anarchicgorilla

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2 non-stacked cycles = 20 second crash and 2 endurance losses

2 Stacked cycles = 20 second crash and 0 endurance losses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see you conveniently left out the fact that if you stack the cycles the crash happens more. It's silly to compare things like that and leave out the fact that the second one will happen more than the first.


[/ QUOTE ]

I see you "conviently lost you ability to read. Look at the very next sentence

[ QUOTE ]

Now what you will say is it is used more often thus you crash more... in which case you also get the benefit of double stack THB and Dmg when it is stacked... which is your balance. Removing the endurance cost is not part of that balance.

If when raged got stacked it removed the THB and Dmg bonus would you say working as intended? Removing the endurance drain is no different just a positive for us rather then a negative.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's silly to compare things like that and leave out the fact the stacked one will also have stacked Dmg and THB.

The mechanic is a bug. Specifically building a toon such a way as to make use of this bug knowing it is there is an exploit.

Now if someone had always doubled stacked rage (people do) well then its a bug... if they had not done this before or only after finding out this happens start to double stack rage they are exploiting a broken mechanic.

When does a bug become an exploit? When one knows of such a bug and builds or plays in a manner to knowing exploit it.

Every time you hit rage 120 seconds later you should have the endurance loss and the 10 second crash. Stacking rage should not "remove the endurance cost"

2 non-stacked cycles = 20 second crash and 2 endurance losses

2 Stacked cycles = 20 second crash and 0 endurance losses.

Stacking rage should result in the same endurance losses and the same crash regardless if stacked or not. This is an exploit plain and simple. You acting as if having to experience 2 rage crashes when stacking is more then experiencing 2 rage crashes when not stacking is simply bogus.

Now what you will say is it is used more often thus you crash more... in which case you also get the benefit of double stack THB and Dmg when it is stacked... which is your balance. Removing the endurance cost is not part of that balance.

If when raged got stacked it removed the THB and Dmg bonus would you say working as intended? Removing the endurance drain is no different just a positive for us rather then a negative.

The exploit is not: using an endurance power to recover what you lose from the crash... or before the crash so that after the crash you have little or no *net loss*

The exploit is: using a power so that it animates when rage should crash... thus causing the -endurance you should be getting from rage to "get bypassed" and not happen.

Basically there should be a negative endurance that always happens with the rage crash. If you gain endurance so that you still have endurance after the crash you are fine. if you gain endurance so that you donot lose the endurance that you should lose from the crash it is an exploit.

IMO rage is slightly overy powered as is and I play many a */SS or SS/*.

My fix would be simple. SS on its own (ie no pools etc.) with rage is about = to other sets give or take. It is when you can apply rage to powerpools too that you can really min max things to out of hand levels (I.E. tanks with BI chains > scrappers including level modifiers).

Just remove the "effect only self" from the crash and have the crash do -80% damage - 20% accuracy for 10 seconds and have a - 25 endurance crash. Now To balance it rage only effects SS powers. So brawl, boxing, AS, dmg aura's, epic/patrons, etc. are not effected by rage. I think rage balances SS but adding that balance to pools and other outside of SS attacks can be overpowering.

K, been testing burn a bit now. I donot know why I got that bug of burning same spot... but as of now burn working.

I love the new burn. In the past (always used huge body) there was a pretty decent chance of my foe getting out of the patch unless I went AS -burn - AS to keep foe in patch , even then it would excape a decent amount of the time.


With these changes I have yet to have a mob get out of the burn patch while using AS.

That at the very least is one mob perma in the patch. Which IMO is enough for me to slot and use burn as a constant in my chain.

I broadcasted in all 3 pvp zones and found noone there. Ran around each too.

Tommarrow I will try again

Will do.

Which leads to a question. Is/was fury only supposed to grant a bonus for AV/hero?

If so that is fine, but always thought boss's were in the bonus department too. Infact I think I can remember the posts where fury was x2 for boss and x 3 for AV/Hero.


Not saying this fix is not going to make every brute very happy as it surely will, especially those who PvP. I am just curious for knowing the AT better.

Fury gained per attack / attacked in pve vs:

Minion: 4 / 2

Lt: 4 / 2

Boss: 4 / 2


Sigh... I am sure it will get fixed, hopefully during test.

Figure you would have more people at pvp for test.


Sigh... I will test fury in pve and keep trying in pvp and post the results when I get them

Just tested on test.


burn is borked so hard to tell.... it sticks to where ever you first used it so when you move (even past 100') you reburn the first spot used.



healing flames does 25% heal as base.

Base is now 2.5... what was prior base?

[ QUOTE ]
Almost as good as a dev answer. I'm sorry the 15 fury per hit was gathered from the original post where i assumed the fury would continue to be generated at that rate, as seems logical when against an AV or pvp opponent with high burst damage.

I do NOT have a claws scrapper, nor will i ever. Pretending that a scrapper can crit at will is just stupid, as was silverspar saying that scrapper defense was invincible in SC in the stalker forum. I've criticized alot of changes stalkers think are fair to the point the think i don't have a stalker myself, such as a perception nerf or giving stalkers blaster health.

If people need to create strawmen to mask the fact they aren't good at what they do, fine, but equality between sets was mentioned in the pvp forum before and noone cried there. Then again, noone was saying claws was a threat to villains either.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you are saying. I even agree that your logic about what would happen makes sense. However, it makes sense given you did not now how fury works and you did not play a claws scrapper.

Seeing fury go from 2 pts now, what we get per attack or being attacked, to 15 for attacking and 7.5 for being attack for the first shot is huge (which you thought 15 for both). This seems like a dramatic leap and if it continued to grow by the same percentage... i.e. 30/15 then 45/22.5, I could see how one would be worried. Heck you thought 15 for each making each attacking going to 30 fury then 60 fury then 90 fury... basically putting you almost at cap in 3 attacks and 3 times being attacked. However, and to put simply, fury would not work that way if fixed properly. This is why I wrote what I did. You assumed fury would grow to 90 pts in 3 exchanges (6 shots), However, with how it works, you would be at 46.5 (half of what you expected). Further fury would be getting harder and harder to maintain. This is also in a controlled setting. I.E. two players standing still and just attacking so 0 movements. In pvp this is rare, and a play style choice so any AT could slow fury down by simply moving on occasion.

Next point on claws. Seeing how claws have fast animations it is logical to say claws will build fury faster then other sets. However, not playing claws you miss out on some things. Claws have the highest sustained DPS of any scrapper set by a moderate margin. However, it has the lowest burst DPS by a moderate margin too (with dark being close in both areas).

In pvp this hurts claws due to how much jousting goes on and how easy it is to kill a foe (depending on zone) in 10-15 seconds of fighting. PvP makes Burst > Sustained... a flaw with pvp design for balance I would vote yes, but debatable.

Now having brutes build fury right, they are going to want to stay fighting as long as possible. This plays to claws strength... sustained DPS. See fury builds best in sustained fighting, so it plays to claws strength. So a claws vs. a brute is actually a good match up as they both have similar goals.

So why the notion quicker attacks = more fury = more gimped claws is logical, it only looks at part of the picture. The other part is more PvP is jousting = less sustained dps ability = claws is weak. Now when we combine this we get more fury for brutes, but we also get an environment that resembles sustained conditions making claws do better as well on offense.



The reason why so many people may be jumping all over your comments, and myself, is that they are based on misinformation and/or a misunderstanding of the effects of the change. Further at the very least I believe, sure others do to, that the devs actually listen to the boards and read them. To the extent that they change the game radically based on them: NO. To the extent it ways on their thoughts: YES. My fear of posts like this is not that the devs would not fix fury... once they did an analysis they would see without doubt it should be fixed. My fear is it will put them on the side of caution. Fury has been broke since CoV came out. If your comments, in combination with others like it, make the devs rethink fixing fury, just to delay it for even a month longer, especially being based on misunderstandings, would be upsetting at best, given that it has been broken since launch.

[ QUOTE ]
Your statement will fall on deaf ears anarch. All madman sees, since he only wants to see things from "wahhh I won't be able to just laugh at brute damage anymore" perspective, he doesn't understand the simple fact that brutes are, ahve been, and for quite sometime and even stated by devs, broken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well madman was factoring that his claws would give of 15 pts of fury per attack... when actually 7.5 then a diminishing return. Perhaps he was misinfromed about how fury would work if it was fixed to work how it is supposed to work.

Rather then continuing to argue with him, I decided to lay out numbers and maybe somewhere in them we can see brutes would not be overpowered with how fury would work. Or my point being scrappers would still have viable stratagies to beat brutes, and brute viable stratagies to beat scrappers, and who does their plan the best wins. However, it would require scrappers to move rather then going toe to toe non-stop.

[ QUOTE ]


That's right. I don't want an AR blaster or a Claws scrapper to give me 15 fury per hit on my brute, because i don't want a challenge. Seriously man, Claws scrappers have been owning villains for so long, and dark blast is so overpowered that it's about time we got some payback.



[/ QUOTE ]


Madman do you even know how fury works (better yet how it is supposed to)?

If attacking: 100- current fury / 20 (* 2 for lt boss *3 for AV hero)

If attacked: 100- current fury / 40 (* 2 for lt boss *3 for AV hero).

So if a claws attacked a brute you would get these values

1st attack: 100-0/40 *3 = 7.5 pts.
2nd attack: 100-15/40 * 3 = 6.375 points
3rd attack: 100 - 27.75/40 *3 = 5.4 points of fury.

You would gain 15 pts for the brute 1st attack. and none of this is factoring -2pts of fury every second. When I did top DPS chains for both sets factoring AT modifiers a brute needed a about 65% fury to match a scrapper dmg including criticals (both of these were top of the line dps chains).

In 10 seconds your looking at a total of 7 attacks and 7 times attacked on avg. In a toe to toe go at it (no kiting jousting etc.) Right off the bat you lose 20 pts of fury for the 10 seconds. I will go 20/7 = 2.85 pts lost per attack due to time... to round I will subtract 3 pts of fury for each round of 7. So below you will see a total of 7 rounds, with each round representing 2 attacks one from brute one from scrapper for a total of 10 seconds. This will factor how fury gains less as you have more fury and time deticks (which I rounded to 3 pts per round).


1) 15 (fury from attacking) + 7.5 (fury from being attacked)= 22.5 fury - 3 (for detick)= 19.5 fury
2) 12 + 6 = 18 = 37.5 - 3 = 34.5 fury
3) 10 + 5 = 15 = 49.5 - 3 = 46.5 fury
4) 8 + 4 = 12 = 58.5 - 3 = 55.5 fury
5) 6 + 3 = 9 = 67.5 -3 = 64.5 fury
5) 5 + 2.5 = 7.5 = 72 - 3 = 69 fury
6) 4 + 2 = 6 = 75 - 3 = 72 fury
7) 4 + 2 = 6 = 78 -3 = 75 fury


So now we take all those 7 fury numbers and find the avg... 19.5 +34.5 .......... + 75 fury What we get is an avg of 62.4 points of fury. So even if fury was fixed perfectly: for a brute begin to eqaul scrapper dmg they would have to stand toe to toe for 10 seconds each attack 7 times (and these being attacks not BU's). And even at 10 second they are a little behind. (but they do have higher health)

However, how often does this happen? What you would find is if a scrapper stayed longer then those 10 seconds a brute would gain the upper hand.... if the stayed less then those 10 seconds the scrapper would have the upper hand.

Scrapper game plan: 10 seconds of attacks and move
Brute game plan: keep scrapper there longer then 10 seconds.

Note FU is 10 seconds of on time.... So even a claws playing right and moving after each FU session then waiting to repeat would have the upper hand.

Also in the case of BU... scrappers have the upper hand in those 10 second becuase BU is added to fury and SO which in a way decreases it net value... but scrappers is only added to SO.


Actually fixing brutes seems pretty balanced.

Claws are weak in pvp... yes. However, the main reason is the dynamaic of pvp. Claws is a sustained DPS set... PvP is jousting or hit and run.

I have a 43 claws I pvp with. To be honest giving a brute fury that works and going toe to toe with them actually will improve my performance. Stand toe to toe for 10 seconds (ie FU). Perhaps after that 10 seconds is up... move and let fury cool down a bit. Rinse and Repeat.

The times when I have had players go toe to toe against my claws allowing FU and the sustained cycle to work it has done pretty well.

As much as my claws now does not have a chance people want to protray.... It actaully improves their chances. The thing as of now is brutes stay to build fury (in vain) allow claws to never mover and have a huge edge (as brute AT is fury dependant)

Add fury all it does is require claws to move at right times to allow cool down... Wait that requires stratagy... heaven forbid that. (not entirely directed at poster I replied to... just last statement).

[ QUOTE ]
? You know i play a brute right? Difference is, i've actually played a scrapper too so i know they don't crit 99% of the time they punch.

After this change, you should roll a claws scrapper, go up against and invuln brute and tell me how it goes. You can do that now if you like and see what goes on.

[/ QUOTE ]


This makes me laugh.

Pick the scrapper primary that has the quickest animations so most amount of attacks per seconds. BTW you would have been better off saying DM without shadowmaul.. ahh but that confilicts with your next point in inv.

Then you take that primay's dmg type lethal... then take the brute shield that has the highest lethal defense to compare too.

See where I am going with this.

How bout this one... lets take a Spines / reg scrapper vs a Fire/ EA brute.... and say at RV and give that scrapper FA and tactics.

Or even a BS / Inv vs a SM / fire brute.



How bout this one.... Ice tanks need nerfed.... if you donot believe me roll a ice corrupter and see.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, I do not expect you to understand this as it appears you see the game in only black and white or static states as you statement would suggest.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but I do see that reading comprehension is not among your skills.

[/ QUOTE ]


Here is another fallacy for you:

Ad Hominem: a general category of fallacies in which the author is attacked rather then the statement or arguement made by them.

Which is nothing more then what this next comment by you is.

A straw man is when you take a point of an argument then set it up as if to be the main argument only to destroy it.

IE: you taking me saying a blaster should not have 0 to no risk in melee or that a blasters weakness to a melee toon should be at melee range and then using this to make the claim to seem something of this effect: " blasters' optimal attack strategy is always to stay at range "

So yes your whole point was nothing but a straw man, as for this one. For nowhere in my statement did I state what you quoted in yellow in that a blaster should always be at range to be optimized... Perhaps it is you who should ask for the "strawmans" gift from the wizard sense you appear to be lacking in that area. You state that you never use strawman within a second straw man reply which I will address next.


I will spare the time of address your other points that have been addressed in earlier threads in this issue... However, I never implied anything except that a blaster ideally is a balance of range and melee, the implication you stated I implied must be your thoughts. I, also, will further address this common misunderstanding which seems to branch of the prior statement I addressed:

"If their ideal position isn't melee, it has to be ranged. There are no other positions."

The dichotomy you present is false... reminds me of the election on this or that, only black and white with no grey.

Ideally a blaster will be able to flow in and out of melee and ranged to take advantage of each position. At melee: extreme damage. At range: cannot be attacked by melee attacks. So here you do not have a static ideal position but your ideal position is a ballistic flow of movement between the two to capitalize on the advantages each offer. However, I do not expect you to understand this as it appears you see the game in only black and white or static states as you statement would suggest. You seem to catch this in your statement when you say "blasters have no ideal position" however this is also false, for if each position is used properly it is a strength... playing to that strength or creating the situation to do so is the challage of the AT.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The thing is that it did not take 3 people to drop 4+ toggles it took 1 player 2 hits

EP ---> BS then you have 100 % chance to drop 2 toggles, 75% chance to drop a 3rd, another 75% chance to drop a forth, and then a 33% chance to drop a 5th.

Roughly the odds work out to 2 hits dropping atleast 3 toggles and usually 4 toggles.


The change is good, it takes what was once dependable... and makes it undependable as it should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

The current situation on test is that you can depend on them not to drop toggles.

Also, on live having a blaster drop four toggles off of my brute is incredibly rare. Only once have I had more than three dropped on my brute. Which means that it hardly happens all the time. Maybe you should PvP more with teams, and maybe get them to buff you a bit. Your experience may improve to the point that you don't have to whine.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL then it is you who have not played good pvpers.

here you go once again EP - BS

100% chance to drop 2 toggles
75% chance to drop a 3rd toggle
another 75% chance to drop a 4th toggle
and 33% chance to drop 5 toggles.

So thats 2 every time for sure.... then 2 rolls of a 4 sided dice with 3 sides being toggle drops... then another roll of a 10 sided dice with 3 sides being a toggle drop.

Also let us not forget if any TD that drops your status protection leaves you stunned dropping every toggle you have, so you have atleast 2 chances out of how ever many toggles running for this and more likely 3 or 4.

almost always 3 toggles... and very likely 4+ and left stunned....

Also no where did I whine... In fact I am countering all the blasters complaining that they cannot drop toggles at will any more. Perhaps you should read the replies and ones before them before slinging insults. And perhaps when you learn to actually read the replies and play with people who do powerplay, then you will understand the reason why toggle dropping was indeed changed.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not saying blaster were not designed to be effective in melee... but they were not designed to have a melee effect so good they have little to no reason to use their range, or that their ideal position was melee. A blasters weakness should be if a players is in melee range (expecially a melee toon,) not their strength.

[/ QUOTE ]


And now I lob yet another complexity grenade:

If the game was somehow engineered in such a way that blasters' optimal attack strategy is always to stay at range, and gains no advantage from entering melee range, then what would that mean for blaster vs melee fights, when the melee doesn't have range?

Kaboom.

/runs off

(Blasters should gain advantages *and* disadvantages at range, not strictly be at a disadvantage in melee, or that flapping sound you hear is a revival of the sport of kiting.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice strawman, but if debating please make use of none fallacious replies... No where did I state a blaster should always stay at range.

A blaster should be somewhat balanced between using range and melee. I know its hard for people to understand this strange concept of "use both range and melee for their advantages" but thats the concept none the less.

There is a HUGE difference between having serious damage potential at melee (which blaster still do with their high BI melee and 1.0 and 30% unresisted dmg, etc.) and being able to be at melee with very little to no risk.

This is very simplistic and in no way specific overview so times and number are likely way off and only server to show a point.

Blaster vs melee

AT melee whole time melee extreme advantage.
Blaster gets off at range for say 6 shots at range even battle.
Blaster gets off 7+ shots at range advantage blaster.

Or it would somewhat resemble this with other ranged toons.

A non blaster must keep melee at range for 20 seconds to have advantage

A blaster must keep a melee at range for 10 seconds to have advantage.

See the trend... which is not a blaster can be at melee entire battle at no risk. Its a blaster using both range and melee to take advantage of ... 0 melee dmg at range... and there very high melee dmg in melee.

How does it discourage.

If you did not depend on TD to get the win, then little will change.

Which was the problem is was so powerfull that it did more then give a reason to fight in melee, it made melee your best position. Because of this blaster become blappers... and even more specific appers.

Think about the stalkers and their snipe, if it becomes so great that they can tag team and one shot every opponent (not saying this will or will not happen)... Or if say claws can kill without ever being in melee, it makes an AT something it was not designed to be.

I am not saying blaster were not designed to be effective in melee... but they were not designed to have a melee effect so good they have little to no reason to use their range, or that their ideal position was melee. A blasters weakness should be if a players is in melee range (expecially a melee toon,) not their strength.

The thing is that it did not take 3 people to drop 4+ toggles it took 1 player 2 hits

EP ---> BS then you have 100 % chance to drop 2 toggles, 75% chance to drop a 3rd, another 75% chance to drop a forth, and then a 33% chance to drop a 5th.

Roughly the odds work out to 2 hits dropping atleast 3 toggles and usually 4 toggles.


The change is good, it takes what was once dependable... and makes it undependable as it should be.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, publishing the data would be a really bad idea (from a public relations standpoint alone, a complete nightmare). Four AT's screaming about the other eight being better...the other eight getting upset 'stop nerfcalling!'...the top four ripping each other in board wars...and everyone mad at the devs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we do that plenty enough around here, no?

My point is more that Dev verification of some of our favorite AT/powerset-ist dogma simply creates more problems than it solves.

I've said for some time that the Devs don't need us to nerfcall, that's the point of datamining. And people are right to question whether or not the metrics they're looking at, are the correct ones, are the ones which reveal true imbalance. But it's frankly not in the Devs' (or the playerbase's) interest to widely publicize that data -- it only adds fuel to the fires of AT-versus-AT politic.

[/ QUOTE ]


Here I disagree and believe numbers should be posted. Because the AT's should be balanced enough even with numbers to cause a good debate.

For example what wins in a fight a lion or a tiger? Or a Silverback or a bear? king kong or godzilla?



See if AT's were actually balaced these debates would be great and whats even better is people would be in debate.


But the problem is what we have now.

What wins in a fight a silverback or a chimpanzee, a lion or a bobcat, a eagle or a vulture.

[ QUOTE ]
I think that even though you have opposite points they aren't completely mutually exclusive. You can both analyze the numbers and play for concept and not min/max. I've played a lot of enjoyable characters that weren't min/maxed. I've also played characters where I thought omg this sucks, I've wasted dozens of hours and I dont even know if I can fix this with a respec. If only I had some numbers on these powers.

Some powers will still be better than others in spite of the number because of things like animation time, secondary effects, activation and recharge times, etc... and these still need people to adjust for their own play style.
Some powers, no matter how the numbers look will still suck. For example Dimension Shift. Even when used with a macro to announce it, even if you've explained how it works to your team, even if you only use it when half the team has died and people are calling to 'RUN!", people will still stand their and swing on phase shifted enemy until they unphase and finish off the group. The power is just about worthless in spite of the numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree that you can do both. I myself have toons that are not build for min max. Like my Achery toon who is more RP

I am not saying the other side does not exist. What I am saying is that the number side does exist. Would it be good business to only address a portion of your audience when simply adding in numbers can address the majority.

Just like the car example if the devs want to use desriptions for AT's without numbers good to go. However, the numbers should be made available to those who would like to know them.

And before it is even replied (becuase it likely would have been). If I know the numbers and choose to use them that does not take away from the game play of someone who does not. If you donot want to crunch number, good for you. But just because you donot want to does not mean that no one should be able to.