Circuit_Boy

[ QUOTE ]
Divisors freak out as they approach zero, because division by zero is liable to lead to farcical election recounts, outrageous BCS tabulations, Hollywood accounting, and other affronts to God and mathematics.

[/ QUOTE ]
As a Democrat (farcical election recounts) originally from the Cornhusker state of Nebraska (outrageous BCS tabulations) but now living in southern California (Hollywood accounting)...

...that's funniest thing I've read in a long, long time.

I'm not sure that either "herding" or "quad-kiting" qualify as "above average tactics", honestly. In my experience, in both CoH and in EQ, every Tank or Druid (respectively) worth their salt knew how to employ the tactic. Only the truly, truly clueless didn't--and those were few and far between.

"Charm-kiting", on the other hand, was difficult and dangerous. Charms broke at extremely bad times. People trained their foes over charmed pets (causing a truly nasty aggro-tangle), or the charmed pets simply got too close to another foe's pathing. It was a steep learning curve; I got splattered all over the Plane of Nightmares as my mentor tried to show me how to master it, and it took a while.

EvilGeko:

I can't help but think quad-kiting was intended. After all, they gave both Wizards and Druids a power that snared four things at once, along with AOEs that nailed four things at once. I know a lot of people objected at the time, but I think it was "working as intended". It was disruptive, which was the source of a lot of complaints.

I think charm-kiting, as Druids and Enchanters did it, was an innovation. I don't think the developers had anticipated it. Still, it was so ridiculously dangerous (especially for Enchanters) that I suspect EQ's developers decided it wasn't a game-breaker. Nonetheless, they made plenty of foes 100% resistant to charm afterwards.

Woo hoo! Castle actually read something I wrote!

And I'm the first to post after it!

On my birthday!

<does the Cabbage Patch>

Speaking as someone who played EQ, EQII, WoW, and (don't hit me) SWG...

...there's nothing particularly surprising about any of this, honestly. In none of those games is balance even remotely refined. In SWG, at least in the first nine months, it see-sawed radically, with Creature Handlers, then Bounty Hunters, then Combat Medics, then any Imperials, and then Jedi (...I didn't stick around long enough for that fiasco, but I heard it, like the voices of millions of beings being snuffed out at once...) being "king of the hill" as the developers tweaked and tweaked and tweaked, and then finally hit the reset button on the whole damn thing and started over. I understand WoW is going through a similar process currently, though with fewer wild vacillations.

Even in EQ, roles shifted as new abilities and gear were released with new expansions. On my server, Firiona Vie the "roleplay server", we were only allowed one character (unlike the normal eight); in my time playing the game as a Druid, I found at one moment I was sought after for travel powers, and then later on, not at all. Like Wizards, I could solo easily, even engaging in the much-maligned "quad-kiting" and later, the much, much more dangerous "charm-kiting" (which Wizards couldn't do, but Enchanters could). On paper, Druids weren't "the best" at anything--third-tier direct damage, second-tier healing, third-tier (at best) buffing. However, the unique combination of abilities--none of which were first-tier--allowed them to solo things in the highest ranges that others would get instantly slaughtered by. I bring this up because the math there didn't tell the entire story.

No problem.

Outrider:

You're right. SOMEONE didn't see the humor there...

...but that someone wasn't me.

It's ironic to accuse someone else of being humorless when you missed the joke yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
Fusilier, we got a new member! Welcome to the Conspiracy club...*hands Circuit_Boy a T-shirt with "I am with the wierdo" printed on it*..Later we are going to prove that "magic bullets" made by the Illuminati are not flawed against undead zombies and are just as good as hollow point rounds.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, okay...

I'll put this next to my copy of [u]The Homosexual Agenda[u].

Blah.

I keep trying to reply, but I'm in our Writing Lab and my own students keep coming up with anxieties about their papers due tomorrow. (Pesky students. No, actually, I'm not complaining about them; I'm just explaining why this is so short.)

In any event, I think I've pretty much articulated what I think on the matter. It's good to know the equation. I'm not sure that much more can be made out of that without establishing one's own idiosyncratic, arbitrary standards.

Arcanaville:

You may think it "an abuse of data mining" to use it to determine actual performance, but I think you'd be fighting an uphill battle on that front with the Developers. We know from _Castle_'s posts that the Developers use datamining to determine quite a bit.

The problem with a straight numerical analysis is that it doesn't tell us anything, and all conclusions are pure speculation, pure theory.

The thing is there are factors here we can't know, that we're just not privy to. Uncovering the equation isn't an argument for nor against anything, nor can it be crafted into one. It simply is.

My guess is that the equation, as-is, probably produces an average Damage Buff overall on par with what Scrappers have, in the end. I have no way of knowing whether or not this is true--it's just a hunch. Unfortunately, it can neither be proven nor disproven, so it's just going to have to remain a hunch.

If I'm right, though, that explains why the Developers, in 18 months, have shown absolutely zero interest in changing Defiance.

Captain_Napalm:

I think the exponential nature of the equation is going to make that difficult. The problem is that if you add an integer on the "low end" (the 50% to 100% health zone, for example), it's going to inflate the "high end" (the 1% to 10% health zone), too, unless you overly complicate the equation with If/Then statements, though then you'd probably wind up with a "chunky" equation at the if/then statement point(s).

Knowing the equations themselves is good, but it still doesn't really resolve what we need to know. I know most of us say that Defiance "doesn't kick in until it's too late", that it "doesn't matter until we're almost dead". The real question is, however, what kind of average ToHit and Damage Buffs do Blasters, as an aggregate, get from Defiance in-game.

Unfortunately, we're not privy to that data, nor can we be. It's possible that, on average, our ToHit and Damage Buffs exceed Scrappers' damage from Criticals and the +12.5% more base damage they do. It's possible that, on average, ours do less. It's possible that the average completely makes up the difference, but not much more.

The thing is it doesn't take very many instances at the +350% Damage range to skew the average considerably upwards.

Well, that's sort of what I meant about adjusting it.

However, the part we're not privy to, and can't be privy to, is how often Blasters are operating above the amount Scrappers get on average. Those amounts for the lows are staggeringly high and will skew any average considerably. It'd be very hard to find this out, but the question, in terms of balance, is whether or not we're averaging above, below, or about the same as Scrappers.

I knew the howling monkeys would join this discussion at some point.

Arcanaville, thanks for posting this, and thanks for putting the lie to the so-called "health / defiance lag". More actual data and knowledge is always useful.

Now the argument isn't whether Defiance isn't working. It clearly is. Now the question is whether or not the exponential equation it's based on is appropriate or whether it should be adjusted, or whether it should be an exponential curve to begin with.

That other discussion was heading for nuclear territory, so I'm spawning a new thread about the "nukes" alone.

Arcanaville, you said you were having trouble killing even-level (yellow) lieutenants with Nova. That strikes me as very odd and outside my own extensive personal experience with Thunderous Blast which should actually be doing less damage than Nova does, if City of Data is to be believed (though I'm not entirely convinced the numbers City of Data has for Thunderous Blast and/or Nova are correct).

I've had a handful of +2 level (red con) lieutenants survive a Thunderous Blast, but it is the exception to the rule rather than the rule itself.

How do you have it slotted? Are you using Aim and/or Build-Up first?

chewyboywa:

[ QUOTE ]
Stalkers only do .6 range damage, and the activation/interrupt time for snipes are increased in Stalker's patron pool. Personally I am quite disappointed with villain PPP's altogether, heroes still has it good with their already high damage ATs and mez resistance/defense in Blaster and Troller epic pools. (emphasis mine)

I have to admit though, it puts a big grin on my face for those newbies rolling an ice/energy Blaster just to get by easy in PvP and those days are numbered with the toggle drop changes. I will now go back to playing my ice/ice Blaster (deleted my energy/elec) more for the challenge and not for the stupidity of toggle dropping and ending the foe's day within 3 shots which really gets freaking boring after a while, it will involve much more ranged tactics and some of the secondary powers has immob, powerboost, debuff, etc. that will help.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please, point me to the "mez resistance" power in the Blaster epic pools.

Well, this was interesting:

See _Castle_'s post (click link) where he says Stalkers' Snipe Powers would be at their Melee Damage Scale, rather than their Ranged Damage Scale:

[ QUOTE ]
FYI: Melee AT Patron Power Pool Ranged attacks which cause damage will be changed to using the Melee damage scale.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently, though, the higher-ups came to their senses and vetoed _Castle_'s gift to Stalkers (click link):

[ QUOTE ]
Follow Up:
Stalker Snipe PPPs are back to being Ranged damage. The changes I'd made to keep them balanced got nixed. (emphasis mine)

[/ QUOTE ]
In what universe does _Castle_ live in that giving a melee Archetype the penultimate ranged power (a Snipe) would be "balanced" at their Melee Damage Scale rather than their Ranged Damage Scale?

Boo-freakin'-hoo. Cry me a freakin' river.

Just a small correction:

Short Circuit will not work as a "mini-Power Sink". The changes to the electric powers' secondary effects only impacts the single-target powers. None of the Area of Effect attacks will give any Endurance drained back to the user.

I have an ATI Radeon X800 Pro and here's the set-up that's worked fairly well for me:

IN-GAME

Screen Resolution: 1280 x 1024 (same as desktop)
3D Resolution: (unchanged)
Refresh Rate: 60
Gamma: 100%
Advanced Graphics Settings: Enabled

Supress Extra Player FX: Disabled
Particle Physics: Enabled
World Texture Quality: Very High
Character Texture Quality: Very High
World Detail: 200%
Character Detail: 200%
Max Particle Count: 50000
Vertical Sync: Enabled
FSAA: Off
Shadows: Enabled
Use Geometry Buffers: Enabled
Anisotropic Filtering: 16x
Texture Crispness: Smooth
Shader Quality: High
Water Effects: High Quality
Depth of Field Effects: Enabled
Bloom Effects: Heavy
Bloom Amount: 100%

IN CATALYST® CONTROL CENTER

3D:

Anti-Aliasing: Let the Application Decide

Anisotropic Filtering: Let the Application Decide

Disable CATALYST® A.I.: Unchecked--Advanced

Mipmap Detail Level: High Quality--Quality

All Settings:

Wait for Vertical Refresh: Always On--Quality

API Specific:

Direct 3D Settings:

Enable Geometry Instancing: Checked
Support DXT Texture Formats: Checked
Alternate Pixel Center: Unchecked

OpenGL Settings:

Triple Buffering: Checked
Force 24-Bit Z-Buffer Depth: Unchecked

This works pretty well for me. There's some stilting in Nerva Archipelago and around the big casinos of St. Martial, but it's barely noticable (at least, not to me). I tried the things suggested here and, in my opinion, things looked worse and the performance increase wasn't that great. It seems to me the largest "hit" to performace are the Depth of Field Effects and the World Detail, each of which I can turn down at a moment's notice.

Personally, I like the way the Bloom Effects make things look, and I've also grown fond of the Depth of Field Effects outdoors.

KidQwik:

Wheeee!

The Merry-Go-Round you're on is fun!

...but you're spinning. Face it.

First off, you're vastly overselling IR Goggles' effectiveness and vastly underselling the utility of Web Grenade and Stun Grenade to make your point. I know from personal experience that IR Goggles are not enough to see a Stalker using both Hide and Stealth. _Castle_ has even confirmed that it requires more than IR Goggles and Tactics together for a non-Defender to perceive a Stalker who is using Stealth and Hide. See _Castle_'s post on IR Goggles (click link), where he said "You are a Scrapper, no? Probably, these two powers [IR Goggles and Tactics] will not allow you to see a Hide+Stealth Stalker, *if* the Tactics is your power." In fact, I'd go so far as saying you are actually lying when you said "IR Goggles WORK. I have used them on my Scrapper, Blaster, and Peacebringer in SC and I have seen Stalkers without perception buffs applied to me by others..", because this claim cannot be true unless you wish to maintain that _Castle_ is lying about IR Goggles' effectiveness.

So much for your first attempted counterpoint.

Second, you far too easily dismiss my point about "needing a team", but that was one of your own primary objections to Hurricane. You don't believe you should have to "rely on a team" to deal with Hurricane, but in your own post, you tell others that they have to rely on teams who have the Leadership Power Pool in order to deal with Stalkers' Assassin Strike. That's a double-standard, pure and simple. Add to this the fact that, again, _Castle_ has confirmed that it takes more than Tactics alone to perceive a Stalker who's using Hide and Stealth, and your point here is really out of gas anyway.

So much for your second attempted counterpoint.

Face it. You're adhering to a double standard when it comes to Hurricane. You tell others they have to rely on teams to deal with Stalkers' Hide, but apparently what's good for the goose is not good for the gander, and you don't think Stalkers should have to rely on teams to deal with Hurricane. That's a double standard, pure and simple. You argue that Stalkers should not have to rely on "unreliable" temporary powers such as Web Grenade or Stun Grenade to deal with Hurricane, yet you tell others that they should rely on IR Goggles to deal with Stalkers' Hide, even when a Developer, _Castle_, has said IR Goggles are inadequate for the job. Again, apparently what's good for others is not good enough for Stalkers. This is yet another double standard.

And this doesn't even address the point that Assassin's Strike outright kills people in one shot; all Hurricane does is impede your ability to one-shot a Defender.

KidQwik:

[ QUOTE ]
You just proved my point why hurricane needed the nerf bat. All those things melee is supposed to do for ONE power? Why? Cause you should be able to use one power and that's it while everyone else should have to do x amount of things like waste inf on non working temp powers, form teams that have range or mez, change travel powers, etc, ALL to deal with ONE power???? Why it needed to be nerfed. Come to Justice, let my Stalker give u a hug.

[/ QUOTE ]
You do realize the irony of your position here, don't you?

Each and every one of these suggestions has been made by the Stalker community regarding Assassin's Strike.

If a person shouldn't "have to [. . .] waste inf on non working temp powers", then you'd agree with me that a person shouldn't have to "waste inf on non working temp powers" like IR Goggles "ALL to deal with ONE power????" ...right?

If a person shouldn't have to "form teams that have range or mez", then you'd agree with me that a person shouldn't have to "form teams that have" +Perception powers "ALL to deal with ONE power????" ...right?

If a person shouldn't have to "change travel powers", then you'd agree with me that people shouldn't have to "change travel powers "ALL to deal with ONE power????" ...right?

These were your words, by the way, not mine. Your logic certainly applies equally to Assassin's Strike as it does Hurricane.

So the next time Stalkers come out and tell people to buy IR Goggles to defend themselves from Assassin's Strike, you'll be right there on the forefront arguing against those people... right? The next time Stalkers come out and tell people that they "just need to team" to avoid Assassin's Strike one-shots, you'll be right there arguing as passionately against them as you're arguing here... right? The next time Stalkers tell people that they need to "just use their travel powers more unpredictably", I should expect to see you in the thread posting again and again about why that's wrong... right?

Given your own logic for nerfing Hurricane, imagine my shock when I found the following post (click link):

[ QUOTE ]
I'd leave Stalker's Hide alone though. They are pretty weak without Hide and since you can buy IR goggles in a zone if your side is doing well along with all the leadership powers tossed on, this should be adequate. (emphasis mine)

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd sure hate to see you applying a double standard... That would just be wrong, wouldn't it?

Sunchild:

A few corrections.

First, the BI you have for Thunderstrike is wrong. It's actually closer to 8.2BI these days. The Hero Planners are BOTH wrong on it; they're wrong about a lot of things. Don't rely on either.

Second, Electric Fence is NOT a Hold power. It's an Immobilize. There's a difference.

Third, "Stun" and "Disorient" are the same thing.

Was the ToHit Debuff tick rate reduced by half or more, too?

I second Mieux's suggestion.

At this point, I think it might be best if a spreadsheet of the data were made available.

At least then the wildest of speculations will be headed off. It won't prevent crazy interpretations or self-interested spin or armchair statisticians or college-freshmen-who-were-taught-never-to-trust-any-statistics, but at least then we won't be arguing over syntax.

I know it's a lot to ask, but a little sunshine here might be the best thing.

Woah, woah, woah.

Let's not dismiss the "kills-to-deaths" ratio as "pointless".

It gives us quite a bit of information that is useful.

And, Thorizdin, you really haven't addressed my second point, which is that using a criterion like "high-skill level team PvP" is competely subjective. There is no way to quantify "high-skill level team PvP" or make any kind of objective category known as "high-skill level team PvP". For data analysis to be remotely valid, you want to eliminate as many subjective factors as possible.

_Phantom_:

By all means, ask KaliMagdalene, because I know I said no such things in that or any other thread.

"Convenient", yes. So now you can come here, lie outrageously about what I've said, call me all kinds of names in the process, and when you cannot provide one shred of evidence to back up your claim--NOT A SINGLE, SOLITARY SCRAP OF EVIDENCE--you fall back on sullenly claiming it was magically deleted, but we should all take on faith that your claim is right, even though you cannot prove it.

Did the dog eat your homework, too?