anarchicgorilla

[ QUOTE ]
Come on... use some sense here. Energy is popular because it's better, well-rounded and much more suited to PvP than the other sets. Everyone knows this. Everyone knows why this is. Don't be ridiculous and suggest it's a popularity contest.

EDIT: Besides, that's a non-quantifiable variable and honestly not all that applicable to this analysis. Your "variable" would have to be part of a census, which are impossible to conduct (and retain any sense of validity) in an MMO.

[/ QUOTE ]


That is the point of my statement.



Energy is uber so it attacts more power or hardcore players. Which means the "best of pvpers" are not playing the other sets.

Saying the other sets are weak in pvp due to their "kill or get killed" ratio does not say much if the non- EM players in pvp are casual players and not hard core.


So saying EM > better the other blaster sets ... OK
But non EM< all scrappers when all the hardcore and "best" (for overall not absolute) pvpers are playing EM, is not accurate. Beacue what if all the hard core EM played elec or whatever.

And for blasters its more so. Because other sets may be more "AT" balanced for pvp within so you see hardcore pvp spines, BS, MA, DM, so their set as a whole has hardcore players through out.

[ QUOTE ]
Why? Clearly the indication is the Energy Manipulation is working far and away better than the other secondaries. Maybe because it actually does things a Blaster needs done to survive and function. It's something akin to proof that the other Blaster Secondaries need serious work to catch up.

[/ QUOTE ]


You sure about that. What is stated is that with energy blasters proform better then other AT's. Better does not mean equal.



Also the "other" factor to consider.


Number wise EM looks to be better, which may attract more "power gamers", power gamers, due to dedication, may be better pvpers then other players.


So it could be that a non EM blaster in the hands of a power gamer will fair just fine. But that most hardcore pvpers choose to play what they see as the most "optimized of builds"

Or new players post "what is the best pvp build" and get Ice/EM. So wanting to build a pvp toon they build Ice/EM and the players who donot pvp hardcore may build the diverse builds and bring them to pvp but they are not dedicated to pvp so do not optimize for it.

So sets that may function just as well with a different playstyle or approach are not being used as much, which results in lower numbers. etc etc. etc.


This is another "varibale" the devs seem to overlook.

[ QUOTE ]

Everytime I hear people discuss "planning their AT and needing the numbers" I cringe.

Here's a concept. Build a toon. Play it. See if it sucks. Learn how to get around said suckage.

Wash-rinse-repeat until you have one you really like.


[/ QUOTE ]


Not a problem would you mind sparing me the extra 1000's of hours to level all these different combinations to a high enough level to see how the powers mesh. Then allow me to do it for each AT and each power combo in it.

Lets just take scrappers for a low number

6 primary 4 secondary

right off we have a total of 24 primary secondary combos. This is not even getting into powerchoices in those sets. Add that factor. and so on and so on.

[ QUOTE ]
Needing the numbers to build a good toon is like - - needing to know the specs on a cars engine to enjoy a drive on a sunday.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh like wanted to know MPG so you can budget in the gas expenses. Or knowing torque to see if it can pull your trailer load. Or wanting to know resale value or insurance and repair/maint. upkeep cost.

Silly me when I buy a auto I spend tons and time researching my future investment... when I should have simply just bought whatever looked best for my Sunday drive.

I really want to live in never-never-land where specs on cars do not matter and I can look at them as I did when I was but a boy, but every time I do this thing called reality smacks me right in the face.


The same goes for your other comments. We are paying 15 bucks or so a month for entertainment. And the way RPG's work is like an investment: you invest tons of time and energy into developing your toon. It is only logical to want to know what your investing in.

[ QUOTE ]
Couple things.

1) I was giving the AT mods, not considering build up/aim or external buffs. I did not specify a given power set. I think everyone who PvP's is aware of how dominant Energy Melee/Energy Manipulation can be.


.

I take it that things like using ranged and melee attacks in attack chains were considered and then dps of non gapping chains were factored for both (so that rchg rates are done during animation, making animation a bigger factor on dps) . I also take it that things like tripmine, auto turret, voltaic sentinal, blazing aura, hotfeet were also in the comparision.

.

2) "Damage as a secondary effect" If I don't Stun a person on my TF hit, they can typically escape. I could just be bad at energy melee, though (most of CoX PvP experience is Super Strength, Dark Melee, Claws, or Mind Control.)

.

I take this combo was done: energy punch - bone smasher - total focus... to assure maximum toggle drops (if needed) and disorient chance.

.

3) Datamining -- I looked at Blaster/Scrapper a few minutes ago. In terms of raw kills, Blasters are the better PvP killers, but only if they have Energy Manipulation. Without EM, they are roughly 60% of scrappers numbers. In terms of kills to death ratio, Blasters are slightly behind scrappers with EM, but competing with Defenders and Dominators for lowest value Note, that these are solo values! Things are very different in team play.
.

I also take it that "regen" scrapper kills were taken out of the mix, if "regen" scrappers have higher kill rate then the other sets. I also take it this considers that stalkers likely have the most kills. And that most stalkers avoid attacking scrappers and tanks and focus on blasters and defenders. I.E. stalkers as a whole will likely attack 10 or so blasters for every 1 scrapper they fight. This to avoid factors like players fighting squishies so that they can get to 400 faster rather then if they can kill a non-shuishy but it may take longer. Or other things like trying to take out "threats" quickly to for your team. (like a healer mezze or toggle dropper being the target to kill, then after its out of the picture tying to take out others.) How often one dies can be a compliment in many ways also.

.




[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely. I actually think partial or incomplete explanations are just as problematic as the "blue moon" visits.

I not hard to see the confusion in the community regarding things just by reading posts and debates about things. It would be nice to see a complete and official response regarding such issues.

And things like:

Working as intended.
Overall this change should have little impact

And things along those lines do not address the confusion in any which way. I would even venture to say they spark more confusion then before the post in many instances.

Personally I would see the community as a bonus to fixing issues. By simply sharing information and keeping them informed I think the development team would be surprised at some of the effert people put into things, and that they discover things that have gone unoticed. Unless ofcourse the staffs goal is secrecy as to exact mechanics for fear that of what may be discovered. To which is an idea I frown upon.

I donot think errors in the math makes you "incompetent". I would state this is more a reflection of poor proof reading.

I am sure states can do math just fine. However with the complexity of the math for this game, I think a more detailed post would be easier to proof read. Either by himself, an editor, us, or all 3.

Which is all I would like to see. Because its clear even after an edit that things can be overlooked and left out. And when these things are posted as truth, yet later need to be edited it makes any confidence in simply trusting a post that states final values or gives partial math for the value a little shakey.

It would have been easier if in his math example, he did the math for a +2 lt in each before and after example rather then an even con minion for the before. That way we can see all the changes from before and after.

I agree that we should relax.

However, since states is a historian and not a mathmatition it would be nice if when he did post on the math that he posted the entire math so that who ever edits or overlooks his statements (which I would think someone does) catches these over sights.

It would also be nice to have it all posted too so we all can get a better understanding of what is going on. After all if one is confident in the changes, one should have no fear in allowing them to be viewed.

Maybe its just the way I grew up but if when I told my father about whatever ordeal was going on and simply left out the parts that reflected bad on me, it would be viewed as me lieing even though everything I stated may have been truth. Like the first post stating this change was due to HO's or the math that did not factor things, or if it did factor them right, then the posts past saying the things not factored were part of the game.

/agreed.

I know I would not like to go see a doctor for some surgery. To which:

"To the doctors surgery is a job. Our own interest in it varies from increased interest to obsession when we are to go under the knife. It's only natural that from time to time the doctors will not understand things that seem obvious to the concerned patient."

Granted this is a HUGE! jump in importance but the notion still remains. Take something as basic as insurance. Would you be upset if your agents non understanding of how your policy worked resulted in your insurance claim being void when it should be granted?

If we are paying 15 dollars a month to play a game, having the people that design and balance it understand all the angles should be expected not optional. Granted not everyone needs to understand everything, but between the team it should be understood as a whole, and a post about such should come from someone who recieves such info and factors this into his/her knowledge base.

Accurcy buff was the wrong phrase... what it should have said was accuracy modifer for level. I edited it to make it more clear.

LOL was looking at States post and just noted this little tid bit added in the "before"

Even Con
Minion .5 (Base to Hit) -0.5187 (Radiation Infection To Hit Debuff) = -0.0187 or 5% chance to hit (minimum before Accuracy modifications)
Lieutenant 5.66%
Boss 13.13%

This would explain my confusion actually.

The two examples compare old but not factoring in acc modifier for level and maybe rank, to new factoring in everything.

Silly me I was expecting a "even or fair" comparision. Where we comapare the final with everything factored before to the final with everything factored after.


So actually if the "old" factored everything (and it was double hit) I would assume the +1 would actaully be this:

+1 Level
Minion (.5 * 1.1 &lt;lvl modifier&gt; ) - (0.5187 * .9 &lt;lvl red. effectiveness modifier&gt; ) = .08317
Lieutenant (.575 * 1.1 ) - (0.5187 * .9 * .9 &lt;rank red. effectiveness modifier&gt; ) = .212
Boss (.65 * 1.1 ) - (0.5187 * .9 * .8) = .3415


Dev post

+1 Level
Minion 8.32%
Lieutenant 15.85%
Boss 23.32%



Again the math could work out with rounding if in the past a double hit was not done for rank on effectiveess of THDB's

So either the reduced effectiveness for THDB in regards to rank was added with the Type B change for I7 or this was not factored in the original post.

Using your code:

LevelAccMod = {0:0, 1:0.10, 2:0.2, 3:0.30}
RankAccMod = {Minion:0, LT:0.15, Boss:0.3, AV:0.50}
CombatMod = {0:0, 1:0.10, 2:0.2, 3:0.35}
RankResist = {Minion:0, LT:0.10, Boss:0.2, AV:0.30}


debuff = debuff (.4375) * (1 - CombatMod[level] (.1)) * (1 - RankResist[rank] (.2) )
.................................................. ...............................

4.375 * (1 - .1) * (1 - .2) =
4.375 * (.9) * (.8) = .315 for debuff

.................................................. .............................

toHit = BaseToHit + buff - defense - debuff
.5 - .315 = .185 for tohit
.................................................. .........

def getAccuracy(rank, level): return (1 + RankAccMod[rank] (.3)) * (1 + LevelAccMod[level] (.1))

1.3 * 1.1 = 1.43 accuracy
.................................................. ...........................

toHit = getAccuracy(rank,level) * getModifiedToHit(rank,level,buff,debuff,defense)

1.43 * .185 = 26.46

Boss 26.46% match

.................................................. ...............................

I understand how you can get the second numbers to match.

However use those values for the first set. Which is my point. And leads into my questions.

Post deleted by anarchicgorilla

[ QUOTE ]
Shooting an arrow a large thug from 10' away and missing is not... NOT... what a heroic archer does.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I suppose missing someone with a axe mace sword or even a punch at point blank range is for a hero.


In the old batman ty show I remeber things like "pow" "smack" and "bang" when they threw a punch


Not "whiff" "air" and "how the hell did I miss a filing cabinet at point blank range"

I love the people saying I am wrong... makes me laugh.

I will retire there is no point into explaining statistics to a bunch people who donot have the educational foundation to grasp the concepts.


I just thank god you all do not work in the socialogy/psychology/medical or other fields that make use of statistics and especially when dealing with negative numbers.


Real world examples are "side-effects" in which this math is used. Examples loss of fuction or motor skills when using a medication.

The goal is 0 "side-effects"




Treatment A has a patent at -5% function (loses 5%)
Treatment B has a patent at -3.75% function.


But for you, you would say treatment B is 75% less effective then treatment A. This makes A more effective for you.

So you would bascally be telling people that having a 5% loss of fuction is better then having a 3.75% loss of fuction.



The fact is - 6.25% is 75% less effective then -5% when the goal is reaching 0 or no disfunction (no defense debuff)



And to note:

I did not throw topic off base. I answered the questions to explain why both sets have -5% and that this even helps brutes more then hurts because a 25% reduction in effenciancy (75% as effective) in defense would be -6.25% from a base of -5%.

It is infact the people who have replied that this is not right that have thrown off the argument. By using flawed math to skew a point.

As to the "to hell comback"


For the devs they only balance 1 thing. This means tank.


If tank is balanced they then use the %... 75% in this case for a brute.


It is very likely the devs may have aggreed that -6.25% (which IS 75% less effective the -5%) was to much.

This may be why they left it the same...

However if they decrease the penelity for unyeilding then it would infact be overpowerd for the Inv. set for brutes.

To be honest keeping it the same makes it a little more powerfull in comparision now... because every aspect of every other move in the comparing sets gets a -25% decrease in effectivness.

Unyeildiings - debuff got away with one. because it does not decrease its effectiveness.


The idea you are missing is this

You are decreasing the effectivness of the defense.

Not decreasing the maginitude of the % (again only time this would matter is for the case at hand)

[ QUOTE ]
If Brutes resist 25% less than what a tanker resists, then the debuff from Unyielding needs to be 25% less than the Tanker version. Yes, that does make Unyielding's penalty for Brutes lower, but their resistances are lower as well. The idea is to make Unyielding's defense debuff proportional between archetypes.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok the idea is that a brutes defense is 25% less effective.

Pehaps the wording thows this off for some so lets use this


A brutes defense is 25% worse then that of a tank.

what is a worse defense -5% or -3.25%?

For a brutes defense for unyeilding to be 25% worse (less effective) It would need to be -6.25%

Be happy it is not. The reason being that it would be a pain to write that much code into a system for 1 simple toggle.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You donot get it. Honestly have you even taken a statistics course?

You are throwing these equations that are basic misunderstandings from students entering statistics and saying they are right when you are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I may go to Hell simply for acknowledging your existence, but:

You're coming at this discussion without a strong understanding of how primary powersets are intended to work in comparison to secondary sets. Specifically, how brute/scrapper sets have 75% of the base effectiveness of tanker sets. If it worked as you say it should, invuln would be at a noticeable disadvantage for brutes and scrappers.

[/ QUOTE ]


Every defensive set for brute/scrapper is at a disatvantage compared to a tank.

Example temp inv.

30% resist tank 22.5 % brute = brute at disandvantage


Every other set works this way too.

Now tell me why would the devs would make it so that unyeilding gives an advantage to brutes when every other move and sets gives them a disadvantage???


This is why it is the same. They did not want to give brutes a better defense for this move compared to a tank. That would be unbalanced.

But instead of doing the math I said... (likely do to excessive code to do so) They simply left them the same for - defense, and gave tanks the advange from the other parts of the toggle.



The balance for the -% defence in Inv. is due to Inv. being better resist the all the sets for smash and lethal.


Honestly run hero stats and look

70% of dmg in PvE comes from smash and lethal.

[ QUOTE ]
But the question is not "Which of these two numbers (i.e. 6.25 vs. 3.75) is more effective, or makes the PLAYER less effective?" The question is "Which of these two numbers causes the POWER to have LESS EFFECT on the PLAYER?".

The answer isn't the one you're pushing.

Kam

[/ QUOTE ]

I added this as you wrote
The devs had the equation x .75

But when they did this move and got the math they realized [censored] now a brute acually has better defense then a tank in this area...

So either they could not figure out the math, or they simply did not want to add more code for 1 toggle and thus gave brutes a break and gave them the same penelity)

[ QUOTE ]
Gorilla, your main mathematical problem is this:

For any number, reducing it to 75% of itself is indeed the same as subtracting 25% from it. However, you're neglecting the fact that a percentage of a negative number is ALSO a negative number. In other words:

30 * .75 = 30 - (.25 * 30) = 30 - 7.5 = 22.5.

-5 * .75 = -5 - (.25 * -5) = -5 - (-1.25) = -5 PLUS 1.25 = -3.75.

As to the "effectiveness" argument - I don't dispute that a 6.25 percent debuff makes the PLAYER less effective than a five percent debuff would. However, it makes the effect of the POWER *more* effective - that power has more of an effect on the player. And that's exactly opposite to all the other power reductions - every single one has the Tanker version with a stronger effect on the player than the Scrapper/Brute version.

Kam

[/ QUOTE ]


You donot get it. Honestly have you even taken a statistics course?

You are throwing these equations that are basic misunderstandings from students entering statistics and saying they are right when you are wrong.


"-5 * .75 = -5 - (.25 * -5) = -5 - (-1.25) = -5 PLUS 1.25 = -3.75."


This whole equation is the same as finding 75% of -5

This is completly different then finding what is 75% less effective then -5.


A brutes defense is 75% less effective then a tanks not 75% of a tanks.

Now for positive numbers this does not matter... because 75% and 75% less effective are the same. My guess is this is why the devs say 75% only... becuase its easier and applies for everything but this point. (also it is easier for the math write up. If anything this alone is why they are both at 5%. The devs likely did it x .75 and then realized [censored] now a brute acually has better defense then a tank in this area... so either they could not figure out the math, or they simply did not want to add more code for 1 toggle and thus gave brutes a break and gave them the same penelity)


But for negtives 75% of a negative number and 75% less effective then a negative number (when effectivness is 0 or +) are completly different statements.


Go back to anything I said.

If drug A reduces atrophy to - 5% and B reduces swelling to - 6.25% which is more effective?

A is and B is 75% less effective.



All the posts that say 75% of tanker.. is just short for 75% less effective which is what it is.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can you complain that Brutes have to wait 8 more levels to get an inferior version of Unyielding when they're getting powers like Knockout Blow at level 8 compared to a Tanker at level 20?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's a double penalty. No one is complaining about Scrapper/Brute Unyielding having lower resists. What people are complaining about is the fact that the debuff isn't in proportion to the reduced resists. I can't speak for everyone, but I would ask why the debuff isn't 3.75% since the resists are 75% of the Tanker numbers.

And if this is balanced, how is it balanced? Is it balanced because we can still do missions on Heroic? Or is there some formula that tells you this is balanced? If so, please tell us. The forum population here will understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok basic math so you can understand


brute is 75% as effective as a Tanker.


if a number is a negative like -5% 75% as effective is 6.5% not 3.5%

3.5% would infact be 125% as effective... BECAUSE THIS IS A NEGATIVE NUMBER... THE CLOSER TO ZERO THE BETTER IT GETTS, MEANING THE MORE EFFECTIVE.

EXAMPLE:

30% defence - 25% = 22.5% which is 75% as effective.


-5% defense - - (minus a negative is a +) 25% = 6.25 which is 75% as effective (you minus a negative because the original number is a negative)


when you take away from a negative you go more negative.



For a postive you can go 30 x .75 to get 75% as effective
For a negative you must go - 5 - - (+) 25 % to get 75% as effective as -5.


Actaully I hope the devs fix this "gift" to us and make INV. -6.25% as effective, just so you whiners get a taste of what you are whining about.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you weren't trying so hard to be smart, you might have realized a couple of things to wit:

.75 X -5 = -3.75

You outthought yourself. Let's talk about the basic math that you forgot. Tanker resist powers are multiplied by .75 to arrive at the Scrapper/Brute numbers. No one (other than you) said anything about them being 75% as effective. What we are arguing for is to assign the multiplier to all aspect of the power not just the positive aspects.

Can you get your brain around that.

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL this is too funny.

of course .75 x - 5 = - 3.25

Thats not how you do the math.

like I said - 5 - - (+) 25 % = -6.25


here it is neg. 5 minus a negative (two negatives equal a positive in math) 25 % = -5 + 25% = - 6.25.


If defense is 75% as effective, you may also say it is 25% less effective.

Example 30% - 25% = 22.5
(this is 30 x.75)

For a negative you cannot do the muliplication... becuase it is increasing the value. In the positive it is decreasing the value.

See mult. by a .XX for percetage always brings the value closer to 0. In a positive case closer to 0 decreases value, In a negative case closer to 0 increases the value.

You need to decrease the value of a brutes defence, because it is less effective then a tanks. So you do like I said

- 5 - - (+) 25% = - 6.25


This makes it so your brute is always 75% as effective... or 25% less effective then a tank.

Even when dealing with negative numbers.

[ QUOTE ]
Heh. I usually stay out of stuff like this, but when someone is SO blatantly wrong, and THEN starts throwing stuff around like "Here, let me dumb this down for you so you can understand" (i.e. "basic math" type of crap) I tend to jump in.

Not that it's going to get through to the poster, you understand - just to counteract misinformation for other folks. There's enough of that as it is without adding to it.

Kam

[/ QUOTE ]


Because you are the one being blantant and completely wrong and i will try to help


Example straight from statistics.


I am having atrophy (reduction of size in muscle due to non use) Say a car crash.


Treatment 1 slows my atropy to - 5 % (muscle 5% smaller)
Treatment 2 slows my atropy to - 6.25 % (muscle 6.25% smaller)


So in effect you would state that treatment 1 is more effective then treatment 2. To be exact you would state that treatment 2 is 75% as effective as treatment 1 in preventing atrophy.



Tanks are more effective at taking dmg both via resist and defense.


If a brute is 75% as effecitive as a tank. and a tanks base is -5% a brute would be -6.25% see above example.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can you complain that Brutes have to wait 8 more levels to get an inferior version of Unyielding when they're getting powers like Knockout Blow at level 8 compared to a Tanker at level 20?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's a double penalty. No one is complaining about Scrapper/Brute Unyielding having lower resists. What people are complaining about is the fact that the debuff isn't in proportion to the reduced resists. I can't speak for everyone, but I would ask why the debuff isn't 3.75% since the resists are 75% of the Tanker numbers.

And if this is balanced, how is it balanced? Is it balanced because we can still do missions on Heroic? Or is there some formula that tells you this is balanced? If so, please tell us. The forum population here will understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok basic math so you can understand


brute is 75% as effective as a Tanker.


if a number is a negative like -5% 75% as effective is 6.5% no 3.5%

3.5% would infact be 125% as effective... BECAUSE THIS IS A NEGATIVE NUMBER... THE CLOSER TO ZERO THE BETTER IT GETTS, MEANING THE MORE EFFECTIVE.

EXAMPLE:

30% defence - 25% = 22.5% which is 75% as effective.


-5% defense - - (+) 25% = 6.25 which is 75% as effective


when you take away from a negative you go more negative.



For a postive you can go 30 x .75 to get 75% as effective
For a negative you must go - 5 - 25 % to get 75% as effective as -5.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, you need to go retake basic math.

The buff is 75% as effective (i.e. less effective - brute base strength is 75% of tank base strength), therefore the DEbuff should be 75% as effective (again, LESS effective - having LESS of an effect). This means reducing the base TOWARDS zero, not "subtracting" it further away.

Kam

[/ QUOTE ]


The joy of kids.

Here you go tommy.

Which comapany is more effecitve at making money?


one that is -5% in dept or -3.5% in dept?

Neither is effective , but -3.5% is clearly more effective then -5%


I know this requires a little critical thought... but the same goes for defense

the closer to 0 the more effective a defence is when the number is negative.

The farther from 0 the more effective a defense is when the number is positive.


Now re-read my post. A tanker is more effective then a brute defensivly. a brute is 75% as good as a tanker


-6.25 is 75% as effective as -5% when the goal is a higher postive number.


Your right though maybe not basic math.... think it more closer to statistics which is college lvl so I am sorry for my reply, I forget that 15year olds play too at times.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can you complain that Brutes have to wait 8 more levels to get an inferior version of Unyielding when they're getting powers like Knockout Blow at level 8 compared to a Tanker at level 20?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's a double penalty. No one is complaining about Scrapper/Brute Unyielding having lower resists. What people are complaining about is the fact that the debuff isn't in proportion to the reduced resists. I can't speak for everyone, but I would ask why the debuff isn't 3.75% since the resists are 75% of the Tanker numbers.

And if this is balanced, how is it balanced? Is it balanced because we can still do missions on Heroic? Or is there some formula that tells you this is balanced? If so, please tell us. The forum population here will understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok basic math so you can understand


brute is 75% as effective as a Tanker.


if a number is a negative like -5% 75% as effective is 6.5% not 3.5%

3.5% would infact be 125% as effective... BECAUSE THIS IS A NEGATIVE NUMBER... THE CLOSER TO ZERO THE BETTER IT GETTS, MEANING THE MORE EFFECTIVE.

EXAMPLE:

30% defence - 25% = 22.5% which is 75% as effective.


-5% defense - - (minus a negative is a +) 25% = 6.25 which is 75% as effective (you minus a negative because the original number is a negative)


when you take away from a negative you go more negative.



For a postive you can go 30 x .75 to get 75% as effective
For a negative you must go - 5 - - (+) 25 % to get 75% as effective as -5.


Actaully I hope the devs fix this "gift" to us and make INV. -6.25% as effective, just so you whiners get a taste of what you are whining about.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How it is balanced

Tanks defense

Brutes scrappers offense.

Tanker vs Brute

Brute has fury... this makes a big difference in dmg out put.

Thus a brute can kill an opponet faster then a tank, so in a very real way they have a defense through offense ... a dead mob cannot do dmg.

In a mob of 10 my brute will kill 3 mobs when tank kills 2.

I will kill 8 mobs due to fury by the time a tank can kill 5.

This means a tank is taking a reduced dmg from 3 mobs where I am taking 0 dmg thus 100% resist becuase mobs are dead.

Apply this to stalkers too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't *that* particular balancing equation (defense vs damage) already done by the fact that Brutes and Scrappers get 75% of Tankers Def &amp; Res?

Are you saying that the devs are *intentionally* trying to further reduce S/B defenses by giving them a proportionally higher def debuff in UY? A "you guys are so good we're going to kick you again!" prize?

LOL. I guess it's *possible*, though the reasoning strikes me as a bit...convoluted. Wouldn't a simpler solution be to just up Tanker damage or reduce the % of res and def that scraps and brutes get to say, 70%?

[/ QUOTE ]


No because the point is not to make everyone the same... but balanced in different.

A tank should not = a brute should not = a scrapper


A tank has best defense worst dmg
Brute avg defense avg dmg
scrapper wost defense (with hp) highest dmg


See this is balanced, and created diversity.


Look at balance like a 4 and 8 balance to a 6

not that it has to be two 6's to = 6



Also if we get 75% of there defense


this would mean we would get 75% of their defense and resist.

Just think of it as our defense is 75% as effective.

If it were balanced to the point

-5% for tanks

and - 6.25 % for scrappers and brutes.


Becuase -6.5 is 75% as effective as - 5 on a negative scale.

[ QUOTE ]


Bottom line, if the devs are going to adhere to the balancing argument, I'd like to know what extraordinary benefit of the Invul powerset it is 'balancing', and why it is applied equally to all three ATs when very few of the Invul powers have equal values for all three ATs.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok here goes inv. offers way more smashing lethal dmg then any other set.


Run hero stats some time I would say it it atleast a 70% smash/lethal to 30% elemental from pve on aveage.

So you are resisting the dmg that you are getting hit with more often better then other defenses.


Next INV. has a auto defense for each attack (except psi) so when toggles get droped inv. has advantage over other sets.

Next inv. is immune to knock back with unyeilding... other sets only have resists.


I could go on ....