UberGuy

Forum Cartel
  • Posts

    8326
  • Joined

  1. UberGuy

    The Defence Myth

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly View Post
    Thank you
    You're thanking him for pointing our that he doesn't know what you're debating? I don't think he was talking about the rest of us...

    Quote:
    Unfortunately people still do not recognise that the calculation isn't dependent on the initial defence. For instance, Gillia claiming I am dead wrong, but I can immediately display that I am in fact right.
    Bunny, you have not once addressed my example. Please do so and then defend this claim in light of it.

    Quote:
    The origins do stem from people saying a 100% increase is the be-all-and-end-all, when there are other options which may be better. YMMV, and they may not be applicable in as many cases.
    Yes, and the cases where everyone else is working cause defense to almost universally be the more practical choice. Low incoming (pre-mitigation) DPS is not relevant to a discussion about nearly any AT with defenses near the soft cap.
  2. UberGuy

    The Defence Myth

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly View Post
    No, it's not.

    You cannot tell which is more survivable for the exact reason that you don't *always* fight people who have the precise damage output equal to your mitigation.
    This statement makes it clear that you do not understand the topic under discussion.

    Why on earth do you think it's relevant what the precise incoming DPS is?
  3. UberGuy

    The Defence Myth

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly View Post
    As soon as you are taking damage greater than what you are guaranteed to survive, the survivability curve is useless. It could be wrong.

    Why do you favour something that is demonstratably wrong?
    Why do you insist on building such atrocious stawmen? This is not how you use this information. You use it to determine which build choice is most survivable. The one with the highest survivability line is the one that will live longest on average, and is therefore the one that's best to chose.

    You don't use this information to choose what to fight. You use it to determine which build will survive best whatever you're fighting. Whether or not you can actually win the encounter or not isn't actually relevant - it's all about what will last longest.
  4. UberGuy

    The Defence Myth

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Obitus View Post
    I was just trying to clarify why it serves no useful purpose to indulge Bunny by admitting that the opponent's DPS is crucial.
    Understood.
  5. UberGuy

    The Defence Myth

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Obitus View Post
    The survivability line acts as a proxy for the incoming DPS. That's the point.

    All you need to know is the character's HP, DEF/RES, and expected healing/regeneration rate and you can figure out what incoming DPS you can survive for X amount of time (or forever). If you want to choose between two different build options, then you just take the appropriate figures and compare.
    Oh, I'm well aware. That still involves picking a DPS (or regen rate) number. It's a number based on quite reasonable information - the character's known HP and regen rate. We can compare what different regen rates and different DEF/RES values do to a build's immortality line, but we still can't compare a given applied regen rate to a given DEF/RES delta in a vacuum.
  6. UberGuy

    The Defence Myth

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly View Post
    Precisely. You simply cannot decide without considering how much damage you face. Call that a weakness of the model but it is an absolute truth. A model that attempts to give you a single answer is going to be wrong under numerous situations. Even though it may be simpler (I say it isn't, my method is remarkably easy), it doesn't give you a correct answer.

    What's the point if it isn't right?
    Just because we cannot know the exact numbers does not mean we do not know which is going to be better.

    Go back to my example, including my 2nd post on it, for a clear example of why we know with a high degree of certainty that aiming for that last 5% of defense is the more practical goal.

    What you may be missing here is the implicit assumption that we're playing under conditions where we will die if we do not defeat our enemies first. If we don't have enough incoming DPS to create that situation, we go find it. Therefore, the DPS output by our foes against a high-defense character is assumed to be immensely high. Per my second post, it is usually quite literally impossible to obtain regen rates that would substitute equivalently given the same pre-mitigation DPS applied to our characters at low defense levels. At least without outside help - attaching an Empath to your Scrapper is not usually considered vogue.

    Edit:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly View Post
    When damage is low enough, regeneration will win.
    The key sticking point is that no one is interested in damage this low.
  7. UberGuy

    The Defence Myth

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DSorrow View Post
    It's just a shame mitigation isn't this simple. This only works if we know what the DPS of the enemy is going to be when planning a build. That's why the survivability line calculations are practical.
    This is inherent in the very definitions of how the various effects work. Regeneration is defined in absolute HP/sec. Defense and DR are defined in removing a percentage of damage directed at your character. It's therefore impossible to compare Defense or DR to regen without choosing a fixed incoming DPS.
  8. UberGuy

    The Defence Myth

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly View Post
    There are two situations that are identical except for the points I mention. In the first, you are at 0% defence, and are offered either 5% defence, or an amount of regeneration equal to that 5% defence in terms of survivability. In other words, in terms of pure damage mitigation, it doesn't matter.

    Then, there is a second situation. You are at 40% defence, and are offered 5% defence, or the exact same amount of regeneration in the first option.
    You're claiming to have won an argument no one is making.

    Let's go back to my example. In there, I assumed 40% defense and 108.3 average incoming DPS after defense.

    If I dropped to zero defense, that same 108.3 DPS would jump to 541.5 DPS. Adding 5% defense now avoids 10% of this, which (to your point) works the same 54.15 DPS I came up with before. But no one cares, because I'd still be left taking 487.35 average DPS, which means I'm screwed! Edit: I now die in 5.2 seconds.

    Quote:
    According to how I read what you have writtne, that amount must be double your present regeneration. That isn't the case. The answer is in fact that they both give the same amount of survivability so long as the regeneration is the same as the first option. You don't need to increase the regeneration at all, even though the change in survivability is 100% instead of 5%.
    It gives the same mitigation by canceling the same net DPS, not the same survivability in terms of how long you stay on your feet.
  9. UberGuy

    The Defence Myth

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly View Post
    And that is: expressing 100% survivability doesn't allow you to make a judgement on substiting effects.
    Once again: the "myth" claim in your OP has nothing to do with substituting effects. You're mixing (at least) two different claims. One is about comparing the last 5% defense (40 to 45) to the first 25%, and one is about substituting some amount of absolute regen for the average contribution of a given defense delta.
  10. UberGuy

    The Defence Myth

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly View Post
    People that insist on stating 40-45% = x2 survival struggle to grasp that this same amount of survivability can be substituted from different sources, just as perfectly easily, as the difference between 0 & 5%.
    Let's think about this for a minute. Let's use the example of my Invulnerability Scrapper. His build operates around the softcap, and has 2409 HP and a regeneration rate of around 28 HP/sec with Dull Pain up.

    Let's say I surround him with stuff that is going to kill him in 30 seconds. That means they're dealing around 108.3 DPS. Edit: net after accounting for my defense.

    If I assume he's at 40% defense and can get him from 40% to 45%, I will halve their average DPS. I will now live 92.1 seconds.

    Now, what do you think is easier for my Scrapper: adding 5% defense or adding 54.1 HP/sec regeneration?
  11. UberGuy

    The Defence Myth

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly View Post
    To view this, simply do the following.

    Set the +defence to 5%
    Set the regen to 25 hp/s
    This will make the indifference point 500
    Set the DPS to 500.

    Now you can see that they are just as good at either 0-5% or 40-45%. It doesn't matter.

    If you set the DPS higher, it will favour Defence. If you set it lower, it will favour Regeneration.
    Again, I reiterate, you're misrepresenting the argument.

    The argument is, specifically, for a given regen rate, 5% defense is more valuable at 40% than at 0%. You are muddying the water considerably by comparing 5% defense to some amount of HP recovery/sec, which simply isn't what anyone reasonable talks about on this subject.
  12. UberGuy

    The Defence Myth

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly View Post
    Here's the problem:

    Suppose I present you a choice. You are currently at 0% defence. You can slot IOs in such a fashion that you either get, say, 5% defence, or an amount of regeneration that will make you just as survivable as that 5% defence. It really doesn't matter about the specific quantity of regen that this might be.

    Now I provide you the same choice but under slightly different circumstances. You are at 40% defence. I offer you either 5% defence, or the exact same amount of regeneration as in the first choice.

    According to how I interpret your writing, you would say that when faced with the second choice, the defence is a clear cut answer. If they were just as good at 0%, and you were only adding 5% survivability from defence, then surely when at 40%, where the defence is adding 100% survivability, you should choose the defence?

    The problem is: you're wrong.
    I am not wrong, because I would not say what you have suggested I would.

    I believe you are misstating the conventional wisdom regarding defense. That convention is that a point of defense is more valuable near the cap than a point of defense far from the cap. It makes no claims about regeneration rate at all. I agree with your statement about regeneration rate, but I don't understand why it's under debate.
  13. UberGuy

    The Defence Myth

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly View Post
    Common misconception is that the survivability should favour defence as it approaches the soft cap, and that you are less likely to want regeneration. That however is demonstratably false. It highlights the problem of describing the benefit as a % increase. One would assume a high % increase is better.
    I don't understand "less likely to want regeneration". That's not a part of the standard claims about defense asymptotes. In fact, having a given regeneration rate is fundamental to the assumptions behind models like immortality lines or time-to-defeat.

    Where did this part of your thesis come from?
  14. UberGuy

    The Defence Myth

    There is no myth. Your thesis is flawed.

    Assume I have a character with some amount of defense. At that level of defense, whatever it is, I can find a number of some given foe, that, on average, will never kill me. (I might still die if a large number of them manage to hit me at once.)

    Now I add defense. I add enough defense to halve the average rate of damage that lands on my character. By definition, I can now survive, on average, twice as many of my chosen type of foe.

    We understand that the math of defense means that it is easier to halve the average DPS that lands on a character the closer we are to the "soft cap".

    If I go from 40 defense to 45 defense, I halve the amount of average DPS I am suffering, which again means I can double the number of foes I can survive. To do this starting at zero defense I require an additional 25 points of defense. Therefore, 5 points of defense is more valuable starting at 40 than 5 points starting at zero.

    The absolute contribution is practically meaningless to the application of how we play the game. The relative contribution is more applicable.
  15. It's not quite on topic, but a related and much more minor request...

    Please modify the DE Monsters to not drop little "tier 1" inspirations? It just seems so anti-climactic to get little (non-EoE) inspirations off of them.
  16. UberGuy

    Purple Drop Rate

    If they made such a change they would dramatically increase the overall supply of stuff that drops off of mobs, including purples. After all, the shard drop approach multiplies the average number of drops by the number of people on the team. That means it's an average drop rate increase across the game equal to the average team size. For purples of course that would be teams fighting level 50+ foes.

    That's fine if that's what the devs want, but here's something to think about. If the devs don't want the aggregate rate to go up that much, they would reduce the per mob drop probability by the same proportion. If they did that, it would our solo drop rates negatively.

    Shards can work like this with no balance impact not just because they're new, but because they're bind on pick-up. That's another possible outcome to consider. The devs might be willing to make invention drops multiply by team size while retaining current rates if they were more tightly bound to who gets them.

    I'm really don't like or dislike our current drop rate, but the real question is: what do the devs think of it?
  17. I wouldn't categorize WP as a defense set.
  18. UberGuy

    Endurance.

    Mathematically, when you say you are primarily concerned with having the endurance to defeat something without regard to time*, what you want to optimize is damage per endurance, often referred to as DPE. The problem with your original build is that you slotted heavily for endurance but neglected damage. This is a mistake, because you're missing out on doubling up the benefits of both. You can only benefit effectively from 3 damage or 3 endurance SOs, but you can have the DPE benefit of up thee of each.

    Damage for a power is BaseDam*(1+DamageEnhancement). Endurance cost for a power is BaseEndCost /(1+EndurenceEnhancement).

    Since DPE is damage/end, that means the DPE with enhancements is:
    BaseDam/BaseEndCost*(1+DamageEnhancement)*(1+EndurenceEnha ncement).

    So you've get to multiply the benefit of the endurance and damage slotting together for DPE.

    You can't ignore accuracy here, because accuracy affects average damage, which must therefore affect average DPE.

    The reason that IOs are the optimal solution for DPE here is that they allow much more than six slots worth of SO-strength slotting in six (or often just five) slots. You can usually easily approach 3 SOs worth of damage, two SOs worth of endurance, and 1.5 to 2 SOs of both accuracy and recharge.

    * Of course, most players do care about time to victory, and this means that damage slotting is the priority, because it improves both DPE and DPS. Increased DPS has the benefit of reducing the time the enemy gets to deal damage to you, affecting how likely you are to win for a given health recovery rate. This is why most SO builds have 3 damage slotted, but only one or two end reducers. The ability of IOs to add accuracy in six slots improves DPS as well.
  19. IMO, all Stalker builds are tight because of the extra, essentially mandatory powers in the primary. (Placate and AS.) Hide is clearly extra also, but the power that Hide replaces is usually fully/partially rolled into some other power, while you often still want enough regular primary powers to fill out an attack chain in addition to Placate and AS.

    I agree that SR is something of the poster boy for tight builds. Invul is close behind.
  20. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shubbie View Post
    The problem is honoree has stupidly high acc, a stupidly high hold, insane amounts of hold resistance, and he does enough damage to 2 shot squishies.

    Okie this leads to the problem, he will hit you right through purples, stun you right through break free's and 2 hit anyone without high resistances, also he is darn near unholdable.
    You're making me wish I had demorecorded my missions. None of those things are true. He might be able to two-shot a squishie if he chains the right two attacks - he has Total Focus, after all, but it took him a good 3-4 hits to kill my Defender when she was stunned (which means no toggle defense/DR power were functioning). He missed me plenty with 25% ranged defense, which is easily reachable with luck inspirations. And I got out of his stuns and holds with little break frees.

    I'm not trying to rag on you here or jump on a bandwagon, but what you're saying above just isn't the case.
  21. OK, just ran it on my Dark Dark Defender, solo at +2/x4 no AVs. I totally crushed Trapdoor. I was surprised - I creamed him on my 1st solo Incarnate run on a Scrapper, but a friend of mine had some trouble with an SO'd Fire/Fire Tanker. I figured my well-IO'd Defender would be somewhere in betweeen, but it was actually closer to my Scrapper. I died once to a spawn of +3 Arachnos+Council who hit me with a web grenade while I was right above them in one of those vertical shafts.

    I died once to a +2 Rikti ambush because I tried to wait out a stun rather than use a BF.

    I did this while on phone calls, and I had to stop playing at a point where the Rikti portals had already spawned. As a result, each one had about 3x the aggro cap on it by the time I was able to poke them. I killed every summoned Rikti around one portal closest to the side the player approaches from. That cleared a visible path to the EBs.

    I snipe pulled Holtz, and basically cleaned her clock. She landed Curse of Weariness on me once, but I was prepared and had a Cursebreaker on hand. (I learned about that trick when I ran the arc on my Scrapper.)

    I died once to the Honoree because he stunned me. I could have broken free, but I sort of wanted to see just how stunarrific he was, and he kept restunning me and took me out after about 5 attacks. (He missed with some.) I was quite surprised to discover that his ranged energy blast attacks had stun chances attached. I had expected that I could avoid most of that by trapping him on the floor with Tar Patch and hovering above him. After using a couple of smaller BFs I went for broke and used a Tier 3 "Escape" brand BF. They last 3 minutes. This resulted in the satisfyingly climactic outcome that I became stunned while the Honoree was suffering my damage DoTs, which happened to push his HP to the level that he surrendered moments after my Escape expired.

    The only inspirations I used were the BFs. Clearly, I am not so foolish as to think all other squishies operate with the benefit of the mitigation levels a Dark Defender has, but I felt this was appropriate for "epic" content against a squishie. Especially given the settings I played it on.

    Edit: The full powerset list for the character is Dark Miasma/Dark Blast/Power Mastery.
  22. UberGuy

    So sad...

    The only reason this mission was insanely hard for me was because I ran it on no less than +2/x4 and that many Malta at once (as in the stacked ambushes, not x4 spawns) will debuff your defense into the floor unless you're softcapped and have lots of DDR.

    I regularly dismissed it, but only because I didn't want to lower my settings.
  23. I'm glad there's an arc to unlock this. I am glad we can't unlock it with most of the TFs that we could unlock it with in Beta. Of all of them, Hamidon seems on the right scale, but has nothing to do with the lore of the Well. I like the game's mechanics to be linked to the lore - there are ways that can be over done (see lackey syndrome in CoV) but I like the idea, and think this is a reasonable implementation thereof.

    I actually liked the arc. I am fairly surprised to see such distaste for it. I thought it was a good read, and when I think that, I mostly don't care how many "go click the contact" missions there are, unless one or more of them are in the outer reaches of some far-flung zone.

    One of my best friends in real life plays the game, and he's an incorrigible farmer, someone who never badges unless there's a combat-valuable accolade power involved. He ran the arc carefully the first time through and told me over voice comms that he liked it and felt they put a lot of thought into the story, which took me by surprise.

    Am I enthused to need to run the arc on every 50? No. But I don't really mind, either.
  24. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill View Post
    Do you pick up a hobby and expect to immediately be an expert woodworker, or musician, or painter, writer, ice sculptor, ballet dancer or whatnot? No. But, gee, you *put time into it.* Imagine that. Do you ***** that you have to treat your hobby "like a job" to be any good at it? Do you expect to get better as you play? You know, doing things like learning from your mistakes and doing better on your next attempt?

    Do you expect anyone to pay you to do so, or to quit your job to become a better painter/musician/writer/stamp collector? No?
    I shouldn't speak for Sam, but I've been down this road with him. He expressed what I took as a farily intense allergic reaction to anything comparing this game with work, including broad concepts of development or progress that aren't basically inherent in just doing whatever. Sadly for him, that's not terribly compatible with most MMOs, and especially not with the concept of "end game" content, which is usually more hard-core almost by definition than the rest of a game. This game isn't "most MMOs", but I think it is still informed and influenced by common concepts that the major ones share.
  25. UberGuy

    Vigilante Woes

    Chalk me up as yet another who misunderstood what was being delivered, was excited about what I thought it was and am disappointed about what it actually is. (I too like that it's more tip missions. I was just more excited about what I thought it was going to be.)