Circeus_NA

[ QUOTE ]
[If I'm understanding the numbers correctly, the original debuff effectively reduced incoming damage to 60% of the original value. The change Statesman *thought* was made (-.32/-.1) would have reduced incoming damage to 61.2% of original - a tiny nerf. The *actual* change reduced damage to 63.24% of original - a significant nerf. The proposed checked change reduces net damage to 58.48% of original, a slight buff. If I understand correctly: recharge is not my field of expertise]

[/ QUOTE ]

Essentially, yes.

[ QUOTE ]
oh, he only SAID it would happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, to be fair, he said "checked in" which means on his end its a done deal and it just has to propagate to us so maybe next week?

Statesman posted that in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
If it wasn't, I'd be confused.

[/ QUOTE ]

It pays to double check just the same.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but the -Recharge on I4 CE had the same problem, so I think the I4 and I5 CEs would've worked out in the end.

[/ QUOTE ]

No -Recharge is affected by level difference, but its not resisted (except by +Recharge). -Damage is both affected by level difference and it is resisted. This is how things have always worked.

[ QUOTE ]
But if you talk about level scaling, then your argument won't be about whether CE was mini-nerfed in I5, but about whether the other Tankers do better than Ice against higher-level mobs-- and we already know the answer to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Baby steps. Its an uphill battle, you take what you can when you can.

[ QUOTE ]
But that's all moot now-- Statesman's upping the damage debuff to 14%! Yay! Frankly speaking, this is still only a modest boost-- other damage debuff powers get like 20-30%, don't they? I hope Statesman can give us a higher number.

[/ QUOTE ]

Other damage debuff powers belong to controllers and defenders though, to me it seems reasonable they'll be better at it. Doubling the debuff will work out very well. Essentially we'll be getting twice the benefit vs +0s and what we're getting right now on live vs +4 opponents (which I really don't fight very much personally) at its base effectiveness. The way its resisted still has me concerned, as since most things are generally have some form of RES and often to their own damage types, the power will be generally resisted in some manner.

And no, it won't stop us from being sub-par.

[ QUOTE ]
Once again, proof that empirical data collected through in game testing and concise, polite posts are the best way to bring these things to a devs attention.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was concise and polite? I must be slacking

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for changing the way defense works...eek. That's not really an option. There's simply too many things that would break...It's just not do-able.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was changed before.

[/ QUOTE ]
And look what happened...

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, my point is that history shows its not hard to change, so I don't buy what Statesman is trying to sell in that statement.

Its simple. A hose on your car's engine spring a leak, do you patch it with a band-aid and forget it ever happend? Or do you replace the hose?

[ QUOTE ]
As for changing the way defense works...eek. That's not really an option. There's simply too many things that would break...It's just not do-able.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was changed before.

[ QUOTE ]
So, while Recharge = Base_Recharge*(1 + "recharge debuff") gives the correct answer for one special case, it is not how the game appears to handle recharge debuffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now step back, and read the title of the thread. We're only talking about one power here and one particular debuff the power offers. Nowhere did I say "this is how Recharge debuffs work for the entire game". I was keeping it context of a specific conversation I had with Statesman, so that when he hopped here (because I asked him to) he'd be able to jump right in and grasp what I was saying right away. Which he did.

[ QUOTE ]
And level scaling does not seem to fall within that special case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Debuffs are affected by level in a different manner and falloff rate than other powers, and it may be quite possible that different debuffs fall off at different rates, though certain debuffs may use the same falloff rate as well.

I was given a specific debuff falloff rate (as you can see from my other post) by Statesman to use in my calculations. So its handled.

The way I look at your posts on this thread are simple: at least you didn't derail the conversation to the point where I wasn't able to get my point across to Statesman.

[ QUOTE ]
OK...here's what Chilling Embrace ONCE did...

-0.4 to Recharge

We changed it to...

-.32 to Recharge
-.07 to Damage (thought it was .1, to be honest)

Needless to say, Circeus is right - it's a mild nerf! Eek.

We checked a change in so that Chillling Embrace will NOW be:

-.32 to Recharge
-.14 to Damage

I'll post tomorrow explaining these numbers...

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool, based on our prior conversation I'm fairly certain how those numbers are used. Not gonna plug them anywhere until I read over your explanantion

Back when we were talking you gave me the following falloff for the debuffs as follows (quote from you via PM):

[ QUOTE ]
The falloff for the effect of Chilling Embrace's Recharge and Damage Debuff works like this: the effect (after Enhancements) is multiplied according to this table

0 1.0
+1 .9
+2 .8
+3 .65
+4 .48

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it this is still the case, right?

Edits follow:

Oh and if everyone doesn't want to wait for Statesman's explanation, here's how the -Recharge components of the numbers likely work:

OriginalRecharge / (1 + RechargeDebuff) = NewRecharge

So if we have a power where OriginalRecharge is 10s...

When CE used to have "-0.4 to Recharge":
10s / (1 + -0.4) = 16.67s
(the same as saying 66.7% slower)

Using the new "-.32 to Recharge":
10s / (1 + -0.32) = 14.7s
(the same as saying 47% slower)

*****

What I'd also like to know is exactly how RES (Damage Resistance) works in terms of resisting the -Damage debuff. Is it direct, meaking that 10% RES lowers it as follows:

0.14 * (1 - 10%) = 0.126

Or is it more complicated than that?

Why only Smash/Lethal.

Its fairly safe to say that right now these powers block a ranged electrical or radiation attack because they've got Ranged DEF. Yet somehow they do more for S/L. I think bottom line is you're making this way more complicated than it has to be.

Instead of band-aiding a poor system you should spend some time, step back, and address the problem in a better manner.

Just make these powers block vs anything, and if you want to leave the Psi hole opened then don't give them Typed Psi. But there's no good reason you can provide for why they would only give:

Smash/Lethal/Melee/Range

instead of:

Smash/Lethal/Energy/Negative/Fire/Cold/Melee/Range

Again you want AoE and Psi to be hardships, fine leave them off. Leaving off any of the others makes no sense.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll doublecheck the numbers today and post something in this thread (hopefully today).

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should just hire Circeus to work on the Ice Armor set.

[/ QUOTE ]

No thanks. I've been out of the video game industry for a while now, I doubt they could afford me based on industry salaries.

[ QUOTE ]
So anyway, they're roughly the same, and your measly 1.3%-difference numbers support this (I should've just looked at those numbers first, eh). But since the damage debuff works instantly (whereas the recharge debuff won't work on the alpha-strike), we can count that as a miniscule buff.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 1.3%ish number comes out of the fact that its only 33% + 7% if the mobs are +0. And I calculate for mobs in the +0 to +4 range. Also keep in mind that most mobs have, at the very least, resistance to Smash/Lethal which means in geneneral its not really 40%... well... ever.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it's just me, but when a dev speaks about a power in this game, I prefer it when they actually speak about how powers actually work in this game.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but Statesman specifically said that a 66.7% debuff means 10s becomes 16.67s or 10 * (1 + 66.7%) = 16.67s. That is stating how the power used to behave in game.

So I'm just merely stating that the 66.7% is no longer the case, its 50%. As in 10s becomes 15s or 10 * (1 + 50%) = 15s. That is stating how the power behaves in game now.

You may not like the way its stated, but its not an incorrect way of stating it, because it is exactly how the power works in game.

And again I did take level falloff into account as the numbers I presented are calculated over the range of +0 to +4 foes, and I in fact have the exact falloff percentages are provided by Statesman as well. So again, I'm not sure how much more clear I have to be there.

Its like this. Look at above where Stargazer and I are saying that 66.7% is 40% and 50% is 33.33%. The 25% number is more comparative to the 40% number but also comes from a time when we weren't using demo files to count and didn't have the arena for timing measurements. So for a while it stuck as the number, but was based on somone counting on their fingers the number of times they were attacked in 15 minutes w/out CE and then the number with CE. So defintely subject to error.

When looked at more closely though the number was wrong. When Statesman gave me the 66.7% number, which was during I4, I went into game and verified it. It was defintely causing about 40% less attacks when I did this (I didn't think to measure vs a PvP opponent in the arena at the time btw).

And now its defintely less than that number both in PvE and PvP, coming in at 50%.

[ QUOTE ]
If I remember correctly, people kept throwing around how you increase enemies' recharge times by 25%. That means that the "debuff" the way you're using it has always been 50% as according to others. There hasn't really been a "lowering" in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my case 50% means the recharge time increases 50%. So I'm not sure what you're saying here, but it seems what I'm saying is different.

As for the rest... well I agree we do underperform, greatly.

[ QUOTE ]
You're raising hell over about a 16% recharge decline when most of us had our DEF dropped in HALF or More?? My SuperiorInvis only offers 1/4 of the protection it used to in Combat. My Entire concept has to be reworked from the ground up now. I won't even mention how badly Inv and FF builds got REAL nerfed. ...And here's Statesman goin "gee, I'll look at this" ... WTH! ... Where's the concern for the real issues? Why aren't those being put to bed first?

[/ QUOTE ]

To be blunt, Ice Armor was nerfed quite possibly worse than every single other powerset out there bar none, even Invuln. Its powers were gutted by a much higher percentage then most when you take Energy Absorption into the picture.

So yeah, I'll fight for a measely little bit of scrap leftover if I have to, because when all you've got to eat is crumbs, every crumb is a meal.

[ QUOTE ]
They should also react differently when we consider scaling due to level difference...

[/ QUOTE ]

Stargazer, okay I get that. Thanks. But listen closely, this is not a thread about direct comparisons to other sets its a thread to show that the numbers got worse not better with the change. And to do that I'm trying to keep the numbers in terms in which the devs talk about them, not us.

Statesman called the debuff 66.7%, and I could verify that based on what he told me that's an accurate way to represent the number. The 50% number I'm giving plugs into the equation he gave me to demonstrate how things work in I5, this way he and I are on the same page in discussing this.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I can't present things your way, and get my point across to the devs if they're speaking a different language.

And since we're talking about the debuffs from a single power there are no other debuffs to overlap them, so what you're saying, while techinically correct, doesn't matter for purposes of this conversation, and I'd ask that you not muddle this thread with it.

And for the record, my analysis is a comparison done over the +0 through +4 range for mobs. So it does take level into account.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll doublecheck the numbers today and post something in this thread (hopefully today).

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks!

While you're at it I don't suppose you'll throw the bone of the -Damage and -Recharge on Granite Armor would you?

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, given that Recharge = Base_Recharge/(1 + bonus), it seems like it currently has a debuff of about 33%.
In the examples used above, the results will be the same, but that's not generally so.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 66.7% number from Statesman came with an explanation of how that number would be applied. Which would be: Base * (1+X) or in this case Base * (1 + 66.7%).

Based on my testing, the current number that fits that equation is 50%. I provide the number this way more so that he understands it than the general public, but I did also provide the number with an explanation of how it is applied.

I do agree from the standpoint of where you and I generally talk that a 66.7% debuff is 40% slower and a 50% debuff is 33.33% slower than base.

[ QUOTE ]
What size damage debuff would get you closer to where you think they should be? (Just asking would be helpful if we had a number to throw their way when asked.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm... I consider that a double edged question. To be honest, I'm not particularly fond of the damage debuff at all not when players suggested it, not when the change was announced, and not now.

The fact that its resistable bothers me more than anything else. It easily has the potential to be in the range of 0.7% to 1.75% in terms of the game, especially in terms of PvP. In terms of PvE its more often than not going to be 6.3% or less as its lowered due to relative mob level and that's the value vs a +1 mob.

So while I could easily say any higher number would help us more, and that the 10% I was originally told would help more. I would have rather it have been a flat unenhanceable RES vs All (yes All). As that would have achieved, at the very least, a fixed result vs the same damage types (All).

[ QUOTE ]
Just as a side note. My Ice/EM tanker is actually a tad bit better ... I had 6 slots in Wet Ice before and now get those back for attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

My slots went to 3 to Health (to 6 slot it) and 2 to Hoarfrost (to 6 slot it). I generally say defensive slots go to defensive powers before I say they went to offensive powers.

That said, I'm fairly sure that 90% of Statesman's intent is for Ice to be Scrankers, as he pretty much said to exactly what you did to me: the extra slots mean you can slot for more damage. Which is BS as my core attacks were already 6 slotted by 50, and their slotting hasn't changed.

[ QUOTE ]
Hey since weave does not help much does that reduce the benifit of the fighting pool enough to make it not worth taking or is it still a good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, I didn't take it in I4 and I don't have it in I5. I still think its a "Salt to Taste" item. I'd rather have Health.

One word: Perseverance

Lets face it, no one who creates anything likes negative commentary of any sort about their creation. They will work hard to either ignore the commentary and/or defend their creation. This is just basic human nature stuff: they want the complainers to go away.

So the key is, as in any uphill battle, don't walk away.

Maybe take a break, live to fight another day, but don't walk.

And definitely be pissed and not merely concerned

[ QUOTE ]
That or there is a huge lack of communication between Geko and Statesman.

[/ QUOTE ]

I sort of feel this to be the case, and I have a friend who stated it quite nicely: what Statesman wants isn't necessarily what Statesman gets.

[ QUOTE ]
I always doubted this change was a good thing, was nice to see the numbers on it. Those of you who say this change was underhanded though, I think you are giving the devs too much credit. Wayyy too much credit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was duped in how it was presented, both privately, and publically. It was promoted, by Statesman, as a positive change that would help us. Its clearly not though.

[ QUOTE ]
So for battles that are over quickly the new CE is actually better, but for longer battles it is inferior. Does this make sense, or am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah generally speaking my analysis is more geared toward teaming and longer battles than solo play. I'm hard pressed to find any character I can't solo with, except perhaps my Empath, but only because he has very few attacks (is designed to be team only really).

In very short battles though usually -Damage doesn't matter at all. I mean if the battle is <5s chances are you didn't take very much damage to begin with. So if the net is being alive whether you have your -Damage going or not then its ineffective.