BunnyAnomaly
-
Posts
573 -
Joined
-
Last I remember Panacea was stupendously expensive so you might want to reconsider using that.
I'm not a fan of Axe/FA because of the redraw with Healing Flames and Burn, but if you can look past that then there's nothing wrong about it.
I'd disagree with the above assessment of slotting. Kinetic Combat is excellent for attacks for Brutes. More damage is nice but Fury is going to make up for a lot of that anyway. The amount of +accuracy you have from sets is more than enough to get over the low base accuracy in Kinetic Combat too.
Minor detail here but you should not put a def/end into Combat Jumping when you have Manouvers so underslotted right now. Move it across! -
Assuming the same basic mechanics continue to exist then this is probably going to end up favouring existing DPS archetypes. Consider how much (or how little) a pool attack power does for a Defender and then how useful another AOE would be on a Super Strength Brute/Tank.
I think, without there being any further information from what is presented so far, that temporary powers are going to shore up any holes in your playstyle up until 40 just fine. -
Whilst I won't judge people (actually maybe I will a little) on how they make up their group the game is easy enough that any configuration can pretty much breeze through just about any TF so long as the players are competent.
I remember when someone said that my SS/FA brute wasn't enough damage and they wanted a Blaster instead. I considered it a blessing to get that kind of forewarning before committing to something
-
I would highly recommend you consider their primary benefit only and take whatever secondary enhancements there are as extras. The +% applies only to a powers base effect and the extra defence or resistance is going to be very marginal.
-
Quote:The NW will die LONG before debuffs will make any difference. And the chances of being hit that many times to make a difference is really meaningless anyway.Originally Posted by Silverado
The NW will get debuffed into the deep red when fighting obnoxious mobs like Cimerorans and Kheld PPD.
With extremely loose numbers, the debuff is something in the order of 7.5% from memory, and you resist half of it so you suffer approximately 4% with each hit. In order to suffer cascasing defence failure (ie defence <45%) from 150% melee defence, you'd need to be hit approximately 27 times in the length of their debuff which is maybe 10 seconds long.
The chances of being hit 27 times in that short window firstly is pretty darn small. The fact you'll probably be dead as a NW off 27 Cimeroran hits precludes this from likely happening anyway.
More rough numbers: If there are 10 Cimerorans each attacking every 2 seconds there are a total of 50 attacks. The chances of 27 or greater of those hitting you is ... well, quite small. The calculator I used put it at 0. I had to fudge some numbers to get you an idea of what it's really like. To get 25 or greater successes out of 50 attacks it's 2.99x10^-15 (0.00000000000000299% chance). Unfortunately it wouldn't calculate beyond 10^-15 but you surely get the idea anyway.
Source: http://stattrek.com/Tables/Binomial.aspx
What is more probable is some kind of mass auto-hitting defence debuff like Earth Control has. Even this is spectacularly unlikely given how high defence you are to begin with. However, seeing that there *is* a chance this could happen, I would have to say the Scrapper has the advantage. I can't imagine any content yet exists where this question really is relevant though. -
Just finished then on +0/x5, and I regret not doing it at +0/x8 just for the sake of the challenge. It would definitely be doable at +0/x8.
The fight was tough and by no means a breeze. Some fights were a war of attrition where I had to back off and pull people around corners. I died a few times and filled up on inspirations as the different challenge called for.
I was playing my 50 SS/Fire brute. No temp powers used.
Observations (AND SPOILERS SO SKIP THIS IF YOU WANT TO DO IT YOURSELF )
....spoilers here!
The detention fields seemed to actually make the fights easier by letting you heal and recharge your powers which benefited you more than it benefited the enemies.
The second boss was at least for me an awful awful lot harder than the last boss. The second one killed me a number of times and the last boss only once. The waves of whatever-they-are that summon spectral horrors/phantasms and can stealth/confuse/etc. etc. were a serious pain and after I finished off everything else just turned into a serious time waster so I left them alone. Having double stacked Rage permanently up (and IOd accuracy) made the masses of -tohit not such a big issue but I imagine it could become a nightmare for other characters without that luxury.
The Netherfrosts/Netherstalkers were very tough on the initial burst but after their powerful opening hit it become once again a matter of attrition.
I'd say that at this stage a melee character with a resistance base, IOd up for defence, and with considerable AOE, can probably do this so long as they keep a big stock of Break Frees. That's the main threat... facing off against dozens and dozens of mezzes when going up against a larger spawn size. For me to do it at x8 I'd just need more break frees. The actual damage you take is not so significant, it's really just a matter of not being mezzed.
Finally... when Doctor Murnau says: [NPC] Doctor Murnau: My strongest disciples have arrived! the last wave was a bit slow to reach me and it was barely a challenge. I'm not sure why that spawns was meant to be so tough but they were a piece of cake. Perhaps they have something that SS/Fire is strong against.
Edit: I'd hazard a guess and say that a Mind Dominator with perma-dom and sleep could probable handle it quite easily too, so long as they were careful pulling and seperating the mobs apart.
2nd edit: The success message should not say "Who's the man!" as some of us are not male
-
With IO investment the Brute is probably going to be enough for just about any content in the game, *however* with that same investment the Tank is going to be pretty much undefeatable.
On the other hand IO investment will not do much to help the tank or brute damage. Brute will always be much higher.
If you love a character that is simply indestructible, the Tank is the way to go. For me I tend to think that you can build a brute to be good enough for tanking 99% of the content anyway. -
Quote:only bad ones.Originally Posted by RaikenX
I don't think the BM fight marginalizes melee'ers...
The TF has one trick. Don't stand in the blue light. Other MMOs have encounters with fights that have 5, 10 or 15 different aspects you have to manage. This game is staggeringly easy so long as you have a net connection that doesn't clunk out and suddenly give you enormous latency.
Melee are built with a lot of survivability, and they tend to have some kind of ranged attacks if not in their primary then likely in their epic/patron pools.
The damage really isn't that bad. You can comfortably joust through it (ie: build up some momentum, queue heavy hitting attack as you leap, land outside and complete for high damage) or plink away with your attacks (fire blasts, glooms, ranged AOE attacks, veteran attacks). Even just barely a few basic attacks you can easily fill in the time between when you can fight and when you can't. Plus a great deal of the time you should be able to pull her out of the blue zones anyway. -
Footstomp
Lightning Rod
Telekinesis + Domination
Propel
Nova
all spring to mind for that feeling of awesome
-
My take is going to be a bit unusual.
The standard answer: Dark support. Just filled with awesome.
The unusual answer: an IO'd out SS/Fire Brute. Or anything that can tank and also tear up spawns with overpowered damage.
First answer first. Dark is loaded with great powers. It borders onto a control set at times, and it does all the really important things. -Regen, -resist, great heal. I don't put a lot of faith in a gigantic list of everything that a set can do, because most of it is trivialised by damage, and putting things like a single target fear is just trying to pad an answer and make it appear more valuable. So a set to me needs to do the essentials well. There's only so much you can do in any fight and by and large those single target effects need to be either super powerful and useful against AVs or they are meaningless under a wave of AOE damage... which brings me to my second choice.
An IOd out SS/Fire brute, or really anything that can tank AVs and take out entire spawns in a matter of seconds. My SS/Fire Brute can feel guilty when she can just triviliase a whole team for an entire TF except for the AV battles where she needs temp powers to debuff regen (which is doable) or just a small amount of extra help to do the same. Jump in, crowd control the whole spawn with footstomp, and they are dead in less than 10 seconds. Bosses all down in maybe 15 seconds. Next spawn. Versatile because it's the perfect solution to just about everything in the game.
I guess it comes down to perspective - I don't believe versatile is about a giant list of what bag of tricks you have. It comes down to what you can do. An SS/Fire brute (and a variety of other combinations of the sort) can do a whole TF without breaking stride at breakneck speed. Damage is the ultimate debuff, and they have it in spades. They also have pretty good survivability (enough to tank most AVs) with the right IOs. If they release content whereby you must single target fear someone before they can be defeated, or that simply requires stealth, then my definition of versatile will adjust accordingly. -
Quote:Find someone you trust and paypal them the cash?Originally Posted by DrGamma
I'm kinda trying to keep my hopes up, but I'm pretty sure this is yet another cool pack I won't be able to buy in Brazil. We're blocked from that part of the NC Store and the stupid Brazilian distributor won't update their website to include the new stuff! Last one I got to buy was the Cyborg pack. I can't figure WHY they do that, it't not like they have to pay for shipping or anything...
Off-topic: I can't even buy game time in the NC Store with neither international credit card nor pay pal, so I'm forced to buy them piecemeal every two months and apply the time manually (and they're overpriced, to add insult to injury). Have to be real careful with stuff like the Vanguard Pack, so I don't slip for a day and end up loosing it.
Sorry for the whinning... -
It's time for another "you're wrong" statement, so here it is for Arcanaville.
Quote:Wrong. Again, why people should not use %s like this. Which is also what this whole thread is about. Comparing on %s leads to bad maths.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.
+50% regen does not always equal +50% survivability.
Proof 1:
Case a.
DPS Faced: 300
Defence: 0%
Resistance: 0%
HP: 2000
Base Regen: 20
Damage Received: 130/second (300*0.5-20)
Time until Defeat: 15.38s
Case b.
DPS Faced: 300
Defence: 0%
Resistance: 0%
HP: 2000
Base Regen: 30 (20+50%)
Damage Received: 120/second (300*0.5-30)
Time until Defeat: 16.66s
% increase to survival = 16.66/15.38 = 8.32% increase for a 50% increase in regen.
Proof 2.
Case a.
DPS Faced: 300
Defence: 35%
Resistance: 0%
HP: 2000
Base Regen: 20
Damage Received: 25/second (300*0.15-20)
Time until Defeat: 80s
Case b.
DPS Faced: 300
Defence: 35%
Resistance: 0%
HP: 2000
Base Regen: 30 (20+50%)
Damage Received: 15/second (300*0.15-30)
Time until Defeat: 133.33s
% increase to survival = 133.33/80 = 66.66% increase for a 50% increase in regen.
If you up the starting Defence to 40%, you'll find that +50% regeneration in fact makes you invincible. That's surely more than a 50% boost to survivability.
However Arcanaville would tell us that it's a 50% (or less, if there's existing % increases to regeneration, such as health) boost. But, she is wrong. There is not a singular answer, only a range of possibilities. Like almost everyone that has posted in this thread, %'s are misunderstood and incorrectly applied. A % increase is a nice way to express a benefit of something, but it is almost entirely useless when making decisions between mutually exclusive options.
If you want to know how to compare between mutually exclusive choices, give up on %'s. Right now. You will NOT answer it correctly this way. You need to calculate how much mitigation it provides and choose the better. That answer will depend on what amount of damage you face.
As for other things:
Try expanding out the formula for how long you survive. That is:Quote: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.
HP / (Damage - Mitigation) = t
You'll have an expression something like:
HP/((1-x)D - y) = t
Where x = mitigation through resistance/miss/defence, D is the maximum DPS, y = regeneration rate, t= time (survival). Clearly there is no x term next to y, or a D term... or anything else. It is trivial to say that overall survival improves when regen and defence improves, but regeneration itself is not being multiplied by defence. Also, try multiplying y by 1.5 and it should be immediately obvious that t is not going to automatically grow by 50% either (the original error above).
I think I might call it a day here. The fact that Arcanaville thinks +50% regen = +50% survival highlights to me what the first post is about. If you disagree, then so be it (but you're also wrong). When considering your options think in terms of actual changes in mitigation, not % increases to the various factors, else you will flat out get it wrong. Anyway, I won't be reading or responding any further, but do feel free to run amok if you want
-
Umbral please refer to first post/spreadsheet to see what point I am making, and for you to test your numbers and mine.
-
Quote:Oh?Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
Survivability model getting it wrong:
HP: 1000
Defence: 30%
Regen: 10hp/s
Survivability model says you can live indefinitely against 50 DPS.
Now the choice: Take an extra 3% defence, or 5 hp/s.
With +3% defence, you can survive 58.82 DPS indefinitely.
With +5 hp/s, you can survive 75 DPS indefinitely.
So the survivability model says Regen is better. You claim that by selecting regen:
But you're wrong.
What happens if you're actually in a fight where you might be defeat? Like, say, just about most fights in the game? Surely this survival metric is how you describe?
HP: 1000
Defence: 30%
Regen: 15
DPS Faced: 400
Time to Defeat: 15.38 seconds.
vs.
HP: 1000
Defence: 33%
Regen: 10
DPS Faced: 400
Time to Defeat: 17.38 seconds.
Defence wins? So the survivability metric is wrong.
Once again, survivability metric should not be used because it flat out gives the wrong answer some times. -
Lol
Quote:Look, just stay with your survivability measure, which is proven to give wrong results already, several pages agoI'm not sure if you're just not very good at English, or if you're actually very dense, but that's not what I said. I said they seek conditions where their long-term trend is immortality.
We're clearly at an impasse so stick with what doesn't work
-
Quote:It's significantly more useful, because it's trivial to say more defence is better. There's nothing enlightening about that.Originally Posted by UberGuy
Except that's not usefully portable. I can't do anything with that in the game based on ordinary play experience. I can use the ratio approach.
It's useful because you can make comparisons between choices, instead of getting lost in a sea of % increases that do not translate across. -
The survivability line describes the maximum amount of damage you can face perpetually.
It's garbage.
That amount is when damage = mitigation.
What is actually happening is that you face a situation where the damage is enough to defeat you, and you have a limited amount of time to whittle it down. -
I think if you read this thread carefully you'll find I argue consistently against expressing it in such terms and I have made this point numerous times. It is a very poor metric for comparison.
The spreadsheet in the first post will explain why you can't compare +100% survival to +5% survival because you can substitute just as easy a replacement for either. It doesn't tell you anything useful except that it's better to have more survivability.
Quick summary:
You can substitute the same amount of regen that protects you the equivalent of 0->5% defence in place of 40-45% defence. Even though 40-45% defence equals such a significant effect in survivability. -
Quote:Base 60% chance to hit:Originally Posted by UberGuy
(As an aside, those are not the defeat time numbers I got for reasons relating to what Chaos String mentioned. You seem to be assuming that whatever is attacking you is missing 50% of the time at base. This is a poor assumption. Mobs above your level and/or above minion rank have greater-than-unity accuracy, making their base hit probability greater than 50%. All you can say with certainty is how your defense affects their damage relative to no defense at all. However, that's not especially germane as it doesn't change the outcome in your example.)
5% defence mitigates 5% damage of the incoming damage.
100 - 40 - 5 = 55.
If you ignore the initial 50% miss chance and describe defence the way Chaos String does, you get it looking very ugly very quickly. Else 5% defence equals... uhh.. -5% mitigation? Or is it 5/60 = 8.333% mitigation?
It's much cleaner to express it in terms of the damage it is actually mitigating, and it doesn't matter if they have a 95% chance to hit or a 50% chance to hit, 5% still protects you from 5% damage. -
The idea that someone seeks missions at which your HP doesn't move is ridiculous.
That's when the immortality line is useful: when mitigation = damage. I've already displayed that when this isn't the case, the method encounters big problems. Big enough as in: it's wrong. -
Quote:The point is that the maths of the survival model are wrong and can be demonstrated as that.Originally Posted by Smersh
Surely, it's dishonest to compare a 10% increase in defense with a 50% increase in regeneration?
The Regeneration is better at the start, the Defence is better at the end, there is not a singular answer of which is always right. -
Quote:Survivability model getting it wrong:Originally Posted by UberGuy
But if you choose a given DPS target, as the immortality line model does, you can see which changes move the time you survive higher. That's all that matters. That's mathematically the same as choosing a duration you'll survive and seeing what makes the DPS you'll live that long against go up.
A higher immortality line always means you live longer on average in the face of any average damage for which you will not already live forever. The actual numbers do not matter. I don't know why you keep referring to the exact damage for the immortality analysis. No one cares about that number. We only care about changes to a build that make it better.
HP: 1000
Defence: 30%
Regen: 10hp/s
Survivability model says you can live indefinitely against 50 DPS.
Now the choice: Take an extra 3% defence, or 5 hp/s.
With +3% defence, you can survive 58.82 DPS indefinitely.
With +5 hp/s, you can survive 75 DPS indefinitely.
So the survivability model says Regen is better. You claim that by selecting regen:
But you're wrong.Quote:A higher immortality line always means you live longer on average in the face of any average damage for which you will not already live forever
What happens if you're actually in a fight where you might be defeat? Like, say, just about most fights in the game? Surely this survival metric is how you describe?
HP: 1000
Defence: 30%
Regen: 15
DPS Faced: 400
Time to Defeat: 15.38 seconds.
vs.
HP: 1000
Defence: 33%
Regen: 10
DPS Faced: 400
Time to Defeat: 17.38 seconds.
Defence wins? So the survivability metric is wrong.
Once again, survivability metric should not be used because it flat out gives the wrong answer some times. -
Quote:lolOriginally Posted by DSorrow
I'll offer one last response relevant to the discussion before I degrade into pointless posts trying to derail this thread. I do this because if you are not going to address what I'm trying to say, I won't bother trying to address what you have to say*.
What you are trying to prove:
Against a known number of DPS, certain number of Regen and Defense work interchangeably when survivability is in question. Your conclusion: Regen equals Defense in survivability. I only dispute this when we take burst damage into account.
What we are actually interested in, and what you refuse to see:
We are interested in the immortality lines of characters. That is to say, we're interested in modifying the maximum DPS we can sustain indefinitely. In all cases (except when exceeding the soft cap), additional Defense does this better, because it changes the maximum sustainable DPS as a multiplicative function of the previous maximum DPS. When dealing with high figures of DPS, multiplying it by a figure (call this figure A) will always result in a bigger change than adding something close to A to it.
TL;DR version. No one is interested in whether adding either 5% Defense or 15HP/sec is going to increase their survivability against an incoming DPS of 500. People are interested in whether adding either 5% Defense or 15HP/sec is going to result in a higher maximum sustainable incoming DPS.
*Disclaimer: Alcohol may have something to do with this. Not a cruel lol, but I loved your disclaimer it was funny
If someone wishes to measure their maximum DPS they can survive indefinitely then certainly the survivability line is the way to go.
My issue, stated perhaps ad nauseum, is that it can give you the wrong answer at times.
It might suggest to go with Regen. Your problem is that there is a point where you are taking enough damage that the Defence would have actually been a better choice, and by taking Defence you would live longer. In game terms, that is more meaningful to me, than to determine how long I live if and only if I am under a very specific set of DPS. It doesn't carry meaning outside of that 1 case. -
Umbral, who wrote that original formula?
-
Quote:You do realise this is exactly what I have written in the spreadsheet but simply in a different order.Originally Posted by Umbral
The formula is as follows:
(((Regen * Time) + MaxHP) / (1 - Mitigation)) = Damage
Regen is your regeneration per unit of time.
Time is the total number of units of time.
Max HP is your Max HP.
Mitigation is the percent of incoming damage you mitigate (via defense, mez, resistance, etc.).
Damage is the amount of damage you can take in total (in order to determine the DPS needed to kill you within the Time, just divide Damage by Time and you'll get your answer).
This expresses how much damage you can take, dependent on time.
This is... damage over time.
Run the numbers What I propose is precisely that for determining length of life.