Codewalker
-
Posts
896 -
Joined
-
Quote:That's actually exactly how Incarnate trial bosses scale to the number of players on the team, except that instead of resistance, they increase the max HP and get damage buffs depending on how many players are in range. Though for Trials it's a bit more complicated since "range" is the entire instance, and it counts dead players as well.Originally Posted by Mazey
It seems to me the simplest solution is to give the EBs an invincibility/against all odds style defence, except more significant.
Give them an aura power with a large range that boosts their resistance by 10% for every player in range. Soloing, the EB only has 10% resistance, nothing too troubling, against a full team of 8, they have 80% resistance. A lot tougher, but nothing a full team can't handle.
An important point would be to give it a much larger radius than invincibility and the like, otherwise a team of blasters could just keep out of range.
Another advantage of this would be that if you lose a member of the team, the boss actually gets easier. Nothing worse than losing half the team and then wiping completely because the battle just got impossible.
The only problem with that is it requires powers work to do, so it's not something that the mission designers can just add on the fly. They need to implement some sort of Generic Villain ... Scaling thing, then it would only have to be done once and could be re-used.
-
Quote:Originally Posted by Kosmos
My tests with the Tanker attacks are not working out to MaxTargets. For example, in 134 hits against a single target with Tremor (14s Rech, 3.3s Cast) using a 5 PPM proc I saw a 43.3% proc rate, despite a 10 target cap. That's an error of a whopping 9.5 sdev assuming the MaxTargets modifier (11.4 sdev if you use the incorrect Rech only formula). The AoE mod for a 15', 360 deg, 10 tgt attack appears to be pretty close to 3, not 10.That actually works out almost perfectly for Tremor.Quote:Originally Posted by Diellan_
Their area modifier for damage:recharge ratios is area modifier = 1+(0.75*(RADIUS/5))-(((0.011*(RADIUS/6))*(360-ARC))/5). For Tremor, that's 3.25. I wonder if that's it? I'd love to get confirmation from a Dev, because I'm putting this in Mids right now.
Tremor is 14 second recharge + 3.3 second activation, so 17.3 seconds total. 12 seconds is the baseline for 100% chance on a 5 PPM proc. 17.3 seconds / 12 seconds = 144.16% chance.
144.16% / 3.25 = 44.36% -
To elaborate, prior to Issue 19.5, most (but not all) damage and debuff procs had checks to prevent them from proccing on yourself, but there wasn't anything of the sort for beneficial procs, and damage procs could still hurt friendlies in some edge cases.
In Issue 19.5, a sweep of all the procs was done. All of those special conditions were removed, and new ones were introduced with a set methodology -- harmful procs are only allowed to fire on hostile targets, and beneficial procs can only fire on friendly targets. This patch fixed not only Performance Shifter, but likely also the issue with Coercive Persuasion sometimes confusing friendly pets.
Those safeguards must have become part of the standard procedure, as all procs created since then include them as well.
This change doesn't appear to have been mentioned in the patch notes, which is why even as long as months afterwards players were not necessarily aware of it.
The one outlier is Energy Manipulator: Chance for Stun, which not only has the isFriend check, but also retained the check that makes it simply not work on players at all. I believe this PVE-only restriction dates back even further, to when people were griefing by slotting it in Speed Boost, and it got missed when the procs were all fixed properly. Though if it were to be fixed, it would need to have a correct PvP version added with the appropriate mez duration and suppression. -
Quote:Agreed. The KoV Assassin bosses (the dual pistols ones) are far more dangerous than any of the EBs I've encounted so far, IMO.Originally Posted by IndyStruck
On the contrary, I am very happy with the difficulty presented in the standard mobs. Said mobs are more difficult than the elite bosses, to me. There were some close calls, alot of back and forth, some times where me not dying involved pulling tricks out of my hat and thanking my recharge rate that certain powers were back up. However, I've had fights with random spawns go on for much longer than the fight with the Sentinel.
Ancients of Sorrow are no slouch either, especially if there's two of them in a pack. -
Quote:No kidding, with all the build-up there actually fighting them was... meh. I mean, I know we're incarnates and everything, but supposedly Requiem had some new source of power from Cimerora to put him at our level. So to just walk in there and stomp him without much of a fight was a letdown.Originally Posted by MaestroMavius
I will agree that, after dying to 2 random unnamed bosses in spawns on the way to the end, not even taking a hit from Reqieum and Reichsman was a bit of a let down.
This was on a controller duo set to +3x8 with only the Alpha slot level shift. The enemy groups leading up to Requiem were more challenging than the supposedly uber boss.
OTOH, buffed Black Scorpion from the same arc *did* spawn as an AV. We actually lost the first time, trying to fight him at the same time as a big arachnos spawn (including two Tarantula Queens). Pulling him single yielded better results and we took him down, but it was still a challenging (and fun) fight! He did have PtoD.
Ironically the toughest fight in DA is in an arc that apparently doesn't give a reward table at the end.
-
Quote:I haven't tested it personally, but it should be fixed. It was on beta for sure and they deployed the same build when I22 went live.Originally Posted by JayboH
...by the way, was the Superior version fixed with the release of Issue 22?
-
He's depressed because he got crickets on ustream after the long build up to showing us the "Hawkwaaard" pic. So we need to make Zwillinger memes to cheer him up!
-
Quote:Heh, I was thinking that too. I'm kind of surprised that large inspirations are apparently a major exploit that gets this kind of developer attention. I'd have expected them to give this treatment to say, Experienced, long before Inner Inspiration...Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Its actually farming inner inspiration itself that seems pointless. That sounds like someone creating alts and leveling then to 10 over and over again so they can farm the invention tutorial.
-
Quote:It looks like he's supposed to be unkillable. If he dies to anything other than fall damage, it's probably a good idea to /bug it.Originally Posted by TheBruteSquad
So is he untargetable/invulnerable, or does he die in one hit like the other buff pets?
Why is there confusion on this point? It's being claimed both ways in every thread about this.
Shouldn't that information be clearly stated in the item description? The difference between 8 seconds of buff (how long he'd live in a fight as a standard buff pet for most ATs) and a permanent buff is a big one.
Also I saw someone on Beta mention his slow movement speed and how you could outrange the buff. Except that the +Inf doesn't appear to be a function of the pet but rather the toggle itself. So you don't have to worry about that.
That said, flame on about 800 points... -
Quote:Translation: You're BOTH wrong! Ha ha ha!Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Actually, the devs design cones and AoEs in degrees, and the design tools convert this to radians because screw degrees. So the implemented formula in the design tools probably uses radians, but the formula the devs would know "on paper" is in degrees.
-
It might could be a bug if it was meant to be real time rather than game time.
That's not as pointless as it may seem; a lock marker autopower that expires in real time would still prevent the abuse of either switching builds or logging out for 15 minutes, both of which recharge all your powers. -
Quote:On the frontend maybe... There, fixed! :POriginally Posted by UberGuy
In the internal representation, yes. In RedTomax and Mids, it's in degrees.
-
Quote:AV-rank critters don't have to have Purple Triangles.Originally Posted by Caulderone
One thing to consider that I haven't seen noted here is default AV = purple triangles, even when stepped down to EBs.
Purple triangles are not equally an issue across classes. They are only really annoying for some of two classes (cont,dom).
I don't have a wagon in this race, one way or the other, but it may have been a design decision to avoid causing those 2 classes Purple Triangle Blues.
Most of them do, but it's not inherent to the class. An enemy designed as an EB and scaled up to an AV wouldn't have them unless the designer specifically added them. -
Quote:Well, technically they would still perform "equally" even in fast-charging AoEs, at least when compared to single target powers. If it had been designed that way to begin with I don't think anyone would question it -- the chance of a proc on an activation would be similar.Originally Posted by UberGuy
I know I wouldn't be happy about this.
Primarily, it seems mostly like change for the sake of change. Right now procs work best in fast cycling powers. After the change, procs would work "equally" in powers of all cycle times, unless they are fast-cycling AoEs. Is that "better"? It just seems mostly different to me.
Currently however, most procs perform much better in AoEs than they do in single target powers, and PPM would change that. By that definition, it would be a nerf.
I think that's probably the case, rather than radius affecting it. AFAIK this is similar to how damage scale is calculated -- cones aren't penalized as much as spheres because it's harder to hit the max targets with a narrow cone.Quote:Perhaps there is a Arc/360° factor somewhere in the proc rate calculation, and that was what was being referred to.
Except there's no /360 since Arc is in radians
-
Quote:A little of both.Originally Posted by Rajani Isa
Does it? It's the same as the Stealth IOs, and I thought mids had those set up for exclusivity already.
Or is that one of the dirty hacks/workarounds you mentioned that was implemented on a case by case basis?
Instead of one exclusion group for stealth IOs, doing it in a fully automated fashion would mean 72 exclusion groups... one for each enhancement and its Superior equivalent.
I just checked and it looks like he did it with only 6 exclusion groups, which makes sense as you can't have more than one ATO set slotted. They'll probably still need to be manually set barring an ugly hack of assigning the exclusion group by the name or order of the enhancement. It's a pick your poison situation.
Note that the game itself doesn't have any concept of exclusion groups. Those are a Mids-only contrivance. The engine has a completely different method of preventing you from slotting things like stealth IOs. -
Quote:And the latter is arguably a bug since procs are already set to not go off on Gauntlet targets (otherwise you'd be able to slot Perfect Zinger procs in ST attacks and have them hit random enemies).Originally Posted by Kosmos
It's only powers with a Cycle/A value under 4 that are hurt by using SBEs, and that seems to be mostly AoE Immobs and Tanker ST attacks with punch-voke.
Moving to the last line you see that most SBEs can theoretically outperform their IO counterparts by at least 5:1 in the right situation.
For the record I'd be fine with IOs using PPM so long as the outstanding bugs are fixed. It could be that the SBEs are a "test run" to see if it's viable. -
Yeah, it sort of existed for a while but was fairly broken and obviously unfinished.
I don't know if they'll bring it back, but I actually think this is a brilliant idea. Especially since you can get merits from super packs, it gives premiums a good reason to buy those! -
Quote:Originally Posted by EU_Damz
Now i've bolded the part that made this thread, so so far we have gotten the items this month in that order as she has stated them.
First the Flying disc last week, then the Leprechaun this week and so by this we can assume that beast mastery is next weeks item yes?
As for Staff, if BM ends up being next week (and War Witch's post certainly makes it sound like the case), I doubt it. They've never released two powersets to the market in the same month before. -
Quote:I think they probably would have liked to but were worried about the outcry from making such a dramatic change to existing enhancements.Originally Posted by Kosmos
As you said, they should have switched all procs to the PPM model to put the "pay to win" issue completely to rest. But even then, I think they needed to do a better job with the Proc% -> PPM conversion.
Yes, even one that makes them perform better in many cases. There still would be wailing and gnashing of teeth about them performing worse in quick recharging AoEs. -
Honestly, even though it represents a lot of work done by Mids himself, and everyone else who has worked on it since, PS would probably be better off developing a planner from scratch than to acquire or support Mids officially.
Mids was originally created before in-depth power and mechanics information was known. So there are a lot of fundamental design decisions that resulted in things working differently from how the actual game works. And there are a lot of manually created workarounds for those. As they start using more and more complex mechanics in the game, that divergence of design becomes more and more of an issue, and it becomes increasingly hard to accurately model them within the existing framework. Diellan is having to basically write a whole new way of looking at enhancements to get PPM and the ATOs to work, and the normal/catalyzed sets require a new way of defining enhancement sets.
That's a big part of the reason why modern updates take longer, because of things like Beast Mastery and Assassin's Strike, or even the Scrapper ATO, which requires tweaking almost every scrapper power by hand...
If Paragon was going to do a planner they'd be wise to base it on the game engine itself to avoid having to deal with things like that. -
Quote:Yes, and vice versa. The game considers the SBE and the crafted versions to be the "same" enhancement with regard to exclusivity and also set bonuses.Originally Posted by ThugOne
Query: If you were to slot five SBE's in a power, and then use the regular IO version of the proc in the same power, do you get the set bonuses of 5-slotting or 6-slotting?
-
Quote:See this thread in the Dominator boards for empirical testing to back that up.Originally Posted by UberGuy
How has this been determined? How do we know what that mechanism is or how it works?
The actual mechanics is a working theory I have based on City of Data info for the Brute and Dominator procs, and cross-comparison across various builds in both I22 beta and pre-I22 live, as well as various procs which work in different ways.
I did PM Synapse about it with some unfortunately mistaken info about what I thought was happening, but have since discovered the key that ties it together. I don't want to get into the nitty-gritty too much since it involves attributes that CoD normally hides for those procs due to the particular combination not "making sense". -
Quote:Errr, I was agreeing with you...Originally Posted by Darth_Khasei
Not being silly man...Aside from the sounds there is nothing else to work on. They took almost no time at all to make the second set of sounds for it and showed that part is NOT as time consuming as you are trying to make it seem.
In addition, don't try to make this something it is not by attacking me or ignoring the fact I already stated they can and will do WTF they want. Pfft. -
Quote:Except that the method the Defender, Brute, and Dominator procs use to prevent self-stacking is also preventing the proc from being able to check additional targets beyond the first altogether. So that means putting it in a long-recharge AoE gets you a 20% proc chance per activation, regardless of how many targets you hit, compared to a 100% proc chance for a long-recharge single target attacks.Originally Posted by UberGuy
This might give reasonable performance for things like the Defender or Brute ATO procs, which give buffs to the user. In such cases, one buff on average per power activation isn't too bad (though remember that such a rate still requires you to hit the target cap regularly).
Short-recharge AoEs only get worse from there. -
Quote:Don't be silly. They still need to re-record the sound effects yet again, to fix the ones that everyone hates that they recorded to please the people who complained about the sound effects being too quiet.Originally Posted by Darth_Khasei
WOW. This is really unsettling in reference to Staff as it appears to have been ready for at least four weeks now. Missing double XP weekend is also incredibly frustrating.
Not really understanding the delay for staff at all. Of course you guys are entitled to and will do what you want, just not seeing what the delay is all about...
My vote is for "wet fish hitting burlap sack... full of glass".