed discussion about this... but instead it got snuck in at zero-hour with another major change happening so not only are the stakes higher here but Nature's not gonna get the full testing love it needs. Since this made it this far already, I have to make it completely, unequivocably clear in no uncertain terms or data that the facts don't support this change by any metric. I sincerely did everything I could to strengthen your argument and give this potential change every benefit of the doubt but it's just a bad idea all around and the game will suffer for it.

This is a strawman argument. I've asked people to stop injecting feelings into this and I've tried to avoid bringing that up myself except to point out that I am dubious of the explanations provided, especially when this circumvented advanced testing despite it's potential to alienate... well... everyone. This aspect of the issue ultimately has no objective/test value in assessing the merits of this nerf so we can save time by simply not discussing it. It doesn't matter for either side of the debate.

Same as above. Not relevant to the conversation except to provide the devs with customer feedback, which is a valuable but separate issue.

You have misread the situation. The only reason I am so passionate about this is because there is no evidence to support the assertions that have been made and because you and the devs have drastically overestimated the artifact's capabilities. Like I said before, artifact comparison can get pretty complicated and I will grant you that if I were to put myself in your shoes with your perspective and apply the reasoning you say you did, I could see how the data could have been misinterpreted to a degree. It's just that there are significant holes in your logic that have led you down the wrong path and I am trying to show you the light here.

I did not jump into this discussion frothing at the mouth, I approached it calmly while stating that I anticipated, based on my preliminary testing, experience, knowledge, and findings, that this would be a mistake. When I had the time to actually complete an in depth analysis and saw just how big of a mistake it actually is, that's when I started to throw down (and even then only after I'd finished my job and turned cold, calculating wants-to-know-the-actual-truth robot part of AV off to give a bit of more human-type feedbacl (which, yes, isn't relevant to testing but when I hear a bunch of people saying they're done with the devs over it it gets kinda relevant). If even the slightest iota of data supported your claims, I would admit it... but it doesn't... and I really, really tried, man. I honestly did.

They could legit delete Fire from the game and I wouldn't bat an eye. Hell... they could outright remove Solar from the game altogether without explanation and as long as we were all compensated appropriately I wouldn't feel a thing one way or another. The only reason I care here is because we all want the same thing, ie for the game to be good and healthy. You and the devs have simply reached a conclusion based on incorrect data. That's it. That's all there is here. It's just a matter of what the facts support and they simply do not support your position... This is a baseless nerf with no scientifically appropriate justification based on the reasons given. I'm sorry for that (and I do mean that, sincerely) and I tried to get any fact at all to back you up but I couldn't. It is simply an unjustifiable adjustment that will hurt game's balance. I think most people can sense this even if they can't/aren't putting it into words which is why I really wish we'd done this in advanced testing instead of public testing. Like... hell... it seems like those of us in there are the only ones who actually test and discuss results anyways... The public testing threads always break down to emotional feedback, no offense to anyone.

Anyways, long story short, we both want the same thing. I'm just trying to show you the errors in your approach that led your making the conclusions you did and why those conclusions don't hold true to reality. I know that you know that I know the ridiculous, untruthful, toxic things you say about me when you think I won't catch wind and I am straight up telling you that I don't care and that is strictly about the data adding up. Nothing else. I will be the first to admit that I'm wrong if I find data to support your position but it simply does not appear to exist.

And before you reply to this part, just another clarifying point in regards to the Ice Boulder split: I do understand the merit of what you're saying vs Sparring Targets with it so if I misinterpreted and you were trying to speak to that irregularity and not to its actual split then I sincerely apologize. I don't know if I did misread your intent here or maybe my brain went to IBS or I could just tired because it's 0430 and reading too much into it but that would be an understandable perspective if that's the case. If you feel I have unduly slandered you, please forgive me. If I could, I'd edit the post and ask you to clarify your position there but it's obviously locked for editing now unfortunately. I'm asking the devs to add a link to this post at that section to clarify for everyone.

However, please remember that Ice Boulder performing better would actually hurt your position, not help it, because it would mean that the actual performance of your non-Solar rotation should have been higher than it was. This is hugely problematic because:

- If you knew that was a factor and that your non-Solar rotation was demonstrably underperforming, which you just admitted, it was dishonest and misleading to present your data the way you did. It compounds your error and makes it worse. It makes it look like you're willing to lie to get your way and I don't like that. No one should.

- Your results had Solar winning out by only a percentage point.... which is an extremely thin margin when you admit you knew your data was flawed. This means you knew your info was bad but presented it at face value to further your goals. Again, I'm not saying you're a bad person but you knowingly are doing bad things to try to prove your point (and you're not even proving your point, so why you're tarnishing your reputation like this I have no idea).

- I think we can both agree that we don't always get a perfect bowling pin scenario in real content with Ice Boulder either and that its performance, due to both that and the fact it's easy to lose the boulder, is not consistent. I've not seen it perform well in actual content to any consistent degree compared to alternatives except for the mobility benefit. Regardless, this is obviously beside the point, it's just a weird oddity is all. Anecdotally, I feel that as much as possible rotations should be using things that can't miss or lose damage due to positioning but since Solar Amp can lose a TON of damage in actual practice (and does... a LOT) it's acceptable that we've both used those kinds of powers (eg. damage fields, projectiles, things that are highly vulnerable to interrupt w/o protections, etc). I do think that it would be a bit of a strawman on my part though for you to use Ice Boulder's maximum potential when it's a pretty inconsistent power but you are correct in that your rotation is underperforming.

- Unfortunately, since Strat is functionally a non-split+ artifact, we can't simply hop over to 3-targets to show the degree to which your rotation is underperforming. The facts remain that you admittedly, knowingly misreported your results, however, and that every non-Solar rotation which both you and I have suggested up until this point shows that Solar Amplifier is contributing less AoE DPS benefit than any other artifact beneficial to AoE situations. This, again, conclusively proves that you have arrived at an incorrect conclusion based on flawed date.

But for a year they said it was not broken with their silence. It didnt just break now. The devs were either deceitful and wrong for a year while collecting our $ or they are deceitful and wrong now after collecting our $.
No matter how you slice it, its on the devs and they were purposely deceitful and wrong.

If the devs are wrong then so are the players for knowing AND still leveling it up just to abuse the unintended damage at rank 200.

Both parties are at fault. Dont get wrong I hate when issues go unfixed for months then out of nowhere they're fixed. That's just how it is in games. If it doesn't set right with you, you can always take your business elsewhere. I've done it before on several games and even this one, as a matter of fact I still dont sub to this game, I only buy DLC'. But you get the point.

False because if the devs are wrong (and they are no matter which position you take) then logical players were told thats its fine an the devs are now a year later reversing themselves.
Its at the devs feet no matter how u look at it.
Players didnt know, some of us suspected absent evidence. The devs year of silence said the ones claiming its broke were wrong. There was nothing concrete for players to go wrong because forgive me but if this game is so mismanaged that your insiNuating players who are new and dont know any better should listen to other random we players we dont know and NOT the devs then there a whole dif conversation to have.
And your activly attempting to play both sides of the coin. Pick one an stick to it.
You cant in one breath say “devs say its broke” while in the next ignoring that they said it was fine for a year with their negligent And decietful silence.
Pick one, either we can believe what the devs tell us or we cant.
If we can believe them then they are wrong for this as they told us it was fine And TBH, random players sayin its broke should promt devs to look at it. No one should take what a random player says as fact. Just because you are/were in the camp that its broken does not mean you know with proof its broke. It means you believed it to be broke and your belief in that is not enough for other players to accept it as fact sorry.

Game update 84 which first introduced the level rank 160 for artifacts was June 20th (2018)


Solar amp has been available since June 27 (2018) the same time the kryptonian time capsule came out

Game update 97 introduces rank 200 artifacts during metal part 1 September 12th (2019)

Solar amps new description On the artifact

.installs empowered channeling tactical mod


An achievable Rank 160 solar amp has been out since June 27th 2018.

You mean to tell me all this time That you got to play with solar amp at 160 before game update 97 you was unsure how the artifact worked? You didn’t understand the damage was splitting on the adds?

Nothing else changed in the description when update 97 finally came out except installing a empowered channeling mod and since that time you thought the damage was not suppose to split just because it’s rank 200 even though they only added empowered channel mod to the description...


I understand being mad about how long it took to fix the bug but I fail to believe players didn’t know it was unintended

Upgrading your eye of Gemini and then them altering the super charge power cost and cool downs is more of a debate than this because you upgraded your eog to revolve around specific play style builds and they blatantly changed the supers And it didn’t relate to something bug related or unintended

but this solar amp stuff I’m just not seeing the dispute here and I have solar 200 myself

It's a balance issue. This change makes 200 Solar Amp weaker than 160 Solar Amp ever was (see below, because this change isn't what you think it is).

Like the math is showing, it already underperforms in AoE by a wide margin as it currently is compared to other artifacts people would consider using in an AoE loadout. With a split introduced... and I mean any split, which means their splits-after-1 shenanigans here are quite extreme... it becomes one of the worst artifacts overall and the least versatile artifact in the game in that not only does its AoE performance just fall off the wagon altogether but the ST aspect suffers. It effectively becomes useful in purely ST situations with no additional targets and nothing else. The reason the ST suffers is because it makes the power no longer deal damage as though it were clean in mixed target scenarios, eg if you're trying to focus a target with other targets around it, a huge portion of that damage isn't going where you want it to anymore despite the fact HV is supposed to be able to deal ST damage comparable to that of a clean ST power (which standard HV is and which this was prior to this nerf).

The second reason is because no other artifact has its relative performance reduced when there are more targets available. Every single pure DPS artifact in the game with the slightest bit of AoE potential does just as well, or better, when there are more targets available. Strat is a non-split+ arti that has always been overall superior to Solar for AoE and deals more damage the more targets we hit. Trans, Tetra, Grim (in AoE PI application scenarios), Source, and Lernaea's all provide the same potency in terms of value regardless of the number of targets. There is no precedent for an AoE capable DPS artifact to be performing worse when more targets are present and this change makes Amplified Heat Vision perform worse in AoE than using a purely ST power would (because of the amount of DoT that ends up getting wasted, otherwise it would only be just as bad as using a ST power in AoE which would still be atrocious and unacceptable).

This has already been discussed but the damage actually wasn't splitting on adds like you think it was. The AoE DoT was not splitting at all and AoE burst would deal full damage to 2 targets but instead of treating 3+ targets like splits-after-2 rules would, it 3+ targets as though it was following splits after 1 rules, which is very buggy and messed up. This is another factor in why, when combined with how well balanced the 200 version is, the fact it was known when it was being tested, and dev silence, the non-split appeared to be an intended fix and a logical progression: the DoT was already non-split and the 160 AoE was effectively doing it's own (broken) thing. With this change, the loss of the non-split DoT is especially significant because we now have a weak DoT (it hits in the double digits after split now, the weakest DoT in the game by far) being spread out over a bunch of targets significantly detracting from our ST performance, especially when the DoT is split onto squishy targets from which we won't get a fraction of the value before they die.

Your points (and then some) were also already pretty thoroughly covered in here, the very existence of which in addition to the other dev interactions that are brought up therein kinda undermine what you're trying to show. [Also, fun side note for everyone keeping track, two posts in that thread were clearly reported then directly flagged by the devs, as you can see via the post-tags... one on Jun 10 and one on Jun 11... so it is literally impossible for them to argue they didn't see it like they've been trying to. Also, the post count on OP and some of the handful of pro-nerf posts is abnormally, suspiciously low...]. Anyways, this obviously doesn't have anything to do with testing I just wanted to clarify some of the problems here.

Well your statements would only apply to players who have been around this whole time not newer player who couldnt have k ow and not returning players who couldnt have known and not casual players who dont know the ins an outs of damage splitting.
I know ur not speaking to me directly but for me its not about if someone “knew” or thought one thing or the other.
Its about the devs telling us with their silence for a year its fine despite the constant comments, threads and bug reports. Thats the BS alot of us are calling out. They cant pretend everything is fine while collecting the $ then suddenly change their mind and to quote the dev who commented “we werent aware”. Its a Bold faced lie. There has been a consistent supply of reports an comments an threads. They knew and if they still somehow were were so negligent that they didnt k ow then that too is on them.
Thats all some of us are sayin. Others like AV are explaining why its not even bugged or broken in spite of what ppl think and i agree fully but for me its about the deception and dirty practice at hand

If the devs were in silence Why bother with the artifact then if there’s Uncertainty revolving around it and no real responses from the devs about it. That’s like taking your own risk on something imo.

1. Passed testing with the non-split being a known element of the artifact which was (players have said) communicated to the devs. It was also communicated to the devs that people didn't see any point in leveling it to 200 with just the Empowered Channeling bonus, so this appeared to have been included as an intentional feature and selling point to keep it on par with other 200 artifacts. Empowered Channeling and the stat increase alone could never justify a 1mil Nth investment.
2. It got quite a bit of attention during the testing process because of other actual bugs, so it was in the dev spotlight pretty much the entire time.
3. Has been an openly discussed, in all circles, feature of the artifact for over a year and one on which its balance relative to other artifacts has always depended.
4. The devs were aware of the sole bug post that was made about this (by a suspicious account) in June as proven by their interacting with posts therein on multiple occasions. Despite this, and despite the fact it was on the front page for quite some time, it was never flagged as a bug. The devs have claimed they didn't see it and were never aware, which is now demonstrably false.
5. In its current form, Solar Amp is one of the most precisely balanced artifacts in the game to such a degree it could not be reasonably considered to have been accidental.

It doesn't get much more unambiguous than that. Lot o' customers not buying that this wasn't intended.

If there’s been threads on it and players have been waiting for responses and there are no responses from devs confirming with their own words it’s intended why still level it to 200. Your basically upgrading it based on the assumption it’s intended due to the silence. (Not saying the Silence is a good thing that’s never a good thing in any game) your Paying for the sub at the end of the day communication is important.

It still doesn’t make sense to level something to 200 that your concerned and bringing up questions about and there are no actual replies about it from the devs. Wouldn’t it best to avoid the artifact until it’s actually addressed.

Well we'll never know about your data because you never share it, everything I do is an open book and I even make most of them available to the public through google sheets. I have nothing to hide as a tester, I don't know what your story is for that



I literally have no interest going through and playing this game, you are welcome to go back to the TRLH discord and say you beat obs because in the end this is all a fruitless exercise in futility, why? because the change has happened and is simply waiting to hit live server in the next GU. Whether the dot splitting is intended we'll have to wait and see but I don't need to continue to argue my point because the change that should be happening to SA is already made. You'll just have to accept that fact and since im sure you were one of the first ones to level Solar to rank 200 and saw this as I did not level solar to 200 when the ranks increased because I didn't see the 1mil being worth just a tactical mod at the time so any initial reports of splitting issues would have no doubt been raised by an avid tester such as yourself right?



this is 1 month after the Rank 200's were released and no mention in your post about how impactful Solar Amplifier is because of the non-splitting

Because it was never ambiguous. There has been one thread, in the entire time it's existed, asserting that it was a bug and the devs looked at it and chose not to flag it as a bug. You're kinda arguing a false positive here. The devs haven't stated The Strategist Card is supposed to be non-split either, and it does the same damage per target no matter how many simultaneous procs are happening, plus more targets = more procs so it's actually more potent than if it was just non-split, making it the single most overpowered non-group artifact in the game... but we all consider it to be working as intended.