-
Posts
5701 -
Joined
-
-
Umbral, go read my last post. What you have to state regarding survivability means exactly fark all to the topic at hand. (The topic of porting SS to scrappers. Edit: or more specifically, porting the remaining sets as is all around)
Everything else is covered in my last post. It appears that we agree that proliferation isn't the problem. SS is just broken. Goody for us.
EDIT: You mentioned Stone and Spines. Castle is already on record stating that spines is broken. I see no more issue with porting SM over than I do SS. -
-
-
Quote:Oh goody, yet another "fury is hard to maintain" champion.
If this was what my statement implied I would also argue critical damage surpassing it. However there is a difference: fury and double stacked rage (between other factors) are not permanent factors. You cant be 100% sure that your fury will be at X level exactly when you want it (unless you conveniently want it when you already see it's there, after long enough combat has taken it there.) You cant just furry up and jump in a spawn, for instance, and that's the realm of stalker intrusion I specifically mentioned.
Quote:Note this would not be the case with SS. SS is expected to have perma rage, that means a direct port would be X * 1.5 due to the self-damage modifier. That alone breaks the correlation between scrapper and tanker and is enough reason to review the port.
But I'll play. Let's go with the assumption that a single attack's max damage is the point where the devs put the breaks on proliferation.
AT mods:
62.562 Scrapper
44.488 Tank
41.708 Brute
Right?
KO Blow does 3.56 base damage. You state that a level 50 minion has 430 HP. Rage buffs tank/brute damage by 80% and would buff scrapper damage by 100%.
Correct so far?
Apparently you would like me to ignore fury and crits because we can't count on them. Sadly, we can't because that statement is false. If a brute is in combat he has some level of fury. So we'll deal with that in a minute.
As it stands, we've got rage and enhancements. We'll assume 95% from enhs.
Tank: (3.56 * (1 + .95 + .8)) * 44.488 = 435.53752
Brute: (3.56 * (1 + .95 + .8)) * 41.708 = 408.32132
Scrap: (3.56 * (1 + .95 + 1)) * 62.562 = 657.026124
Still good? Cool. At first glance, were I also to completely ignore the persistent buff of Fury I'd also scream, "Hold the phone!!!" But I'm not one of those people. I know that fury exists as long as I'm in combat.
So how much fury does the brute need to match the tank and the scrapper?
Brute to Tank: (3.56 * (1 + .95 + .8 + x)) * 41.708 = 435.53752
Solving for x gets us ~.183 or around 9% Fury. That's what... two outgoing punches?
Brute to Scrap: (3.56 * (1 + .95 + .8 + x)) * 41.708 = 657.026124
Solving for x gets us 1.675 or 83.75% Fury. That is considerable and knowing that I generally sit between 75 and 85% fury while in combat it appears to me to be balanced.
But now I'm leaving off crits. We all know that will send Scrap KO Blow through the roof. A 1314 point hit is insane. But on average (10% crits, we'll say) it comes out to 722.7287364. A brute at 100% fury (unattainable) hits 705.28228.
Do I consider a 17 point discrepancy out of balance? No. I don't. Not at all.
What about the other Scrap big hitters? Is KO Blow completely out of whack with them?
KO Blow: 657 (227 more than your minion)
Headsplitter: 480 (50 more points than your minion)
Midnight Grasp: 509 (79 more points than your minion)
Greater Fire Sword: 605 (175 more points that your minion)
And this is one attack. We can do the same for all the other ST attacks in SS where we'll rapidly see SS under in many cases.
So let's not go throwing around BS like "narrow minded" when I'm not the one ignoring an AT's inherent.
Quote:As for the shared set, if you mean FA, that set is under-performing on all ATs, at least since the arrival of Shields.
EDIT: About those scrapper big hitters. We know that the DoT on GFS doesn't crit. That means KO Blow when critting beats it by quite a bit more than just the 100 points shown there.
Does that really tell us anything other than KO Blow itself is broken? We can go back to the argument that the rest of SS's ST attacks being so weak counters that if we like. We can go back to viewing SS on the whole as the poorly designed set that it is.
But my statement stands true: If it's broken on scrappers, then it's broken on brutes and tanks. If SS is the only outlier, when all the other sets work within tolerance levels when proliferated, then SS is broken and needs to be repaired NOW. -
Quote:How about prove it instead of blowing the hot air you so continually spew around here?This made me lol. It's so blatantly untrue that it only serves to exist as a joke.
I can actually show correlation between powersets. All I have to do is yank the AT damage mod. What have you got?
I'll go even farther. What set currently shared by all three ATs is broken on one but not the others? -
There isn't one. All scrapper combos rock.
But if I had to choose? Spines/Regen -
AF, don't bother. It's been done. If you show the errors in their builds the response will be "I shouldn't have to make those sacrifices." If you show errors in tactics the response will be "Don't tell me how to play." If you show errors in logic you're trolling. If you show errors in math you're trolling.
You can lead an idiot to water but you can't stop him from drowning himself. -
Quote:Two things:
I noticed that the sets that haven't come over seem to generally suffer from this giant burst in the form of an over budgeted top tier attack. Sustained damage aside, I don't think the devs are comfortable with scrappers being able to one shot enemies to that degree.
1: It doesn't matter. Either a set is broken or it isn't. If a set is fine on a tank, then it's fine on a brute or scrapper. Your statement implies that a brute with double stacked rage and 90% fury isn't doing heavy burst damage with KO Blow.
That's obviously not the case.
2: Scrappers already have huge burst damage attacks that crit. See BS-Headsplitter, DM-Midnight Grasp, FM-GFS, etc. -
Quote:I do not find it ok for a any set to be blocked from scrappers because it's currently so horrifically broken that it lets a tank dish out scrapper level damage.But we've had that dance before. If a set makes a Tanker able to creep into Scrapper damage-dealing performance levels, that's potentially OK, because both ATs have performance bands, and those bands overlap. There's some level of creeping into the Scrapper band, definitely not formally stated by the devs and possibly not formally defined at all, that's not going to be acceptable to the devs. Your argument states that, if a Tanker exists in the top end of the Tanker band, and possibly in the low end of the Scrapper band (which is allowed), then the porting that powerset unchanged is acceptable even if it would raise the top end of the Scrapper band. I don't agree with that, and I would be shocked in the extreme if the devs did.
Does SS have that characteristic? Not in ST DPS. AoE might be a completely different bag of chips.
The AT damage mods are used for a specific reason: Set A does X amount of damage in AT-1's hands and does Y amount in AT-2's hands.
It's that simple. It *should* be that simple. Tanks have higher base mitigation values and caps and thus a lower AT mod. Their inherent does not buff their damage output. This means that *ANY* set used by a tank should never be able to match a scrapper using that same set.
We can all agree on that, yes?
Can we also agree that the current balance between scrappers and tanks is acceptable?
If so, then a straight port of super strength should also be acceptable. If it is not, then *something* is broken. If tanker SS is so broken that it is pushing itself into scrapper level damage output, (something I haven't seen) then it's a fair bet that SS is currently broken.
Stating that X is fine on a tank but would be broken on a scrapper seems to me to be an admission of nothing more than that those against it fear the nerf bat. Perhaps with reason. While I've taken an SS/WP brute high enough to get and slot footstomp, I haven't IOed one to the gills. I found the constant rage crashing to be far more a nuisance than to be worth it.
I find the statements of its massive aoe output to be overstated. -
Quote:Horse ****. If tanks are balanced against scrappers who are balanced against brutes, then powerset A will be balanced amongst them all.Billz, you really should know better than that. Honestly, you're ignoring the mechanical differences between the various ATs out of blind hope. You may as well claim that Shield Defense is exactly as effective for Tankers, Brutes, and Scrappers when anyone worth their salt can tell that it obviously isn't.
Claws wasn't altered for brutes due to any balance concerns. It was altered for no other reason but that the devs wanted it to *feel* different.
I'm ignoring exactly nothing. Scrappers will benefit more from rage than brutes and tanks. So what? They also benefit more from followup and buildup. That fact is baked right into the balance between the ATs.
If double stacked rage plus foot stomp is too much for a scrapper to have now, then it's too much for a brute or tank to have. If that statement isn't true, then the ATs are NOT balanced against each other and we have bigger fish to fry.
From what I've seen, however, scrappers and brutes ARE completely balanced against each other. Tanks just suck. -
Quote:Fair enough. I feel it's safe to say that the devs completely disagree with you.
I'd say that balancing team benefits by this sort of solo tedium is bad design from a sheer balance perspective, but serves well the intent to specifically nudge people who play those ATs into teaming. -
I certainly wouldn't take those charts as gospel either. However, as I stated then, if SS is too broken to be ported as is to scrappers, then it's too broken to exist for brutes and tanks.
Either port it or nerf it. Either way, it should be the same set for all three archetypes beyond the taunt/confront difference. -
Quote:
Your attempt at putting words in my mouth fails. I never said I wanted a first person shooter. Quote:equalizing things across the ATs Quote:The checkers analogy is similar. Both players have the same pieces with the same abilities. It's down to skill and cunning. Quote:I'm a goalie. I have exactly the same equipment and team composition going for me that my opponent does. It's down to skill.
I didn't put those words in your mouth. You typed them out for everyone to see. What you didn't type out is that you want defenders to solo as well as scrappers without giving up any of the force multiplication abilities.
You're not asking for anything other than tankmagery. Just like always.
Quote:I am glad, however, that you're here to tell me what I want, since you seem to think you know it better than I do.
Quote:I have seen 5 other players total in the last couple of weeks. 3 in Atlas, one in Steel, and one in King's Row. I specifically went around looking for people. My friends list, nearly 100 strong, was empty. No one was on. -
Quote:Is it your complete lack of how powers are balanced that causes you to post that obvious contradiction?
I have no problem with their lower damage mods. That it's there to counter their benefits to a team is absolutely great. I'm not ignoring that fact, but (other than being the initial cause) it's rather irrelevant to the increased endurance cost per damage they suffer, which does little to counter their team benefits and more to inflict needless "tedium" on their solo game. You can ignore that fact all you wish, etc.
The defender's higher endurance per damage point is DIRECTLY related to their lower damage mod. They have higher end per damage BECAUSE they are a team based AT.
A power's recharge is chosen. An equation based off of that recharge value is then used to calculate the damage of that power. Then another equation using the damage value is used to calculate the end cost.
If you like you can reshape the recharge to damage equation to get the recharge to end equation.
What does this mean? Lower damage mod equals higher end cost per damage point.
It is specifically BECAUSE they are force multipliers that they have a higher end cost per damage point. That IS the balance. They DO more so it COSTS them more.
The extra solo "tedium" is there by design as a balance point against their teaming benefits. Why is something so simple so difficult for some people to grasp? -
Quote:This is what brings out the hostility. This is what brings out the dismissal of your opinions as irrelevant, foolish and a waste of our time.
I play Hockey. I'm a goalie. I have exactly the same equipment and team composition going for me that my opponent does. It's down to skill. I'm not required to give up my stick and pads after facing the first 10 shots, and the other team doesn't get to have 20 players on the ice. That's the kind of thing I see in CoH.
This is what so many have tried fruitlessly to get you to accept because you lack the simple ability to comprehend it: The Rest Of Us Don't Want This Turned Into A First Person Shooter. If I want to play Chess, I'll play Chess. If I want to play something with mindless shooting I'll fire up Borderlands.
Some folks WANT to play support. Some folks WANT to play control.
Your implication that I'm trolling you is as pathetic as every implication of your innocence in spewing your "make me a tankmage" filth over the years you've been posting here.
BS like "I've seen a grand total of 5 other characters in the last couple of weeks, on several servers" does nothing but exacerbate the ever growing disgust I have for people like you. Perhaps you should get your camera view away from that brick wall. The hundred+ people I see logged into my badge channel whenever I log in laughs at and mocks you for that statement.
You want this game to be something it isn't. You want it to be something that I would not play. Your "surprise" at the constant annoyance your BS brings out in people is almost as annoying to me as the BS itself.
Quote:That's fairly irrelevant to their increased attack costs even if one throws individual balance out the window, given that the team-beneficial abilities have their own costs (be it directly in endurance or, say, increased incoming damage). -
Quote:Which is countered by the benefits those characters bring to teams. And around and around we go.
However, in this game I believe the damage scaling of individual ATs is gradually worked in over the first 20 levels. And I don't think endurance costs account for their lower damage. This would mean that as, say, Tankers and Defenders go from 1 to 20 they'll be using more and more endurance as compared to ATs with a higher damage scaling since they would have to use more attacks to defeat enemies while spending a comparable amount per attack as higher damage ATs. One might point out that they can attack with a bit more safety, however that's irrelevant since their defensive abilities come with their own endurance costs (and in many cases probably don't quite make up for the damage loss). And while it's true that the issue becomes less noticeable on teams, that doesn't make it any less of an issue. -
Quote:Many. I've done it twice myself. Both of those characters have been deleted. Now I can't be bothered with it. I just run normally until I'm there.
I know that what I'm about to say will be called anecdotal, but so be it. To everyone insisting there is absolutely no problem at all, I request you sit back and think about the following. How often do you recall seeing people on these forums comment in passing on how they always PL to 20 or otherwise get there as fast as possible? How often do you know of people in game that do it? How often do you do it?
Do people quit because of it? Yes. They also quit because of repetitive content, lack of population, hatred of developer X, lack of end-game content, borked PvP, game bugs, lack of money, etc, etc, etc.
Is the game too hard? Nope. Rocket surgery it isn't. Other opinions obviously differ. And when/if the devs dumb down the game enough for those people, I'll cancel my sub out of boredom. -
Quote:1: It's apparently not fun for you because you don't get your way.
This statement baffles me. Why would ANYONE design a game where ANYTHING in it is not supposed to be fun? Another thought, when I can make a solo character with any power sets, THEN they can make playing the existing "team" ATs no fun to solo.
2: As explained, some of us are fine with the way endurance is dealt with here. It makes sense to us.
3: We all know that you're trying to get more soloability out of known team based ATs. Quit lying about your purpose. It's annoying.
Quote:Again, I haven't said you CAN'T play any character in the game, just that many times it's just not fun. As I say above, if there's something in a game that isn't fun, it should be reevaluted.
Quote:You're still arguing a different thread. This isn't about "teaming" archetypes.
Instead of "I don't do enough damage" it's "I don't have enough end."
In either thread, it's really "I want this to be a button pushing FPS instead of what it is and I'm going to whine about it until either everyone has me on ignore or I get banned from the forums as a nuisance."
Quote:I'm just illustrating a point, the numbers here are meaningless. I'm saying if someone is suffering a disadavantage relative to others or to the NPCs, then there may be a problem that needs examining. -
Quote:Really? You mean I haven't played Doom for the last 5 years? Huh. Imagine that.
Truthfully, if the game was like that, people would likely get up and leave quicker. -
A slot is a slot. A board that can run a PCIe Nvidia card can run a PCIe ATI card. "Designed for Nvidia," I'm betting, means nothing more than that it has built in SLI support. It may not even mean that if you're having to use the SLI cable to connect the cards.
Edit: To answer the title question, I have never seen a case where SLI or Crossfire was worth the money. -
-
Quote:If you stick with the "game is balanced around SOs" and we have 6 slots then a "sacrifice" is made somewhere during slotting.You sacrifice nothing. You have a full attack chain, with enough accuracy to only miss from bad luck, and recharges in half the time. Plus costing much less endurence. How is that a sacrifice?
If standard slotting is 1acc/1end-red/1rec-red/3dam and I replace something with another end-red, I "sacrifice" one of either acc, rec-red or dam.
Course, this means absolutely nothing in the early game because we don't get SOs there. It means nothing in general because the term "standard slotting" means nothing. My brutes don't slot very little damage because I'm more concerned with end and recharge. I let fury be my damage buff.
Then again, I know how to build characters for soloing because I solo 95% of the time. I don't suffer from the OP's misconceptions about what might be because I understand the way that things are.
I understand elementary concepts like archetype design. -
For the record, due to the mistake of posting in this thread in the first place, I'm viewing your posts to properly followup and carry through with my mistake.
Quote:Team based archetypes aren't supposed to be "fun" to solo. Thinking otherwise is irrational. I don't like soloing defenders because they aren't designed to solo. I don't like tanks for the same reason. I don't like controllers for the same reason. I don't like stalkers because I don't like Hide.Also, that you don't play nearly half the ATs because they're not fun suggests to me that there's a problem. Of course, you don't mention whether that's because of endurance issues.
Quote:Because no one has "proven" anything here. It's all opinion, mine, his, yours, all of it. The question isn't whether you CAN get a character to any particular level, but whether it's fun doing so (and not JUST for you - I'm trying to think of everyone here...).
Now listen carefully to this next part because your complete refusal to accept it as fact is the reason I ignore you in the first place:
Team based ATs are team based meaning they don't solo as quickly as the ATs that are designed to solo because they are given tools that are more beneficial to teams. Tools that soloist ATs lack.
Yea, I know... frelling news flash for everyone. -
Quote:And rad gets a tier1 attack with a recharge so low that you can slap on auto and have it fire off between every other attack. The -def means that you're going to hit far more often than the /ene.I did say "basically can't" rather than "can't". Anything CAN solo, it's a matter of how well.
FF/nrg is way easier than FF/rad, you have bigger burst attacks (admittedly on slower recharge) that actually have some mitigation through knockdown, and your AoE kills up front and does KB rather than being DoT that does -def. Remember defender tier 1s and 2s weren't normalised like the blaster ones were.
Ene's KB mitigation is there, but it's certainly not something that can be counted on. You know /rad's -def is going to work with every successful hit.
Your argument has no rational basis to it. You think rad < ene but can't back it up with facts. You think defenders "basically" can't solo "decently" when you've been proven wrong.
Got anything else? Or do I need to go crank up an FF/Rad def, not take any vet powers and solo it to 12 to prove my point... again.
EDIT: I'm curious how long folks think it should take me to solo a def from 1-12.