Arcanaville

Arcanaville
  • Posts

    10683
  • Joined

  1. Arcanaville

    The Defence Myth

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Werner View Post
    For "Regen", you add either Siphon Life or Aid Self. For resistance, you stack Tough with the scaling resistances. Not much, you say?

    I think people underestimate just how much mitigation the scaling damage resistance can provide. I was doing survivability tests at different levels of defense on my DM/SR about a week ago, and I could hang out with frequent blinking red with an average of maybe 40% resistance for ten minutes or more and the spawn might never put me down. They weren't smashing/lethal, but if they were, add Tough on top of that. You may not see that much resistance very often, but you may also find your Super Reflexes ridiculously hard to kill in normal spawns even if you THINK you're about to go down. For that matter, it sometimes works out that way in really nasty spawns. That's pretty much what happened when I took on Manticore Automaton as an AV and near the aggro cap of Nemesis.

    OK, yes, a soft-capped Dark Melee/Invuln and a number of other combinations can be even better. But Super Reflexes is no slouch. (Edit: Plus easy 95% defense debuff resistance. Tasty.)
    Soft-capped SR is certainly not weak, but I think people forget that cascade failure was just *one* of the SR weaknesses that were on my list of problematic situations. DDR virtually eliminates that one, but the others are still around, and while they aren't nearly as bad, they do significantly soften the strength of a soft-cap focused build. Autohitting damage and debuffs in particular are a double nasty because they can run right through soft capped defenses and make aid self problematic to use. And it seems the devs have started ratcheting up the tohit buffs in the last couple years, which is probably a reaction to so much defense buffs existing in the invention system.

    The scaling resistances are sometimes extraordinary in their strength, particularly when facing lots of minions with fast low damage attacks. You can find yourself hovering at practically one percent health. But once strong LTs and Bosses get thrown in, they become substantially weaker in overall protection. My average guestimate for their survival strength when you have all three is about 25% resistance. That's not the point where you "hover" but rather the amount of static resistance that is likely to save your life statistically the same amount of time overall and generate comparable amounts of downtime mitigation. Its a rough guess supported by some complex math and a lot of testing.

    As to taking on large numbers of Nemesis: the problem with that is Vengeance. If there's no LTs, you're golden. If its wall to wall LTs in the mix, your toast unless you start doing some serious running around and spawn splitting. I just reran Gaussian's protect Lady Grey mission on my test MA/SR build at x8. Very very nasty.
  2. Its actually similar to the build I'm playing around with now:


    Quote:
    Hero Plan by Mids' Hero Designer 1.90
    http://www.cohplanner.com/

    Violet Rumble: Level 50 Natural Scrapper
    Primary Power Set: Martial Arts
    Secondary Power Set: Super Reflexes
    Power Pool: Leaping
    Power Pool: Fighting
    Power Pool: Medicine
    Ancillary Pool: Body Mastery

    Hero Profile:
    ------------
    Level 1: Storm Kick Hectmb-Dmg(A), Hectmb-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(3), Hectmb-Dmg/EndRdx(3), Hectmb-Acc/Rchg(5), Hectmb-Dam%(5)
    Level 1: Focused Fighting SW-Def/EndRdx(A), SW-Def(7), SW-Def/Rchg(17), SW-Def/EndRdx/Rchg(23), SW-ResDam/Re TP(25)
    Level 2: Cobra Strike C'ngImp-Acc/Dmg(A), C'ngImp-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(7), C'ngImp-Dmg/Rchg(9), C'ngImp-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(9), C'ngImp-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(11)
    Level 4: Focused Senses SW-Def/EndRdx(A), SW-Def/Rchg(11), SW-Def/EndRdx/Rchg(25), SW-Def(27)
    Level 6: Focus Chi GSFC-ToHit(A), GSFC-ToHit/Rchg(13), GSFC-ToHit/Rchg/EndRdx(13), GSFC-Rchg/EndRdx(15), GSFC-ToHit/EndRdx(15), GSFC-Build%(17)
    Level 8: Agile S'dpty-Def(A), S'dpty-Def/Rchg(37), S'dpty-Def/EndRdx(39)
    Level 10: Practiced Brawler RechRdx-I(A)
    Level 12: Combat Jumping GftotA-Def(A), LkGmblr-Rchg+(31)
    Level 14: Boxing HO:Nucle(A)
    Level 16: Dodge GftotA-Def(A), GftotA-Def/EndRdx(39), LkGmblr-Rchg+(39)
    Level 18: Crippling Axe Kick Mako-Acc/Dmg(A), Mako-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(19), Mako-Dmg/Rchg(19), Mako-Dam%(21), P'ngS'Fest-Acc/Dmg(21), P'ngS'Fest-Dmg/EndRdx(23)
    Level 20: Tough S'fstPrt-ResDam/EndRdx(A), GA-ResDam(43), S'fstPrt-ResDam/Def+(43), GA-3defTpProc(43)
    Level 22: Quickness Run-I(A)
    Level 24: Weave GftotA-Def/EndRdx(A), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx(27), GftotA-EndRdx/Rchg(29), LkGmblr-Rchg+(29)
    Level 26: Dragon's Tail Armgdn-Acc/Rchg(A), Armgdn-Dmg(31), Armgdn-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(31), Armgdn-Dmg/EndRdx(34), Armgdn-Dam%(37)
    Level 28: Lucky LkGmblr-Def(A), LkGmblr-Rchg+(37), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx(40)
    Level 30: Super Jump Jump-I(A)
    Level 32: Eagles Claw C'ngImp-Acc/Dmg(A), C'ngImp-Dmg/Rchg(33), C'ngImp-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(33), C'ngImp-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(33), C'ngImp-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(34)
    Level 35: Evasion LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx(A), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx/Rchg(36), LkGmblr-Def(36), LkGmblr-Rchg+(36)
    Level 38: Aid Other Numna-Heal(A), Numna-Heal/Rchg(40)
    Level 41: Aid Self Numna-Heal(A), IntRdx-I(45), Numna-Heal/EndRdx/Rchg(45), Numna-Heal/Rchg(45)
    Level 44: Conserve Power RechRdx-I(A)
    Level 47: Laser Beam Eyes Apoc-Acc/Rchg(A), Apoc-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(48), Apoc-Dmg/EndRdx(48), Apoc-Dmg(48)
    Level 49: Physical Perfection Numna-Heal(A), Numna-Heal/Rchg(50), Numna-Heal/EndRdx(50), P'Shift-End%(50)
    ------------
    Level 1: Brawl HO:Nucle(A)
    Level 1: Sprint Run-I(A)
    Level 2: Rest RechRdx-I(A)
    Level 1: Critical Hit
    Level 4: Ninja Run
    Level 2: Swift Run-I(A)
    Level 2: Hurdle Jump-I(A)
    Level 2: Health Mrcl-Heal(A), Numna-Heal/Rchg(42), Numna-Heal(42), RgnTis-Regen+(46), Mrcl-Rcvry+(46), Numna-Regen/Rcvry+(46)
    Level 2: Stamina P'Shift-EndMod/Acc(A), P'Shift-End%(34), P'Shift-EndMod/Rchg(40), P'Shift-EndMod(42)



    | Copy & Paste this data into Mids' Hero Designer to view the build |
    |-------------------------------------------------------------------|
    |MxDz;1605;777;1554;HEX;|
    |78DAA5936D53524114C7F7722F214F0221A2A282CF3CC8557 A9831B59ACA2C4D0C4|
    |17D55D11556A56EC000CEE8BB3E40AF6A469B29DF95D54768 FA4C3D7C8268CF390B|
    |3AC3CB98E1FCF69CFDEFD97377CFA60F975C8CBDBECD94EE7 BA651AFE773859A51A|
    |DF29A6DDD681CD40CD3BD5DAA98BC11C91EBCDA31B98D3116 6A49F2696E72AEA78D|
    |5AA36498F93BB5463DDC9E5BE2BBBC5CE77AEE00BC2CDF35F 921AFFB56CAFBBCC6C|
    |B0DBD3570652A15535FE346B554DE73A3B35CDADB6FB4BD34 2F960AA53277A097AB|
    |725EF4DDAF960AFADD4AF1289F36EA0D5E3BEA13755D17FF6 328107F4D8D4D5A184|
    |B314B941047683142029106B922E5CB2A842EAD22BC0F10BD 2B88BE4788139B540B|
    |B9F29CA1BC88E8DA2114100E8E58177295B2AB2A657750DA3 E4A3B407BBD173A2BA|
    |5B55A3F6161AECF843344F717C25784F71BE2B15865A3EC16 9B450CA6D878930126|
    |FF22324260A7B4CC9EC08A7A45C8496B146717AE190E2830A 38819B714BB1705349|
    |56D889847EEE021F5A446A0451F84C0270BF7EDE20E975F10 F6113D2F090F0586C4|
    |612254B1CA2F8FC5DFAB40283E8307110F927705BDACD0054 8C702494CA48950502|
    |E0D5229035E2C65F0127A8354D847A1EB9717D5BF80C7353C 4798478C2C22C66F22|
    |72421E921F1AEAC10CE394688AB2076D5017953214C5524E4 5282CB708532F44A80|
    |922D40411EA8C11EA854D211F95958F52D2313F81361CA30D 87846E82D22A135B54|
    |430E111633519A51A334331DC2DCD39BE4912E270E2F216B4 DD0B56F89902E97EA3|
    |3F8C9333A6196308D38131D302B8B9CA52D529434B5413841 DDA0D67E658CC96659|
    |BB18A3DBCA68EDE7C214AA24ACB51FDC7FFDBEBB5A79EC598 7B09B6032C228DB307|
    |A02E629B8CF6064C068074C01DCE60F57AB56CF1C147403CC 3C98053001AF306F40|
    |69730AE304E302E306D30DC603C60BC60F6600CC2998A65D2 C56E9A39B3F614BD9C|
    |10A9DC9AF8B21EAA4DFE721ABB2826D1CA3538FD11D246FE1 B348AEE25C721B837F|
    |CE57A9CA313535DDCED43B44EC2D62F6E2BDC0D1B1784724D 511B9D611B9DA1139B|
    |F8D7FEF721AF4|
    |-------------------------------------------------------------------|
    A couple of comments:

    1. Physical Perfection is 12.5% recovery. Slotting a common IO in there boosts that by 42.4%, which means recovery increases to 17.8%, an increase of 5.3%. Natural recovery is 100% in 60 seconds, or 1.67%/sec. A 5.3% increase in natural recovery would be 0.083%/sec increase from slotting that enhancement. The proc grants a 20% chance for 10% of your end bar. In a passive, that would tick once every ten seconds, which means on average you'd get one 10% tick of end every 50 seconds. That's 0.2%/sec of endurance on average. If you only have one slot, the proc is better (its even better in stamina, actually: 0.2%/sec vs 0.18%/sec). Also: the proc can't be debuffed.

    2. I wonder if your slotting of aid self isn't overkill. Two-slotting interrupt does reduce the interrupt window to about half a second, which might actually be fast enough to sneak inside of some slower DoTs, but its burning a slot that could be useful elsewhere. Ditto slotting it with recharge: because the cast time of Aid Self is so long, you're not getting full value out of slotting recharge. Without that slot the recharge of the power is about 8.73s, with that slot its about 7.47 seconds. That's an improvement, but remember recharge slotting doesn't affect cast time, which remains constant at 4.33 seconds. Meaning the total cycle time of Aid Self drops from 13.06 seconds to 11.8 seconds. You'll be able to use it 11% more often for that slot. That's significant, but perhaps not enough to justify the cost of the slot, especially when factoring in the costs of using aid self (in cast time idle, in endurance, etc).

    3. The Gladiator's Res/End in tough. Its adding knockback protection as a set bonus, which you don't need. Any other Res/End enhancement would be infinitely cheaper, and not hurt the build much (unless you actually want the PvP bonus from that set).

    4. Besides the proc, my Laser Beam Eyes slots the Acc/Rech rather than the Dmg/Rech from Apocalypse. The net result is -4.97% less damage enhancement after ED, but 33% more accuracy enhancement. I think the accuracy is more important myself: having only 26.5% accuracy means you will be under the tohit ceiling much more often. Its not critical, but if I'm using LBE, its almost certainly in a situation where I really need it to hit.

    5. If you're going to make a build using Shield Walls in the first place anyway, then, err, your FF and FS slotting is a little weird. I'm not sure what the point is. But I think a separate problem might be the lack of combat jumping. CJ is a very cheap way to buy a couple of points of defense and the toggle takes almost no end to run. By not having it, you're forced into Mako for Cobra to compensate I think. But I'm still not certain what's going on with overslotting FF and then underslotting lucky and evasion, say. If you aren't really going to use Eagle's Claw anyway, try squeezing CJ in there and see if the extra defense allows you to reshuffle a bit, and reclaim slots.

    When we're talking about soft-capping SRs, its a mistake to underslot toggles. We're talking about a percentage point here and there: my Evasion is slotted to 57.52% after ED, which is 21.86% defense. Yours is slotted to 54.16% after ED, which is 21.39% defense. That's almost half a percentage point being given up, and they add up. If nothing else, its a cushion against debuffing. 0.5% defense with SR's resistances to debuffs means an additional -10% debuff you can take.


    Anyway, that's all I have for now, I have to go back to working on my own build . And while you're looking at mine, don't mind the GotA in CJ: I don't know what I was thinking when I did that, but its probably a legacy from when I was shuffling slots around.

    One more thing: my build has better net recovery (I burn less end) and I still can theoretically run out of endurance. With inspiration usage and conserve power, it doesn't happen often, but during testing I was able to burn net overall endurance, and tap out eventually. I don't think the endurance is unlimited in your build, because its not in mine.
  3. Arcanaville

    The Defence Myth

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Werner View Post
    This. The soft cap is great, but on its own, you're still going down against anything difficult. Also, some builds can do very well without it, like Scrapper Regen. And yeah, for regular play, I consider one purple from soft cap to be very, very good.

    On the other hand, I think there may simply be a myth of this defense myth. I can't remember anyone seriously suggesting that you soft cap and then you're done. You don't hear about layering much anymore, but I think it may be because that lesson sunk in long ago. I would hope, anyway.
    Its possible people say it in-game, although people say all sorts of silly things in-game. On the forums, especially on the Scrapper forums, I haven't heard that assertion made credibly in years.

    I find my fire tanker does well almost no intrinsic defense, because purples drop often. So its not so much that I don't have defense, but rather that I don't build for defense. A high resistance high heal build can do very well by supplementing with inspirations in normal play. I find I actually have a harder time supplementing with inspirations with my SR, because its much easier to stack purples than to constantly pop greens.

    In fact, the great irony of SR is that until I7 defense used to suck, and after I9 defense became so plentiful it almost doesn't matter how much you start off with. People are range-capping blasters now.

    All I know is I've seen every version of the high defense build, from perma-elude to invention based soft-capping and everything in between. Soft-capping is great relative to the strength of conventional SO builds, and its night and day for squishies. But on its own its actually not all that fantastic without additional support when it comes to high performance melee. Softcapping an Invuln is fantastic. Softcapping a Willpower is amazing. Softcapping SR is kissing your sister.
  4. Arcanaville

    The Defence Myth

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Arbegla View Post
    I'd like to see what my layered mitigation actually adds up to, here let me grab the numbers real quick..

    Def -> 42% basically across the board (percents here and there are different, but mids won't tell me exactly how much protector bots add)

    Resistance -> 46.2%lethal/smash/energy, 10.6%fire/cold, 4.6%neg/psi/toxic

    Regen -> 804.48% with 2 triage beacons out, which is possible with my build.

    debuffs -> -120% damage (6 seeker drones), -38.604% tohit (6 seeker drones, assuming the protector bots have the same value of my players)
    The defense and resistance alone are about 91% damage mitigation (already better than soft-cap's 90% mitigation) vs smash/lethal. The debuffs are trickier because they can be affected by resistances and combat modifiers (i.e. the purple patch).

    At full strength, incoming damage would be reduced to the floor which is 10% damage, and the tohit debuffs would essentially soft-cap you. 99.4% damage mitigation, somewhere around perma-unstoppable + invincibility + dull pain circa I1. 800% regen is about what an SO slotted Regen can generate in total health recovery with slotted FH, slotted Integration, and slotted reconstruction.

    Not counting bodyguard, net incoming damage that can be mitigated by that build (before debuffs and defenses) is about 4400 dps. And I'm not sure its possible to experience 4400 dps at even con due to the aggro cap.

    Of course, this is the theoretical max. The seeker drones have to hit, and they can't hit everything, and triage beacons don't follow you around, and the debuffs would degrade attacking higher level critters or critters with resistance. Just counting defense, resistance, and regen, the sustainable damage associated with that level of damage mitigation is about 300 dps. Its close to the aggro cap of even level minions (at level 50) in melee range.
  5. Arcanaville

    The Defence Myth

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Arbegla View Post
    Personally i like my mitigation layers. First, a layer of some nice defense, in the range of 35% or higher. Then sprinkle on some decent resistance values, say 40% or higher, and throw some regen on top for good measure, say 20hp/sec. Now Mesh together with Body guard mode, toss some -dmg, -tohit debuffs around, and simmer for awhile.

    You'll never die. Unless things cascade.. then you die, horribly. AoEs are a beast. As is -rech..
    Well, layering as a principle is not a bad idea, but often people are comparing a layered defensive combination that is extremely strong against a single layer one that is actually weaker, which isn't a straight up even comparison.

    For example, 35% defense and 40% resistance and 20hp/sec regen (which would be somewhere north of +300% regen on a mastermind) is numerically stronger than softcap plus slotted health.

    Technically speaking, all defenses are at least a little layered. Even pure soft-capped defense has base regeneration underneath. Its just that base regen and soft-cap even on a scrapper is not all that spectacular. Slotted Health makes a big difference, regen bonuses make an even bigger difference, and aid self makes a huge difference inside of soft-capping.

    What situation you're going to be in matters as well. Tankers cannot rely solely on defense, because an unlucky damage spike will simply kill them. They need resistance an/or +health to provide that buffer against bursts. I'd probably take 40% defense and perma-dull pain over 45% defense and just the heal of Dull Pain with no +health, even though numerically the 45% defense is stronger. I'd supplement with inspirations if necessary.

    Its the qualitative differences between the mitigation types that start to become important once you start talking about really big numbers. Defense doesn't just deflect damage, it also allows you to avoid secondary effects like debuffs. Resistance slows damage down rather than showing spikes which can provide more time to react to a bad situation. Regeneration typically provides better downtime recovery after a bad situation, assuming you survive. Once you have enough numerical strength to deal with what you want to deal with, these secondary issues start to become more important.

    Here's the tricky question: what's better: 40% defense, or 30% defense and 50% resistance? Same numerical damage mitigation, but either all defense or split up and layered. On the one hand, the latter is much stronger against alpha volleys and damage spikes. On the other hand, the former will be avoiding twice as many secondary effects as the latter. This is not an easy decision to make, and I think a case can be made both ways.


    Here's my defensive story of the week. I've been working on a new repec for my MA/SR. Its taking some ideas of my own and a twist or two from some suggested builds I received a couple of months ago in another thread. Its not completed yet (most of the purples and all the PvP recipes not acquired yet) but its finally slotted enough to be playable (I started completely from scratch: I wanted to be able to compare this new build to the older build, so I did not deslot anything from the old build which made this take a little longer). Its just short of soft-cap, but I can test soft-cap with inspirations. I quickly ramped up to 0x8 and the build works quite well so far (even better with the first Incarnate power slotted).

    The third mission I tested with just happened to have KoA in it. Very humbling. I don't think I have to describe what +0x8 KoA does to SR scrappers whose primary protection is defense and whose backup plan is aid self to the scrapper forum. I could finish the mission without reseting by running around like the Energizer Bunny on crack, but it reminded me why Tankers aren't getting SR anytime soon.
  6. Arcanaville

    The Defence Myth

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Obitus View Post
    Likewise, when you have no other mitigation, 50 hp/sec is better than 5% DEF under any conceivable situation where the choice is likely to matter.
    Well, if it was 5% base defense, it might matter if you were tanking more than four Hamidons. Unfortunately, you can't really get base defense anymore, and the devs took Hamidon away from me back in I14 beta.
  7. Arcanaville

    The Defence Myth

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shred_Monkey View Post
    I'm not worried about Bunny getting it. He thinks he gets it. He actually probably does, but can't figure out how to say it correctly, and ended up arguing sementics for the better part of a week.

    But what worries me is that other people who want to know how this stuff works might log into the forum, see a thread with this title, and then get all the wrong information. I'd like to think I was one of those people one day, and when I turned to the forum to discover how the game mechanics worked, I found good data. I learned a ton from this forum and others. This is why it's important we make Bunny look like the fool he is. It's for the integrity of the forum. For what it's worth, I think we did our job here.
    In situations like this, convincing the OP is gravy. It happens maybe 25% of the time. The most important thing is making sure misleading lines of thought do not go unchallenged. Individual points of view come and go: not that many people push strange agendas long enough for them to have a long-term effect. In the short term, though, they can unnecessarily complicate the task of figuring out how things work in the game for many players.

    I don't really care if the OP thinks I'm just a loon. Next year, it will be some other poster who thinks they've cracked the Da Vinci Code of game mechanics. I'm probably one of the few people who can even remember who most of them were, which is in some respects a delicious irony.


    Although, this is a rather longish thread based solely on the mistake that the OP made in not realizing that this equation:

    D * (1 - R) * (0.5 - D) <= HR

    is just a special case of:

    D * (1 - R) * (0.5 - D) <= (HT / T) + HR

    for very large T. At least, that is the short-form mathematical issue. If this was a math forum, I should have been able to reply to the OP like this:

    D * (1 - R) * (0.5 - D) <= HR is D * (1 - R) * (0.5 - D) <= (HT / T) + HR for low values of T. QED I win.


    And since I'm a strong proponent of making sure your equations mean something, this is the english translation of both. The first says this:

    Damage Admittance Rate (damage rate reduced by resistance and reduced by defense) is less than or equal to Health Recovery Rate When this is true, you tend to stay alive. When this is false, you're going to die eventually.

    The second equations says this:

    Damage Admittance must be less than Health Recovery plus total Health divided by the duration of this situation. The truth is that I derived this equation from this one:

    T * (D * (1 - R) * (0.5 - D) - HR) <= HT

    This one says damage admittance rate minus health recovery times time must be less than total health. Its obvious what this one means: the total net damage you take (damage minus regen) over time must be less than your health bar. If its not, you be dead.

    But the other equation says something also, something I think is rather clever. It says when you are taking damage, your regen rate offsets that to keep you alive, and your health bar can also contribute a stream of health during that time period equal to your total health bar divided by the time. If the incoming damage is higher than even this total health rate, you'll die at some point. That's basically what health bar is: its a reservoir of health that can be tapped to temporarily offset more damage than you can heal back immediately. And its finite. But the shorter the period you need it for, the stronger it can be during that shorter period of time.

    Its an unusual way to look at the health bar, rather than as a resource to protect that damage eats away: instead its an emergency source of regeneration with finite capacity. But these two points of view of mathematically congruent: they ultimately say the same thing.

    Your equations should always mean something. If they don't, you're either a string theorist or an economist, or you're mistaken. Or both.
  8. Arcanaville

    The Defence Myth

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly View Post
    The fact that Arcanaville thinks +50% regen = +50% survival highlights to me what the first post is about
    What I think is that, given no other regeneration buffs, +50% regeneration increases the maximum level of sustainable damage by 50%. That's virtually always what I mean when I talk about "more survivable." It won't increase the amount of time you can survive any random level of damage because obviously in the degenerate case where you are receiving damage large enough to kill you in a second or two, no amount of regeneration within the game (out to the regeneration cap) will be able to help, because there's no time in which for it to act.

    This is all spelled out in my Scrapper Comparison thread, which is something that was posted just ahead of I7, which itself is the fourth iteration of those calculations which date back to I2. Regeneration was added to those comparisons circa I3, and this basic principle of how regeneration works relative to time frame of combat has been generally accepted for virtually as long as regeneration has been discussed quantitatively on the forums.

    Again, the OP seems to be confused as to what people are saying, and therefore making things up and arguing against strawmen.


    Here's the funny part. What I said was:

    Quote:
    But I would take +5% defense over just +50% regen, because the former doubles my survivability while the latter increases it by only 50% (or less, if I start with slotted Health). The break even point, if you have slotted health, is about +180% regen.
    The interesting question is, is there *ever* a time when +50% regen would be *better* than +5% defense, starting from 40% defense, and make that assertion questionable? Not really, no. At the sustainable damage level, both are statistically even. Above that level, regeneration will be worth less. Below that level you're immortal and can't die, so neither can be said to be worth more than the other (we're talking about averages here; in the stochastic case its more complex, but you only get to reference that if you want to do Markov calculations: only three posters to my knowledge have ever tried, including me).

    So, the statement that I would take +5% defense over +50% regen is still valid, since the time-dependency of regen means +5% defense is always better. The break even point, as I mentioned, is +100% regen without initial regen bonuses, or about +180% if you happened to have slotted Health (more, if you have even more regen bonuses). Right at that mark, its a toss up for me. At the break even point for maximum sustainable damage, on the one hand the +Defense would be always greater than or equal to, so you'd think that the Defense would be better in general. On the other hand, I don't usually die when on my SR scrapper, which means in effect I'm hovering at or just below the maximum survivability mark averaged over time. As long as I have enough health to average out the bursts and the lulls, the regen is just as good and has certain downtime benefits. Its also a lot easier to "ramjet" yourself with lucks than respites.


    By the way, this bears repeating: the notion that the maximum survivable damage mark (the "immortality line") is inapplicable to the normal game is not true. On average, everyone who runs missions and doesn't die is at or below this mark on average. Moment by moment they will of course be higher or lower, but as long as you have enough health you can usually average out just fine. Soft-capped scrappers who don't consistently die, in particular, are running right at this line most of the time, bursting higher and then dropping below, so their average health recovery just balances incoming damage after mitigation.

    It is not as good a tool to judge survivability when in situations where you don't have enough health to average out, like alpha strike tanking situations. But that's why we have the time-window calculations: to supplement the long-term average calculations for those situations.
  9. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Snow Globe View Post
    I'll see your Standard Code Rant, and raise you a Bug Needing Fixing.

    Let me put it in a clear fashion:

    Is there a limit on the number of mines dropped? Yes or No?
    Is there a unlimited count on how many objects the server sends the client? Yes or No?
    Does having an unlimited amount of mines on the map cost a reasonable amount of CPU cycles? Yes or No?
    Is the developer intention to have the entire room covered with mines, to the point that players can't see them or the warnings? Yes or No?
    Is it the developer intention for players to not get the badge in question? Yes or No?
    Is it the developer intention for the mine layers to walk through things like Force Bubbles (given that they are intangible and cannot be debuffed, it is likely they are ignoring repulsion powers)? Yes or No?

    Given how I'm having to answer this list, I simply cannot see any way to even think this is "working as intended", unless the intent is to kill off the players as often as possible. Even Apex limits the sword strikes to a maximum of 3 out at a time. It doesn't seem to be unreasonable to think the same process could be applied to the Director 11 fight.

    Given that Standard Code Rants < Bug Fixes, the situation should be fixed.
    No one's suggesting otherwise. I'm just suggesting that your grasp of the requirements of the solution or how MMOs even work in general is faulty, which makes your suggestions for actually fixing the problem far less valuable than your original bug report itself. Because Zero < Non-Zero.


    Also, SCRs come in varieties. Since I suspect you'd want to collect the complete set, this one is the "implementation fails to match assumptions" one. Checking my set, the others are "code more complex than presumed," "developer time not infinite," "suggestion violates laws of physics," "tl;dr," and "in theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is," and my personal favorite "it wasn't me it was Steve and Steve's not here anymore." I've earned at least five of those from pohsyb alone.

    There's also a "shut up Arcana" one but I don't think you can earn that one.
  10. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ironik View Post
    Oh yeah: no way ANY action movie is more tongue-in-cheek than the awesome Flash Gordon.
    I don't really count Flash Gordon as an action movie per se. Its... I don't know what it is, but it couldn't be any more 80s awesome if Freddie Mercury swooped down at the end and started singing Another One Bites the Dust over Ming's ring.
  11. Arcanaville

    The Defence Myth

    AHA!

    I finally worked out what the heck the OP was thinking when they wrote this. It took a while of contemplating it and reverse engineering the thought process.

    It comes down to this: the OP makes a critical mistake right up front in terms of what people believe. The OP has heard the phrase that defense gets stronger the more you have, and then made a leap none of us has ever made before. The OP tried to figure out a relationship between defense and regeneration, and compared a given level of defense to a given level of regeneration for different starting points of defense. The OP believes, I think, that if the "myth" were true, then as you started with higher levels of defense, the incremental amount of defense would be worth increasingly larger amounts of regeneration. In other words, if 5% defense is equal to X regen starting from zero, it should be worth more regen if you start from 25% defense, say.

    But the problem is that, as most number crunchers know, both defense and resistance amplify the benefits of regeneration. So as you stack defense on top of defense, each time you do the value of that defense increases, but the value of regeneration you're comparing to also increases in value in direct proportion, so they stay equal.

    The OP thinks that the "myth" states that if you have enough defense, eventually an incremental amount more will be better than all other alternatives and that's not true. No one states that. The "myth" only states that the value of 5% defense is higher if you start at 25% than if you start at zero. To prove this we need to avoid comparing to standards that themselves shift around, and look at the actual net change in survivability.

    If the OP thinks there are people out there that are saying things like "near the soft cap, defense is worth more than any amount of regeneration" then that's false If I was at 40% defense, I would take +400% regen over +5% defense. That's an easy choice. But I would take +5% defense over just +50% regen, because the former doubles my survivability while the latter increases it by only 50% (or less, if I start with slotted Health). The break even point, if you have slotted health, is about +180% regen.

    The thing is, we're basically *never* in a position to choose between five percent more defense and +180% more regeneration starting from 40% defense**. So when someone asks "I have 40% defense, should I get 5% more or get some regen" we usually just say "go for the soft cap" because there's probably no way the alternative amount of regen they might be able to get could be comparable to what that level of defense equates to. But if someone offered me toggle instant healing instead of that last five points, I'm taking the regen. The "mythical models" actually do a great job of telling you which to go for most of the time, in that most people would tend to do what the models imply is the better choice.

    Ask any SR (defensive) min/maxer, though, and they'll tell you that right after hitting the soft cap, the next thing they go for is health recovery: +regen bonuses or aid self or both. Because at the soft cap, regen bonuses that don't mean much to low mitigation characters mean everything to high ones. When I add a +10% regen bonus to my blaster, that increases recovery by about 30 health per minute. Interesting, but for the most part that is a downtime reducer, and allows me to move from spawn to spawn faster without starting ever lower in the hole. For my soft-capped SR, its not much more: about 35 health per minute. But because I have 90% damage mitigation most of the time, that allows me to erase the equivalent of about 350 points of incoming damage per minute. Per bonus. Five of them equal 1750 damage per minute of incoming damage I can recover from. That's a minion or two that get erased by those bonuses. On average. Because critters die (assuming you're trying to kill them), unless you are in a heavily AoE dominated setting, critters tend to be around attacking you only about half the time (think: start with five critters, then as you kill them that count drops to four, then three, then two...). Erasing two minions on average is actually like making three or four of them disappear in average combat. Just from those bonuses. Slotted health can make another five or six go away. The combination can make a whole even level Boss vanish when operating under soft cap conditions (assuming you're fighting more than one, and if you're driving a soft-capped scrapper, I'm guessing you are).

    Basically, the OP seems to be arguing against a position no one takes. That fact is just hidden among some strange math.


    ** On the other hand, we are in a position to trade about 9% defense for 400% regen starting from 33%. That's basically the trade that Ninjitsu makes and it does fairly well with that trade. Fully slotted, reconstruction (Kuji-in Sha) is equivalent to about +400% regen, which compensates for a lot of defense. And you can still soft-cap Ninjitsu if you try hard enough.
  12. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ironik View Post
    In Trans2 aren't they in Washington and walk through a door to end up in Arizona? How does that happen, exactly?
    You and I might know that most aircraft boneyards are in the Southwest, but the average person doesn't know that. I'm guessing the movie makers decided most people wouldn't notice few places in Virginia look like the Sahara.

    Transformers is not the only movie to do that sort of thing, though. It is, admittedly, one of the more absurd transitions I've seen, given the radical change terrain. However, a similar one often happens when a movie shifts suddenly from a coastal scene to one with mountains in what is supposed to be seconds of real time. There are very few places where such a transition actually makes sense.
  13. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ironik View Post
    I can fully appreciate both but when a movie sinks to a level that's SO mind-numbingly stupid that even a brain parked in neutral suddenly stirs to life and goes, "Hey WTF was that?" -- well, *that's* when you have a problem, and the Transformers movies do that.
    Not for everyone. Keep in mind the biggest public complaint about Mission Impossible (the first one) was not that it didn't hew to the original series, or some of the action was over the top silly, or the acting was completely wooden. It was that the plot was confusing. A lot of people got lost during Inception and claimed it was too difficult to keep track of where anyone was, even though there were only three dream layers to keep track of for most of the movie: the car, the hotel, and the mountain (the other two layers you don't have to keep track of most of the time: the plane - the real world - and limbo).

    Transformers could be better, of course. But there's no pleasing all the people who want "intelligent" action movies. Star Trek was a perfectly acceptable action movie that had a decent plot in it. It had flaws, but no moreso than basically every Star Trek anything, and the nit picky went berserk. Even Inception has its detractors, and frankly when you start nit picking Inception to the point of claiming its a bad movie (and not just a movie you happened to not like) I think its time to stop watching movies or get your own Youtube channel.

    Different people like different things. I think most people will agree to that in theory, but in practice cannot conceive of people who are just so different from themselves that the very way they judge good and bad is completely different. They will acccept that some people will like rocky road more than mint chip, but cannot accept the fact that anyone could actually dislike mint chip.

    I think to a degree there is an objective standard that can be used to judge whether a movie is crafted well, and by those standards the Transformers movies are crafted fairly well. They are fairly well shot, they don't play too many games with the camera, and the action is not hokey looking. The CGI tends to blend in for the most part, and the pacing of the movies beats are what you expect from an action movie. From there, it just very subjective as to whether there is enough story to carry the action, whether the transfomers are in the movie enough, whether Megan Fox has enough cleavage shots, all the things the popcorn buying public wants to see for their eleven fifty.


    Quote:
    Besides, why must it be either/or? Die Hard is an awesome action movie, but it's also smart. A more recent example is The Marine, which anyone might dismiss as a vehicle for the latest WWE pretty boy, but it's actually a well-crafted (and at times extraordinarily funny and smart) action flick. Same with the Steve Austin flick The Condemned, which is essentially an updated version of The Running Man except set in our reality TV present. There's nothing especially inventive or original about it, but it's extremely well-crafted and nothing in it makes you feel stupider for having viewed it. No Michael Bay movie can make the same claim.
    I'm sorry, did you say The Marine? I rest my case.

    Die Hard is one of the best action flicks of the last few decades, granted. But I think its actually the Running Man that is the best movie to compare to Transformers. The Running Man is by no means a great movie. But it is what it is: a decent, watchable movie that is watchable because it very obviously isn't trying to be more than what it is. Its the most tongue in cheek action movie you'll ever likely see made, and it worked hard to be exactly that. I think the Transformers movies have to be judged on the same scale. They are not trying to be Inception, or Casino Royale, or Die Hard. They are trying to be what they are: big budget action movies with giant robots and the military fighting other giant robots while a kid, an optional squeeze, and the rest of the scooby gang provide the audience with an external point of view on the action.
  14. Quote:
    Originally Posted by spice_weasel View Post
    this thread is relevant to my interests. any news?

    does this jitter affect the dps of a powerset like claws due to the larger number of interactions with the server in a situation such as a pylon test (over a broadsword player clicking less for instance)?

    a recent excursion into recharge times, arcanatimes, and dps has me quite confused as to why the paper and pixels exhibit a significant difference in a recent claw/sr build and i'd like to learn why.

    /thanks in advance.
    A combination of work and I19 diverted my attention from this testing, but I haven't forgotten about it. However, its likely that I won't get back to completing this until after the holidays.

    For now, I would say that the cautious thing to do is operate on the assumption that network lag does have an effect in the sense of delaying when the server is told to execute the next power, and thus the power must be recharged earlier than needed - by about a quarter of a second, although this is possibly lag dependent - which necessitates higher than computed recharge. I still see discrepancies based on that theory, but that theory is more conservative than necessary, not less, and will likely predict how much recharge you need, if possibly more than you need.

    If you have a specific question, though, you can post your observations and I or someone else on the forum will respond if we can.
  15. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Snow Globe View Post
    And in any well designed programming environment, what I am suggesting would actually work.
    On behalf of the programming staff, I would like to present you with this lovely, limited edition, Standard Code Rant.


    And just a reminder: this game, like most MMOs, is not a programming environment. The game isn't programmed. The game engine is programmed, but the game itself is one big Mad Libs. Everything in it is a fill in the blank spreadsheet entry (except for the artwork). The closest thing the powers team comes to code is when they have to make the postfix expressions for Requires clauses.
  16. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shadidio View Post
    Depends on what you are fighting. The soft cap measures the cap for white con minions unless I'm mistaken. If you regularly fight a significant amount of bosses/+4 minions/AV's/Giant Monsters/TF's/PvP then it should be helpful
    For Elude to be useful defensively on a soft-capped SR, the critters have to:

    1. Be +6 or higher (up to +5 they have accuracy bonuses for higher level)
    2. Be turret or Pet Class (these have base 75% chance to hit, not 50%)
    3. Be one of a certain special class of critters, such as Praetorian DE (these have been recently introduced, and have 64% base chance to hit, not 50%)
    4. Possess tohit buffs (Build Up, tactics, Vengeance, etc. DE Quartz crystals are the king here, with a +100% tohit buff per eminator)
    5. Possess enough defense debuffs to reduce you below 45% (depending on how far over 45% you are, a large number of lethal attacks have -Def, and there are other -Def debuffs, notably quicksand which autohits).
    6. Have a way to detoggle you, such as with endurance drain. Elude can't be detoggled.
  17. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Snow Globe View Post
    I'm trying to at least come up with solutions that could be put into place that falls within the observable scope of the game's abilities. I may not know the exact mechanics, but it shouldn't be as difficult as you are making it out to be.
    If it was easy, someone would suggest something that would actually work.
  18. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Snow Globe View Post
    Actually I thought of one more way and it should be feasible inside the existing powers structure. Even better, it would preserve the intent of having SOME bombs (not a warehouse full of them) while not being an overwhelming reaction to the players "winning" against a "pet" creation.

    Give each proximity bomb an AoE -Recharge to all mine layers in the warehouse while the mine is "alive". Seeing that the mine layers only plant mines, -Recharge shouldn't have any other effect on them.

    This should fit the game as -Recharge is a standard debuff. In addition, debuffs can be targeted to specific entities.

    Yes, it requires 1 "new" power, but it doesn't require code beyond that power. It doesn't eat up (much) more game cycles.
    PBAoEs with huge radii and very large target caps are potentially very computationally expensive. Collision detection and target checking in general are one of the larger sources of server-side lag in high density zone events, I've been told in the past.

    Also, although I haven't checked yet, in making the minelayers immune to AoE damage, they might have made them impossible to affect by debuffs. They might have gone from being untargetable to intangible.


    Edit: yep, intangible. Also, recharge debuffs would not work on them either way, because the mine laying power is not a click.
  19. Arcanaville

    The Defence Myth

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dersk View Post
    The method advertised in thread's original post does not distinguish between the damage mitigated by going from 0% defense to 5% defense, 40% to 45%, or 45% to 50%, as it all cases, the same amount of additional damage is mitigated. And it's true for a certain amount of DPS.

    100% resistance only 'mitigates' the damage that is actually applied, so in the method used by the orignal poster, being able to regenerate that amount of hitpoints is equivalent in that instance to 100% resistance.

    So yes, it's broken. Very broken.
    Well, in a sense that is true, in that 100% resistance only mitigates all the incoming damage, so for a given level of damage 100% resistance is equal to that level of regeneration. However, since 100% resistance equals that amount of regeneration for all possible values of incoming damage its more correct to say that 100% resistance is equal to an unlimited amount of regeneration.

    Technically, you could say that all levels of mitigation where you end up staying alive until you log out are all identical, because you can't do any better than staying alive. But that's a rather useless statement to make, because its completely uninformative most of the time. It would be an informative statement to make, if I were to say that for even con critters without tohit buffs or defense debuffs, 45% defense is no better than 50% defense, because mechanically speaking they are exactly identical. But its completely misleading to say that 45% defense is no better than 5% regeneration for the case where you are fighting greys in Atlas Park. Technically true, practically worthless.


    This gets into a specific issue with regard to the (my) survivability equations. The *original* versions from I1 did not factor in health or regeneration, so they did not need to factor in incoming damage either. They just compared mitigators like defense, resistance, and +health. Moving to regeneration and heals forced me to incorporate, implicitly, incoming damage. My version inverts that and derives incoming sustainable damage from mitigation and regeneration, rather than incorporating regeneration and calculating necessary regeneration to survive or time to live usually. But they can go both ways. Once you factor in regeneration or heals, you have to factor in, in some way, incoming damage and (usually) starting health. My calculations normalized all rates (damage, healing, regeneration) as percent of health per second in order to do this.

    But whether you do it my way, or one of the other numerically congruent variants, if you do not incorporate incoming damage into your calculations you cannot properly account for the effect of health recovery. As we can see, though, there are lots of ways to be led astray when you attempt to do this. Which is why it is so important for number crunchers to have ways to perform reality checks on their work. Without that safety net, its possible to be led into absurd places.
  20. Arcanaville

    The Defence Myth

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dersk View Post
    Using the method applied by the original poster, a level of regeneration can be found that is equivalent to that 100% resistance figure.
    Wut?

    Any method that doesn't either generate a degenerate value or infinity for the relationship between 100% resistance and some value of regeneration is broken.

    While players are now capped to 90% resistance, critters aren't. You can face critters with 100% resistance in theory. In practice, its happened before, although I don't know if all the variants have been altered. Bobcat used to go to 100% resistance to smash/lethal when under unstoppable. I don't know if that is still true because I haven't fought Bobcat in a while.. Lord Recluse used to go to 100% resistance when buffed by the towers for some types (smash, lethal, and energy I think) and I think still does.

    But while players cannot buff to 100% resistance to a damage type, such levels of resistance exist in actual play, and thus any damage mitigation methodology ought to be able to deal with them. And they should state that such an entity is immortal (when attacked by that damage type) at *all* levels of incoming damage. Which means that level of resistance is equal to an unlimited amount of regeneration, even ignoring the fact that regeneration has to act after the fact.


    The thing about methodologies and models is that ultimately, they sort of have to work. If they don't, they will be discarded. Mine are still around because they work: they produce results and predictions that people use, and that generally agree - to the degree to which they are applicable - to what happens in the game. While there is room for healthy debate about the degree to which they are oversimplifications in some contexts - for example, Umbral believes they are too simplistic to be used in isolation for powerset balance, and I don't disagree completely - when it comes to damage and damage mitigation, they work, so people use them. Short of using Markov calculations or state machines, they are likely to be one the better tools to estimate survivability. They are certainly the best tools to use that require nothing more than a number two pencil and a couple of minutes to work out.

    One day, these equations might get replaced by something better. However, that something better is not going to completely invalidate these models. We already know these models work, period. The next great thing won't overturn them, it will extend and enhance them, and include more or better points of view, just like the sustained damage line (aka the immortality line - I'm going to regret that nomenclature for the rest of my life) wasn't replaced by the time window calculations, it was extended by them, so we now look at "infinite" survivability, 180 seconds, 90 seconds, 60 seconds, 30 seconds, and whatever other window of time we think is relevant, and combine those slices into a more holistic "three dimensional" view that better incorporates "burst" and time-sensitivity.
  21. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bio_Flame View Post
    So, that's the story.
    IH got changed due to faulty data.
    Was it strong? Without any doubt!
    Was it overpowered? Yeah, as so many powers in CoH are.
    After ED, being reduced to only 3 heals would have made it more in line with the rest of the game? Unquestionably.
    It didn't get changed due to faulty data. The devs had faulty data, but keep in mind they had decided to reduce the power of all defensive powers based on tons of datamining from the *live* servers, before they did that set of controlled tests without the purple patch. And they repeated those tests with the purple patch correctly enabled and showed the performance of the powersets under those conditions as well. It was an idiotic mistake, but not the controlling factor. It just meant Geko's powers of observation were far weaker than I could possibly imagine**.

    Would IH be just a little overpowered with ED as "so many powers in CoH are" if it were in its original toggle form today? Not really: with the reductions in other powersets coincident with I5's global defense reductions, toggle IH even with ED would be a wild anomaly among damage mitigation powers today.

    If you want toggle IH back, here's more or less what you have to do:

    1. Cut its strength by about a third.
    2. Eliminate the +health enhanceability of Dull Pain for Regen.
    3. Eliminate reconstruction. And I don't mean replace it with a non-mitigation utility power. I mean eliminate it and replace it with nothing more useful than swift.

    That would put Toggle IH Regen right about where the balance target is for scrapper mitigation sets. Other than that sort of deep cuts, or major across the board buffage of all damage mitigation sets, toggle IH at anything remotely close to its current strength is extremely unlikely.

    (By the way, I'm sure there will be people who would prefer the option above to the current Regen set. However, even that suggestion only preserves the numerical power balance requirements as I understand them. It still would have additional hurdles, not the least of which is that I'm not in charge of powerset balance, IH would require a cottage rule exception, and there's a lot of people who prefer the new version of Regen. If it were up to me, I would allow both versions to coexist ala branching VEATs so long as players could not choose both versions in different builds. But it ain't up to me).



    ** And to this day no one from the dev team has ever explained the "phantom slots" that were in the posted SR build from those tests, which exceeded the number of slots available at the tested level by two.
  22. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jade_Dragon View Post
    I'll also point out that IMHO, 2 attacks well slotted with 5 Enhancements will stand you better than 4 attacks with only 3. It's a delicate balance, of course, but you don't want TOO many attacks you're trying to split slots between. Concentrate on the ones you use the most, and leave fillers to just use up time. Or even better, use Brawl when you're sitting around waiting for attacks to recharge since it uses no End.

    You also don't really need Acc or End in the attacks you use only as fillers, as they aren't used that often.
    Actually, you want to slot fillers with Accuracy if you only have one slot. Accuracy will net you the same benefit as Damage statistically, but also prevent the low accuracy attack from degrading the streakbreaker when you use it.
  23. Quote:
    Originally Posted by GreenBone View Post
    Thank you. I'm familiar with Frankenslotting, and this sounds like a very good use for that technique. I'm wondering what level enhancements would make sense here for higher level benefit - nothing lower than 25 maybe?
    As a matter of fact, my Katana/Invuln still has attacks slotted from I9 with level 25 Pulverizing Fisticuffs and level 30 Pounding Slugfests (which are the highest that each set goes, actually). With Acc/Dmg, Acc/Dmg/Rech, Acc/Dmg/End/Rech from Pulverizing, and Acc/Dmg, Dmg/End, Dmg/Rech from Pounding, the attacks have +71.58% Accuracy, +97.28% Damage, +35.75% End, and +51.75% Recharge. Also, 8% regeneration, 2.5% defense to Energy/Negative, and 1.25% Defense to Ranged as set bonuses. Not bad for a bunch of IOs no higher than level 30 that are ten issues old.

    They are not all the cheapest IOs around, but also not terribly expensive either, and those are respectable enhancement values. Level 25 is usually the point where the IOs start to overtake SOs in net value and are a good starting place for low end frankenslotting. Although I've crafted and slotted lower ones down to level 20.
  24. From a strict numerical efficiency standpoint, the most efficient thing to do is to slot *equally* accuracy and damage unless or until one of them hits a cap and you lose the benefit of one of them. Which is generally going to be accuracy slotting.

    So, if you are fighting even con critters without defense (above level 20) your base tohit is 75%. Slotting one even SO will increase that to 75 * 1.33 = 99.75% which is capped to 95% tohit. So more than one doesn't help, and so you should slot one acc and one damage if you have two slots, and then more damage if you have more slots, if you are talking about SOs.

    If you happen to be level 20 and no longer benefiting from beginners luck tohit bonuses, but still slotting DOs, then you should slot 1acc1dmg if you have 2 slots, 2acc/2dmg if you have 4 slots, and then more damage if you have more slots.

    But as Jade_Dragon mentions, this depends on base tohit. If you are fighting +2s constantly, then your base tohit will be 56%. You can benefit by up to two full SOs worth of enhancement (about). Technically, best efficiency slotting at that point is 2acc/2dmg, and then more damage, unless you have tohit bonuses.
  25. Arcanaville

    The Defence Myth

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DSorrow View Post
    IIRC it was Arcanaville who created the immortality line calculations in her huge post about Defense.
    Sorry, I've been traveling and missed this thread.

    So, to catch up:

    1. I think the OP was trying to say that for any value of defense, and for any value of regeneration, there exists a value of incoming damage where, theoretically speaking and on average, the two have identical mitigation. That's true, and obvious, and not generally in dispute. Basically, since X% defense mitigates X% of incoming damage (or 2X, depending on who you talk to: its not important here), for *any* value of regeneration Y there is some value of damage D such that X * D = Y. X just equals Y/D.

    The more interesting debate is for what values this is an interesting observation, in the sense of being useful to anyone.

    No one has ever made credible claims that there is any direct (as in proportional) relationship between numerical defense and numerical regeneration, like the 2:1 rule for resistance (which itself is situational).

    2. The damage mitigation equations do come from me, although I should clarify that to the best of my knowledge, I was the first to post them in their current form and popularize them on the US forums. There was another poster, Dr. Rock, who apparently did likewise and apparently independently on the Euro forums, albeit in a slightly different form. My claim to fame was the Defense and Scrapper comparison threads where I used them in analyses: Dr. Rock's claim to fame was a VB program, if I remember correctly, that implemented them in a comparison app.

    Prior to the mitigation equations, there were two predecessors. First, Havok's spreadsheets which became Circeus' spreadsheets for tanker mitigation, which used a spreadsheet calculator approach not too dissimilar from my damage mitigation spreadsheets, but with a completely different focus. Second, posts that started like this: "suppose someone attacks you 1000 times for 100 points of damage each attack" that did the calculations manually and rarely if ever factored in regeneration.

    3. The critical error on the part of the OP is that they think there exists some "survivability model" that doesn't factor incoming damage but *does* factor in regeneration, and makes predictions. I know of no such model, although its possible someone out there is spouting one. I think the number crunching community is well aware of the fact that since Regeneration operates linearly, but Defense and Resistance operates proportionately, you can't do that. Defense and Resistance can be compared to each other independently of incoming damage, to a first order approximation, because their average behavior is both proportional to incoming damage and therefore incoming damage can be factored away. But Regeneration is linear, and independent of incoming damage, and can't be so compared.

    If the OP wants to see the average survivability model actually used to do real comparisons, factoring in not just regeneration but also starting health, I would point to the dated, but still methodologically valid Scrapper Comparison thread which reposts that stuff from the I7 analyses, which was the last time I did such a holistic comparison with those average formulas.


    Edit: ok, I finally stumbled across the related thread. After reading this:

    Quote:
    Here's another example of why "100% survival" is not good information on which to make a decision.

    You can go from 40->45% defence, and gain 100% survival.

    You can go from 0-25% defence, and gain 100% survival.

    The problem is that the first example will save your life 5 times in 100. The second will save your life 25 times in 100. The second is 5x better at saving your life. But they both are attributed this useless metric of "100% survival improvement".
    I'm not sure I want a piece of this. That's a sign this doesn't likely go anywhere interesting. Its a weird perspective, and you can't disprove a weird perspective. Its just a perspective that I strongly recommend no one else adopt. It will leave you in a position of no one being able to communicate with you.