Bill Z Bubba

Forum Cartel
  • Posts

    5701
  • Joined

  1. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frosticus View Post
    I can automatically set it up to direct deposit my rent/mortgage payment to the landlord/bank, I would suggest the ability to automatically pay base rent so I never have to see the pointless notice warning pop up.
    I'd be perfectly happy with this as a solution as well.
  2. No clue if they could pull it off, but it's a damn fine QoL suggestion.
  3. She's my Dominator, I'm her Brute.

    You might think that doesn't work well, but somehow we make it work just fine.
  4. Officially, SLI/Crossifre is not supported in this game. I believe there was a flag you could add to your shortcut's target line during one of the test cycles that enabled SLI, but I'm unsure whether that ever made it to live.

    Edit: I also don't recall what levels of performance gain those that attempted to use it received.
  5. je_saist is ridiculously wrong, but the argument would mean nothing. To put it another way, Vista offers absolutely nothing that Win 7 doesn't provide. Don't bother with it.
  6. Win 7. XP-64 has driver support issues, Vista is a steaming POS, Win 7 is fine.
  7. My main villain is the CHVian embodiment of a fallen angel hell-bent on the obliteration of the christian god. Apparently that's evil or something.
  8. Same reason females don't get cigars and torso tattoos and the same reason males don't get fishnets and corsets. Sexism.
  9. Quote:
    We have some evidence contradicting this:
    Fire Melee*

    *It is worth noting that Fire Melee wouldn't have been unbalanced if directly ported using the tanker model, it just wouldn't have been 'fun' given the way brutes and scrappers are envisioned to play. Or at least not fun until very late level.
    Perhaps you can explain to me why this is a valid contradiction of the base statement.

    You state yourself that it "wouldn't have been unbalanced if directly ported using the tanker model, it just wouldn't have been 'fun' given the way brutes and scrappers are envisioned to play." So there was no balance issue present there. The change was put in place for no more reason but developer whim, just like the changes made to claws when ported to brutes.

    That leaves only the single discrepancy of the .2 base damage subtraction on scrapper GFS, which to be perfectly honest, I can't wrap my mind around as being enough of a change to warrant granting it the "see?!?! the whole set was changed before proliferation!!" badge.
  10. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frosticus View Post
    Traps defender with power mastery FON.

    Softcapped to every vector, res capped to all but psi.
    Wow.
  11. *yawn* More of the same spew. How expected, Umbral. I gave you rebuttals to your failed attempts to use FM and AAO to provide your case. You dodged them as you dodge everything else you can't actually refute.

    Shoot me a PM some time when you're ready to show me your vast mathematical construct that gives evidence to your claims. Until then, I'm done wasting my time with your baseless egotism and ignorance.
  12. Quote:
    Balance is a question of equality. If you honestly think that all ATs use the same mechanics in the same way, you're deluding yourself.
    Did you get your debate skills in seminary? Balance doesn't mean that all is equal. Tank mitigation mods are higher than scrapper mods. Scrapper damage mods are higher than tanks mods. They are not equal. The archetypes, however, are balanced against each other.

    Quote:
    And that point of balance between each of the different archetypes (a balance that is, itself, debatable when you consider the capabilities of Brutes in the presence of buffs rather than only ever considering solo performance) would actually apply to this discussion if the mechanics that each AT uses differently were actually equalized in the mechanisms that powersets actually use.
    What mechanics are used differently? They all use their respective damage caps in the same way. They all use damage buffs the same way, regardless of the fact that scrapper mods mean scrappers get more off a buff. They all use mitigation caps the same way.

    And we're not debating whether the archetypes on the whole are actually balanced against each other. Once again, you're attempting to dodge the actual debate by introducing a new one. It's a tactic you lean on heavily in every debate you get into.

    Quote:
    You readily admit that +dam is stronger in the hands of Scrappers yet assume that, if a set has large amounts of +dam present to offset low base numbers, it's going to perform adequately for Brutes and not be completely overblown for Tankers. Powerset balance is not simply a question of looking at a single set of AT modifiers and running a single calculation. The number of AT mods, and how they affect the balance of a set when it's transferred from one AT to another, is huge.
    I have made no such assumption. The statement I have made is that regardless of scrappers getting higher level buffs from a damage buff, in the end a balanced melee attack set will be balanced across all three archetypes. This is the actual debate. This is what you repeatedly dodge because you have no case against it.

    Quote:
    Except that it does. Your stern lack of the ability to see that doesn't change the fact. SS is a set that relies on large amounts of +dam to be viable. It's roughly balanced (though on the top end of performance) for Tankers and Brutes because they get less from +dam than Scrappers do. Scrappers get more from the very mechanic that is needed to give SS viable performance so Scrappers are going to get better performance from SS than Tankers or Brutes would.

    You cannot prove that this isn't true.
    Lots of spew, so little substance. YOUR failure lay in the fact that you can't accept, nor show otherwise, that SS in a straight port to scrappers would not be overpowered in comparison to the other scrapper attack sets without also showing that SS is overpowered for brutes and tanks. Your best effort was to throw out "but... but... but... Shield AAO!!!!" Guess what will happen if Castle and Co decide that AAO is overpowered? It's going to be nerfed across the board. It's not going to just be nerfed for scrappers.

    Are you starting to understand the concept of powerset equivalence yet? The same is going to hold true for SS and a port to scrappers. If rage is breaking the set too much, it's going to be nerfed for ALL archetypes. This is how it should be. This has been my point all along and you damn well know it.

    Quote:
    Try it yourself. I've got more than a few data points to support my claim. You've got a smattering of completely off-topic numbers and simplistic calculations that ignore the actual capable disparities between the various ATs and focus entirely upon those single variable calculations where the fundamental equivalence between the ATs is largely present. You don't want to look at any numbers that prove you wrong. If anything, you should slink away since you honestly believe that you can Brutes and Scrappers are exactly the same, and assume that a simplistic analysis is all that you need to prove it.

    (edit: Why would I leave anyway? I'm having loads of fun learning just how little you actually know about the game. This is fun!)
    Data points you can't or won't show. Imagine that. For having nothing to back up your idiotic assertions you sure do talk a good game. Shut up or put up, boy.
  13. Quote:
    Brutes != Scrappers != Tankers. They each use mechanics and attributes differently. If you ignore that, you're demonstrating a disturbing level of noobishness for something that is supposed to know how the game works.
    You are horrible at debate. Never did I say tanks equal scrappers. I said that they are BALANCED against each other. Can you post anything that isn't an obvious misinterpretation of the person's posts that you're arguing against?

    Quote:
    Of course, you're completely ignoring any evidence I bring up with Shield Defense which should be glaringly obvious evidence that each set uses the mechanisms in question in entirely different manner.
    You gave no evidence of anything. I have already stated, repeatedly, that I am fully aware that scrappers benefit more from damage buffs and that this fact is PART OF the balance put in place between these three archetypes.

    This fact in no way discounts my statement that a balanced attack set can be proliferated between the ATs without issue.

    Your repeated attempts to dodge this and repeated failures to argue against it are pathetic. Own up to the fact that you attacked my statement without rational cause or slink away with your tail between your legs.
  14. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Umbral View Post
    Says the guy who thinks that the devs would have proliferated a broken set in the first place. You're not only blowing hot air, you're having court in the sauna.
    Where have I said that? So much lying on these boards lately. So sad that misrepresenting what other people have posted is the only way weak-minded people know how to debate.

    If SS is broken, it needs to be fixed so that it can be ported. If it's not, it can be ported now. Disprove that statement or shut the fark up.
  15. Quote:
    Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect View Post
    Except I don't think DT is a guaranteed knockdown, it's like an 80% chance or something.
    +0.67 Knockback (75% chance) PvE only

    I was thinking it was 100% as well. Bummer.
  16. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Umbral View Post
    BU has a base recharge of 90 seconds and 10 second duration. Ignoring animation time (which would further increase the recharge requirement), you're assuming 350% +recharge (381% factoring in recharge). Are you honestly that obtuse as to use a completely unrealistic level of recharge as your gauge for balance? I have a remarkably strong feeling that you're simply finding the point of equivalence beforehand and then assuming it's realistic.

    Try pulling it down to a more realistic uptime ratio... like 20%.

    Brute: 35.03 + (4.17 * (.8^1)) + (4.17 * (.8^2)) +(4.17 * (.8^3))
    43.17 total base damage
    43.17 * (1 + .95 + 1.5 + (.8 * .2)) = 155.84

    Scrapper: (52.55 * 1.07) + (6.26 * (.8^1)) + (6.26 * (.8^2)) +(6.26 * (.8^3))
    68.45 total base damage
    68.45 * (1 + .95 + (1 * .2)) = 147.18

    And that's assuming averaged contribution, which isn't exactly realistic, unless you've got BU on autocast.

    Don't try to call out my math when you can't even get your assumptions to a realistic level.
    Yup, in my haste to mock you for your leaving it out entirely I gave it a 50% uptime.

    The ATs are still balanced against each other and your inability to prove your case remains plain for all to see. In other words, still blowing hot air.
  17. Can't find the post, Bass. Going off memory there were issues involving the DoT that were out of whack in relation to how it should be balanced. On the OP side of things.
  18. Quote:
    For the sake of clarity, would you spell out what this statement means? I don't want to respond to it without making certain I know what you're saying.
    We'll go here first. Then I'll get to the other post. By stating that the archetypes (brutes versus scrappers versus tanks) are balanced by their AT mods, I mean specifically that the melee damage modifier is the device used by the developers to create the differences in how much an attack dishes out on an enemy.

    If you go here you will see the chart I speak of. For the calculations I did earlier on KO Blow, I used the level 50 modifier. The same modifier I used when doing my big brute/scrapper ST damage output comparison.

    That AT melee damage modifier, when coupled with a logical and accurate representation of the pertinent inherent abilities, in this case crits and fury, allow us to see quite plainly the damage output balance between the archetypes in question.

    If I were to do the same for corruptors, blasters and defenders when comparing the blast sets, I would use the ranged damage modifiers which can be found in the list on the left.

    These modifiers are multiplied by a power's base damage value to determine the amount of damage they do.

    The base damage of KO Blow is 3.56. This is true for both brutes and tanks. As they have different melee damage modifiers, the end output of their damage is different. As brutes also have Fury, they end up doing more damage than the tank with the same power.

    Taking that in, I hope that my following response make more sense to you.

    Quote:
    You act as if that's the only example in the game. It's not. It's not even the only example between Tankers and Scrappers. Overlap is allowed. Your claims that it is not are ridiculous. We have Controllers who overlap with Blasters, Defenders who overlap with Blasters, and Tankers who overlap with Scrappers.
    It doesn't matter if some kin/ice defender IOed to the gills can dish out more damage than an ene/em blaster with SOs. That has absolutely no relevance to the discussion at hand.

    We are discussing whether a single powerset, in this case Super Strength, should have a direct port, meaning that all the BASE damage values, endurance values, recharge, secondary effects, etc, to the other Melee based ATs lacking that set.

    As with KO Blow having a base damage value of 3.56, it is my statement that the scrapper value should also be 3.56, as with all the other power values, when it's ported to scrappers. If it is found that the 3.56 value is too high on the scrapper, that is all the proof I need to view that the 3.56 value is too high on the brute and tank because it breaks the existing game balance.

    Quote:
    You've asserted that any Tanker powerset that's not considered overpowered for Tankers is fine if ported directly to Scrappers. This is almost certainly false if that powerset would exceed all existing Scrapper powersets performance for some broad measure of DPS, such as AoE DPS.
    And no one has EVER shown me where a direct port of SS to scrappers exceeds "all existing Scrapper powersets performance for some broad measure of DPS, such as AoE DPS." I already know why this is: The statement is false.

    Quote:
    The claim is that, if a Tanker powerset, on Tankers, which already have a lower set of damage and damage buff modifiers, are operating in Scrapper performance territory, that when ported directly to Scrappers, they will almost certainly outperform existing Scrapper powersets in exactly this way.
    If a given powerset is vastly outperforming the other powersets available to a given AT, then that powerset needs to be nerfed. If the AoE output is so vastly superior with SS compared to the AoE output of the other tank sets, and porting it to scrappers would then create the same discrepancy, then SS's aoe output should be nerfed.

    Quote:
    Your counter claim is that this suggests the Tanker powerset is broken, because it overlaps Scrapper performance. It might be true that the powerset is overperforming, but this is not clearly implied simply because it operates anywhere inside the Scrapper performance band.
    Once again, you are stating a falsehood about what I have stated. Perhaps you are doing so due to confusion, and I will, for the moment, give you the benefit of the doubt on that.

    What I DO state is that if a powerset is balanced, then it will not outperform in some vast way other similar sets used by an archetype. If that is the case, then the powerset is balanced, and thus can be ported straight over thanks to the way AT modifiers and inherents are set up.

    Quote:
    No one claimed equivalent powers. I am talking about whole powersets. Footstomp on its own is not performing in the way you describe. Footstomp + Rage is.
    I am ALSO attempting to talk about whole powersets. Others kept speaking about "scrappers with KO Blow and Footstomp" being OP without bothering to take the sets in their entirety into account. AGAIN, If The Farking Powerset Is Balanced For AT-1, Then A Direct Port To AT-2 Should Not Be A Problem.

    Quote:
    Again, we're talking about powersets, not individual powers. SS is not balanced based on KoB or Footstomp viewed in isolation. It is balanced on all the powers viewed together. Scrappers get a nonlinear performance increase out of a direct port of SS, because they possess higher damage scales and higher melee buff scales. I believe the math shown in this thread does not support your claim that that's fine when ported to Scrappers.
    And this is exactly as it should be. It's true for claws. It's true for dual blades. It's true for dark melee. It's true for the sets that have buildup. Scrappers get better self buffs. This is by design. It is as it should be. What you are calling a problem is not a problem. UNLESS THE POWERSET ITSELF IS BROKEN.

    Quote:
    I find it very unlikely that this is the sole arbiter of the upper bound.
    Show me where it isn't the case. Show me how a scrapper can do more damage with an attack that the damage cap allows. (Discounting, of course, dam-res debuffs.)

    Quote:
    But that's not how the ATs are balanced against one another. You're assuming it's just about setting the AT mods and power scales and calling it done. But it's not at all clear that this is the case. What matters is the product of the two. In general, Tankers do more damage than their AT damage scale suggests, because they have large damage mod attacks. The same is true of Brutes, and the only thing that lets them to damage comparable to scrappers is an immense persistent damage boost compared to what any other AT has. Rage in particular would function far more strongly on a Scrapper than on either a Tanker or a Brute.
    Yes, I'm stating that in all cases where something isn't broken or the whim of the devs (see brute claws) states otherwise, this is and Should Be the case.

    Quote:
    Look at what happened to Psychic Assault when ported to Blasters, and yet it was not changed at all on Defenders. If it was fine on Defenders, then why was it changed on Blasters? One possible answer is that the devs did not like what it could do in terms of absolute single-target DPS.
    There are many cases where something broken is still present and left alone. See spines. A set, as mentioned, that the lead powers designer admits is borked.
  19. I'm curious how well dragon's tail and burn can work together.
  20. Hey liar, I called him a liar for lying. Exactly as I'm doing for you now. Never did I call him a liar for making a suggestion. Again, get stuffed. Liars are scum. It amuses me how scum like you three gather together so easily.
  21. Quote:
    This assertion is based on the predication that the damage bands for the ATs are not allowed to overlap. That assertion is not true.
    False. You're attempting to hide the facts behind powerset balance by stating that it's ok for tank SS ST damage to be as high as scrapper Spines ST damage. No one cares if that's true. It has no meaning in relation to whether porting SS without alteration is ok or not.

    Quote:
    No, we can't. Some degree of overlap is intentionally allowed, and I personally consider it desirable. That overlap also exists among nearly all the ATs. Specifically disallowing it between Tankers and Scrappers doesn't make sense when it's so prevalent.
    See above. A power does base X damage. A tank is never going to, nor should ever get to, do scrapper level damage with that attack when equivalent buffs are applied. There is no overlap. There should be no overlap. Scrapper base mitigation values don't get overlap with their identical counterpart powers do they? No, they don't.

    Quote:
    You only can maintain it's broken if you maintain that the cross AT performance overlap is to be disallowed or that we can arbitrarily move Scrapper performance ceilings by porting sets, or both.
    It IS disallowed by the values used in this game when dealing with specific powersets. Again, we're not comparing SS to Spines. We're comparing SS to SS. As it stands NOW a tank can only exceed the damage of a brute during the first second of combat because the brute AT melee damage modifier is slightly lower. As soon as the inherent kicks in, the tank loses and will forever lose after that first second in combat.

    Quote:
    You're trying to assert that the relative performance of Tankers cannot encroach on even low-end Scrapper performance at all, while simultaneously asserting that no matter what's going on between Scrappers and Tankers, that the absolute performance of Scrappers has no upper bound. I believe that both of those assertions are incorrect.
    I have stated nothing of the sort and am annoyed that you would attempt to place words in my mouth in this way. I have NEVER stated or implied that some tricked out SS tanker shouldn't be able to dish out more damage than some poorly slotted and built spines scrapper. What I HAVE stated is that IF SS on a tanker is balanced, then a straight port to a scrapper is ALSO balanced. The math backs this assertion. If KoB is broken on a scrapper, then it is NOW broken on a tank.

    Nor have I EVER stated or implied that scrappers should have no upper bound on performance. That upper boundary is set in stone by the same math that balances powersets and archetypes.

    I don't give a rat's *** about relative performance. I care about actual performance. I care about the math. KoB should have the same base damage across all ATs that use it. Period. If the AT mods themselves are balanced, then KoB will be balanced.

    If KoB is not balanced on scrappers, then it is not balanced for brutes and tanks.
  22. So you're going to state things I already know and compare a power in the same way I did earlier in an attempt to show me something that I showed in my post regarding KO Blow and in doing so think this makes your case that straight proliferation creates broken situations?

    And then you're going to get the math wrong? By wrong, I mean you left out buildup and since we're so concerned with how the inherents and AT mods affect the situation...

    We'll go with a 50% uptime on BU.

    Brute Scorch with 75% fury and 95% enh = (35.03 + .8*3*4.17)*(1+.95+1.5+.4)) = 173.4
    Scrap Scorch with 7% crit chance and 95% enh = ((52.55*(1+.95+.5))*1.07) + (.8*3*6.26)*(1+.95+.5) = 174.57

    Can't get more balanced than that, can we? At 75% fury, brute scorch is weaker than scrapper scorch using your numbers.

    There is a difference in how we're calculating the DoT but it appears to be a wash.

    But I have to ask, what was your point? Do you honestly think that I haven't already analyzed how all the AT mods affect damage output? Did those spreadsheets I made and questions I asked of everyone in order to make them give you the impression that I haven't given this considerable time?

    The ATs are balanced against each other with their AT mods. I have proven this time and time again in relation to the melee attack sets. If KoB is too powerful for a scrapper then it needs to be nerfed for brutes and tanks.
  23. Now you're going to preach to me about some lies being worse than others? Get stuffed.
  24. You've both brought up FM. Let's look at it.

    Scorch: Identical
    Fire Sword: Identical
    Tank Combustion changed to Cremate for Brute and Scrapper where it's identical.
    BoF: Identical
    Incinerate: Identical
    FSC: Identical
    GFS: Scrapper 2.24 versus Tank/Brute 2.44 with all three getting the 5*.2 DoT

    Am I going to pretend that I know why Castle did this? Nope. But I'm certainly not going to take it on your word that the extra .2 base damage would have somehow caused some cataclysmic OP state for scrapper GFS.

    The change of combustion to cremate could probably be explained away as simply as the alteration claws got going to brutes: They wanted the set to "feel" different which has absolutely nothing to do with balance.

    Is FM really the best yall have?