Hunter2357

[ QUOTE ]
I think that would be more enlightening a comparison with respect to PvP balance than simple killcount.

[/ QUOTE ]

A simple kill count would be completely useless from a balance perspective.

As would a simple death count.

This is what bothers me about some of the lists we have seen in this thread thus far as they attempt to rank kill count only and claim that as some sort of justification for whatever point they are trying to make.

The developers never stated they had a problem with the kill count stalkers had.

Their problem was in the kill count to death count ratio... this normalizes the results across the AT's for the number of players for each AT in pvp.

The ratio is an enlightened view of things... just as your average rep/hour would be normalized and hence useful.

Kill counts alone... or the number of deaths alone gets us nowhere... they need to be combined to get a meaningful result, lucky for us this is exactly how the developer analysis was performed.

Even if that list was accurate it would not matter... why?... because the blasters who fall second on the list may get tons of kills... but they get defeated often enough to bring down the ratio.

The issue here is that stalkers are killing other players, but not being defeated themselves.

The only way for this to be possible if the game is actually balanced correctly is if by some miraculous event every single good pvper ended up playing a stalker and all the bad pvpers ended up playing the other AT's.

The problem with this view is that those same pvpers play multiple AT's... so it should even out unless in addition they play stalkers exclusively and nothing else.

Exactly what are the odds that every single good pvper only played 1 AT and never played any of the others?

Needless to say the issue here cannot be player skill... therefore it must be AT capabilities, hence something needed to be changed... and this is not exactly a major adjustment.

The sad thing is that if some of the hundreds of gank and run stalkers stayed to fight a bit and allowed themselves to be defeated once and a while... the numbers would not look like this... this is what happens when people milk a fool proof gank strategy.

[ QUOTE ]
This thread is called placate nerf. I try use the word change more, but nerf keeps popping up. One players nerf is anothers change.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right... it is a matter of perspective.

Since you have made it clear that you do not think this alteration to placate will negatively affect stalkers, don't you think it would be appropriate for you in particular to call it a "change" and not a "nerf"?

I was inclined to call it a nerf because I was under the impression that it would actually reduce a stalkers k/d ratio... but since you dissagree, you cannot in good faith call it a nerf yourself... see what I mean?

[ QUOTE ]
I was speaking about the stalker AT not your controller build. I was speaking about the tendencies of some of the stalker players that pvp.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright... so any build that performs well in pve without experiencing many deaths should just leave pvp if they get killed more often than in pve?

If so scrappers and tanks should not even bother pvping at all... those AT's do not die much in pve... but die MUCH more often in pvp.

[ QUOTE ]
I cant see this change adding many deaths to my stalker nor any of the stalkers I fight or team with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets assume you are correct and your particular stalker is not affected one iota.

Exactly what contribution to the total stalker kills/deaths do you think you brought to the table over the last 6 months?

With thousands of players playing for thousands of hours my guess would be your individual contribution is little more than a rain drop in the ocean.

What does this mean?... your performance can stay exactly the same and the k/d ratio can still plummet so long as the plethora of other stalkers out there have their k/d ratio's adjusted.

Maybe you are just too good to be affected by this change... I have no idea... but you have to leave open the possibility that you and your specific playstyle are not the target of this change.

If they increased the gpa necessary to graduate with honors for example there would be a subset of the student population that would see no change at all... why?... because they were at the top of the curve.

The net overall effect of such a change however would be less total students graduating with honors.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually this would be too much of a buff for defensive sets like Ice tanks and SR scrappers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I apologise for the misunderstanding... I did not mean a standard to-hit check.

I was mistaken in thinking the change that is being implimented on test was similiar to the taunt to-hit check.

Please ignore that part of my post as it does not reflect actual changes.

[ QUOTE ]
Would it decrease their kill count, doubt it.
Would it increase their deaths, of course it is a nerf after all.
Would it increase their deaths to be inline with other ATs, show me the numbers of all the ATs. This is a minor change to placate really so minor that if the difference in k/d ratio was that blatantly large, this change isnt enough.
If the difference is that great.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets watch the magic of mathematics at work shall we?

Now I think it is safe to assume that stalkers kill their opponents far more often than they themselves are killed... meaning they have a k/d ratio greater than 1.

Lets assume for the sake of argument that ratio at the moment is 5 to 1

Now even if this change does not manage to decrease their kill count... but does manage to increase the number of times they die out of every 5 kills they get by even 1 death... we have managed to cut their ratio in half.

In otherwords... a small change had a BIG effect on the ratio.

It really depends on the specific numbers we are looking at... but it is entirely plausible than a very small increase in stalker deaths can bring down thet number by large margins.

[ QUOTE ]
Thats mostly how pve goes for solo stalkers, killing easily while not being killed.

[/ QUOTE ]

It goes this way for controllers in pve as well... my controller almost never dies in pve... and kills just fine... does that mean if he gets killed in pvp I should just leave the zone and not bother with it?

[ QUOTE ]
If I use placate on a perceptionless player it is used to get a crit from my next attack or setup AS. Reducing the defense I get in my placated state is not going to help my target.

Bah there I go telling you guys stalkers arent hurt by this nerf. I am out of place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes actually... you are out of place... and I am now confused about the point you are trying to make.

How can you claim on the one hand that this change will do absolutely nothing to stalkers... and then call it a nerf?

If it does nothing then it is a neutral change.

If they decided to alter the stalker AT symbol from a black snipers target to a silver snipers target would that be a nerf too??

A nerf by definition has to reduce the ability of a player to succeed.

If this change will not affect the success of stalkers in any way... then it is not and cannot be called a nerf.

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying that Stalkers > Perceptionless players and that more often then not perceptionless players are the ones in pvp zones with stalkers.

[/ QUOTE ]

So instead of adjusting stalkers the developers should not allow perceptionless players into the pvp zones?

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying that Players that use anti-stalker tools > Stalkers. But this type of player is not in pvp zones as long as the perceptionless player and that when the zone is full of players with perception alot of stalkers leave...

[/ QUOTE ]

So instead of adjusting stalkers the developers should not allow stalkers to leave the pvp zones when the zone is full of players with lots of perception?

[ QUOTE ]
Unless the devs can make stalkers stay and die then I doubt the kill to death ratio will change with this Assassin class.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually there are 2 ways to reduce the kill to death ratio.

1 is to reduce the number of kills stalkers get... the second would be to increase the number of times they die.

[ QUOTE ]
I dont see how this placate change will effect stalkers on their k/d ratio when stalker will just continue to pick on the targets that die quickly or just leave the zone as to not die themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the placate power is ideally suited to reduce the kill to death ratio.

Why?... because it serves simultaneously as a kill enhancer AND a death reducer.

It can be used to increase the number of kills a stalker gets by setting up opponents for additional AS attempts if the first one does not do the trick.

As an alternative it can be used as a get out of jail free card if things get too hairy for the stalker.

Reducing a stalkers offensive output outright would only reduce their number of kills while at the same time reducing their ability to perform their main function in both pvp and pve.

Reducing a stalkers defensive capabilities outright would only increase their number of deaths while at the same time reducing their ability to survive in pve.

Making placate have a to-hit check for pvp adjusts both ends of the spectrum while not touching stalkers in pve.

If you do not see how adjusting placate will reduce the k/d ratio perhaps it is because you have not considered how placate influences their k/d ratio in the first place.

In addition... why do you suspect that stalkers will only stay in the pvp zones if they can kill and not be killed?... no other AT plays this way... have stalkers become so spoiled by their current k/d ratio that anything less means avoiding pvp altogether and just leaving the zone?

Blasters manage to stay in the zone even when they die... so why would stalkers suddenly just vanish from the pvp zones unless they are immune to any retaliatory action?

If this is true it says something very odd about the mentality of the stalkers you are referring to.

[ QUOTE ]
The statement didnt name the 2nd best AT.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it does not say what the second best AT is in terms of k/d ratio... it does not have to.

Why?... because it says "so far above any other AT"

That means that if you take every single other AT in the game and line them up in order... Stalkers are way above even their closest competitor... in otherwords, they win hands down, it is not even a contest so far as the numbers are concerned.

[ QUOTE ]
From experience in all the pvp zones and the arena, I have to say scrappers are above and beyond more effective soloing then a stalker.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be your personal experience... unfortunately the data the developers have collected not only dissagrees with you... but even if scrappers are second best, they stall land far below Stalkers in terms of k/d ratio.

[ QUOTE ]
I dont get the information Castle gave, it has to be deluded with all the times in Bloody Bay and Sirens Call when the only people in the zone are perceptionless heroes and stalkers.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you are saying is that the developers data is only accurate for real ingame scenarios over the course of 6 months of data mining, but that it should not matter.

That if people played differently their numbers would be different.

Alright... then your proposed solution is to have the developers demand that everyone play differently so that the numbers come out better for stalkers.

Do you see that happening?... I don't.

The developers cannot make the players play differently just so they can avoid balancing anything... they have to react to how things evolve in the game as it is actually being played.

[ QUOTE ]
the question i have is...what's wrong with stalkers having higher kill counts? we are the assassin class

are all AT's supposed to be about equal? should stalkers have similar k/d ratios to defenders? mm's? doms?

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue here is not that they have a higher k/d ratio... it is that the ratio is so much higher than all other AT's that it has become unacceptable.

See where _Castle_ said the following?

"Stalkers are so far above any other AT in Kill Count vs Death Count that it isn't even funny."

That is not just a slight difference here... it is a HUGE difference

I am sure the developers would be happy to accept slight deviations... but lets say that stalkers were racking up 1000 kills for every death... should nothing be done about it just because you do not see anything wrong with their ratio being better?

If their ratio is so far out of whack with every other AT in the game... then something probably needs to be fixed and there is no reasonable argument against it.

This statement implies that the gap between stalkers and the second best AT is so large that required a fix... not that there should be no difference between the AT's at all.

LOL... that explains the misunderstanding, thank you for pointing that out... I have corrected the typo to what it was supposed to be

[ QUOTE ]
And how would YOU know?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um... I think you are missing something here.

Like when I said the following :

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea if they are the most successful or not

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never claimed to "know" anything... but apparently your defenses are so sensative about this issue that you are percieving a potential attack when there isn't any.

I merely followed another posters statement to it's logical conclusion.

IF Stalkers are the "lions" as they assert.

AND

IF all other AT's are the "zebras" as they assert.

Then everything I state holds true.

If their assertions are false then the argument does not lead us anywhere.

My argument is only meant to respond to that particular set of opinions.

If they are wrong then argue against this other persons opinions, my logic in this particular case is relatively solid.

I have no idea if they are the most successful or not... I was merely going with the assertion that stalkers were "lions" and everyone else was their "prey" (or "zebras").

No one would argue which of those two animals was more adept at killing the other... it is quite obvious.

If indeed stalkers are not the most successful by statistically significan margins, then everything is fine.

We only have a problem if the statistics are wildly out of whack.

(Edited for a confusing typo)

[ QUOTE ]
nope its not ment to be fun, only the strong survive, i believe in the food chain, and survival of the fittest and in this game if you dont plan your build around fighting the lion you will become the zebra.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is one HUGE problem with this philosophical outlook.

It is not sustainable in the long term.

In nature there is a balance between the size of the herd and the size of the predator population imposed by the fact that the predators need to eat to survive.

In CoH/CoV there is no limit to the predator population in your model (i.e. stalkers)... therefore the "herd" (i.e. everyone else) cannot possibly support such a large influx of predators.

So what ultimately happens when the number of predators exceeds the number of prey they need to survive?... they die off until equilibrium is reached... or go extinct altogether.

If stalkers really are the "lion" in this model... and everyone else are "zebra's"... exactly how long do you suppose the prey will be around before they are hunted to extinction?... leaving stalkers with nothing to do but play with themselves (pardon the pun please).

You cannot design a game wherein there is 1 class designed to kill all other classes with relative ease... because ultimately everyone will gravitate to the "lion" class and no one will bother playing anything else.

We are already seeing that on the villain side when it comes to pvp.

The only reason we do not see that as much on the hero side is because people were playing for pve for a year and a half when CoV came out... and there exists no single hero AT that really is as capable at collecting kills as stalkers are... sure scrappers are strong... but you can escape from a scrapper because you see them comming... you cannot escape from an invisable target.

While your way of veiwing things is indeed darwinian... we require a balanced ecosystem for this game... not one whereby a single AT ends up being far more successful than all others.

No one should ever be able to make the following statement "If you ever plan on pvping, you should build a (insert AT here)"... the second the majority of the comminity can make such a statement, it is immediately true that something is very wrong.

So the question becomes... can such a statement be made about stalkers?... if not then everything is fine... if so, then something is wrong.

I believe what Kali is saying is this.

37.39% defense versus melee/range is equivalant to 74.78% total damage mitigation.

This can be determined by a comparison of normal 50% defense to the new value of 12.61% defense (determined by subtracting the 37.39% from the original 50%).

The total mitigation can be worked out either by dividing that 12.61% by 50 and subtracting the result from 100%... or we can recognize that what we are doing is equivalent to multiplying the original defensive value by 2.

I do not believe she is talking about enhancers when using this particular factor.

Mieux, you have no idea how relieved I am to see that we are finally on the same page here.

Looking back and reading over your posts keeping in mind that you were referring to level I have a much easier time understanding where you were coming from (and also why you felt so strongly about your position).

It is just unfortunate it took us so long to realize we were talking about entirely different things lol

[ QUOTE ]
Then you seem to be confused about the entire debate. This has nothing to do with mob type...but their level, which I have been calling +Rank. That may be confusing with rank in terms of minion, lt, boss, apologies if that is what you thought I meant. I am referring to a mob going from lvl 1 to lvl 2 and the fact that the Uny debuff does not scale appropriately.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then we have been argueing entirely different points here.

I have nothing against the debuff scaling with level... that is fine by me actually as it is definately in line with the intended purpose of this change.

My only objection has been what it does to enemy classifications of the same level over what we currently see.

Currently the debuff within the same +0 level is -5% across the board... within the same level, this change will expand that debuff dependant upon villain type and I am not certain that is an intended effect.

Hopefully that clairifies my stance here... I have never been refering to the alteration over level differences... only the alteration within the same level that will be a byproduct of this change.

This effect is more subtle than the level difference one and might have originally been overlooked.

Just to point out... I have never been confused about my side of this argument here, I have always been talking about the change as it affects minions, lieutenants, and bosses... I referenced it in my original post and have remained consistant upon that point.

If you are talking about level differences then that is a different issue entirely and I am not in dissagreement with you here.

[ QUOTE ]
My response to your feelings that the debuff is not appropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not saying the debuff itself is inappropriate... I am not saying the debuff should not scale with level.

All I am saying is that within the same level we always saw identicle debuffs across all villain types (barring special cases).

This change will adjust that parameter and I just want it to be considered.

As for "repeating myself"... apparently it was necessary as we were discussing two completely different things this whole time.

Maybe now that we are on the same page you can revisit your arguments in reference to what I am actually trying to get at here... the change in the debuff so far as level is concerned is not the issue I am trying to bring to light... that part makes sense to me.

[ QUOTE ]
I am beginning to think your MO is to grossly exaggerate my position at every opportunity to distract the reader from the real issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny how you say that... as to be honest that is what I thought your MO was when I have brought up a valid and demobstrably true mathematical effect and all you keep bringing up is artistic issues to obfuscate the point I was trying to make.

Not to mention, there have been a number of times already where you have quoted me out of context to make your points... shall I provide an example for you?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To me the social aspect is no more a part of the game

[/ QUOTE ]The social aspect is an integral part of the game, it's part of the immersions of being a super hero and teaming with other super heroes. The super hero world is a social one. The way we team with players, the types of people each toon appeals to. The social aspect isn't limted to just conversation. The devs have spent consideral effort and resources creating emotes as an example.

[/ QUOTE ]

The actual statement is actually longer and is "To me the social aspect is no more a part of the game itself than a conversation you might have with a friend as you are playing a video game on a ps2, gamecube, or xbox"

You don't think it was unfair to cut off my statement at the point you did as if to suggest I think the social aspect is completely unimportant?... I was merely trying to draw a parallel and you presented it as some sort of a blanket statement... that would be defined as a "gross exageration of my position" wouldn't you agree?

I am not trying to exagerate your position at all... and frankly I am not even sure what your position is anymore... I have already agreed with you that it all rests upon the developers original intent. So what more is there for us to discuss here?

[ QUOTE ]
Your position rests on the sole assertion that the devs want some uncorrelated effect from the debuff as you go up in level. Please show me one place where they intentionally programmed such a change? The very fact that they are fixing the scaling problem shows that the lack of scaling IS a problem from their perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

My assertion rests upon the fact that in certain cases the developers desire varying effects dependant upon mob classification... an example of such a system is scrapper criticals which are different dependant upon whether they are facing a minion, lieutenant, or boss.

This particular system encourages scrappers to engage bosses over other foes... so it stands to reason that it is possible that the debuff in unyielding was designed to have a similiar effect by virtue of not scaling equally amongst villain types.

[ QUOTE ]
4) Ergo, any +DEF related buffs/debuffs did not scale properly.

5) Once defense scales properly, the intended effect/balance of Uny will scale properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This hinges upon 2 things:

1 - The developers desired that the defense debuff in unyielding scale as opposed to how it was originally designed.

2- That the balance was to achieve a 10% increase in damage from minions as opposed to a 6.67% increase in damage from bosses.

Both of these issues will adjust the outcome here, and you have no idea if either of these is correct or false.

If the original idea was to make the debuff effect a 6.67% increase in damage from bosses then the 10% increase versus minions was a consequence and not a goal.

If the original idea was to make the debuff effect a 10% increase in damage from minions then the 6.67% increase was a consequence and not a goal.

Dependant upon which of these was the original intent will determine if a reduction is necessary due to the scaling, or if it is in line with the scaling.

The only way to find out is to ask, to bring up the issue, to explore the boundaries of this problem... yet you resist my attempts to garner new information here for no reason that is really clear to me.

[ QUOTE ]
lol....this is trueism for every argument Hunter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is... and to borrow a statement from one of your earlier posts... "it's unfortunate that the point has to be made at all."

It is indeed a truism that if your premesis are false so is your argument... but you are unwilling to admit that your premesis are based in speculation on the intent of the developers for which you have no more evidence than I do.

[ QUOTE ]
You're right. And there is more than one person who wants perma-Unstoppable/Elude back and thinks that those were the "right" choice for the game. The devs disagree...does that make those people wrong? No, but it shows that they want something different from CoH than what the devs want us to experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Asking for a particular effect to be examined in light of this change is hardly comparable to wanting perma-unstoppable.

Again I shall ask who is exageratting whose points here?... I am pretty sure it isn't me.

I have tried many avenues here to reach an amicable consensus here with you... but you want no part of it so it seems... I will just have to accept that you desire to argue with me for some reason when I have tried on multiple occasions to just see if we agreed on looking into the issue and nothing more... that is my ONLY motivation, make of it what you will.

[ QUOTE ]
I look at the game as an experience...like a song or a novel or a movie. It requires someone to be able to translate or rather manipulate programming to achieve that vision...but the vision comes first...not the model. The model is attempting to render the vision, the vision is not the model.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but you are presenting your case as if you have an inside track on what that "vision" is... we have no evidence to support your assertion that it was always intended for the defense debuff to scale in this manner... all we know is that the development team intends to make defense based sets scale better.

These two issues are different and potentialy unrelated, isn't it possible that this was an unintended result of this particular change?, and if that is the case isn't it important to even mention it?

What is basically boils down to is this, you are convinced that the "vision" includes a debuff that scales with level and versus enemy types... as such even suggesting that it might have been an oversight seems implausible to you.

I am functioning under the assumption that this change might not have even been considered with the unyielding debuff in mind, in which case I thought it wise to bring the issue up here.

My assumption here is no more or less valid than your own, I understand where you are comming from, but your assertion that this is how it is supposed to be is just your personal interpretation without any direct evidence to support it.

As such while your rational is sound, your premises may well be false, in which case your whole argument falls apart.

All it takes is for the development team to say "oh... we did not think about this particular effect while designing this system" and suddenly your objection crumbles.

That does not mean that suddenly upon closer inspection they will deem it necessary to change anything, but it does mean that it was an important effect for them to take into consideration... and frankly I am not the only one who thinks so... my concerns are shared by a number of others who have already listed their opinions here.

[ QUOTE ]
The social aspect is an integral part of the game, it's part of the immersions of being a super hero and teaming with other super heroes. The super hero world is a social one.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are getting into a whole different argument here than really is necessary... the reason for this is that you are pretty much asserting that if for some reason someone out there who chooses to play this game solo for a while, suddenly they are not playing the game because they have cut out the teaming aspect.

This is why I hold the opinion that the game itself is not dependant upon this social aspect, and that the social aspect is a seperate but altogether important part of setting up a gaming community.

One can foster amicable relationships at work, form friendships and a solid social framework.... but that social aspect is not actually part of their job in most cases, it is a seperate layer that is associated to, but not inexorably intertwined with their career. It is the same sort of thing here, the "game" is the story and combat simulation... the teaming part is a way to effect that combat simulation in a way that you cannot do on your own... the conversation and social aspect is icing on the cake that really makes things enjoyable on a different level.

We are talking about game mechanics here, not some other ephemeral quality of social interaction, so any objection to discussing game mechanics in the light of mathematics is really rather silly.

Is role playing a part of the game atmosphere?... absolutely... can it be fun?... sure... is it part of the game mechanics?... nope

[ QUOTE ]
Well of course. But this point is whether they had achieved what they originally wanted.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are in agreement here Mieux... but this issue has never been discussed before by the development team.

I have no idea if they originally intended the debuff to be enhanced over current levels but just went with the best they could do at the time.

The point here is that you do not know their original intent either, so lets just agree that it is something fo find out, alright?

I am not looking to bully any change through here, I am looking to understand if this is intended, and if so, why it might be intended. Will I be extactic about the result if I am informed it is meant to be this way?... no I will not... but I am mature enough to accept that reality without complaint until such a time as I can actually test the effect for myself and see how it plays. Only then can I truly reference the aesthetic, right now the change is not even on test, our only access to it is theoretical.

The entire argument here hinges upon the original intent of the development team... we don't know what that was, so I can hold my opinion in abeyance here for a while, until I have more information.

[ QUOTE ]
This position acknowledges your concern and argues that the debuff was never appropriately working to begin with...in the same way +DEF wasn't ever appropriately scaling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this... in which case since we both have no idea if the debuff was working as intended originally... then it is incumbent upon us to put forth the proposition that it should be examined.

If it was working as intended originally then it stands to reason it would not be working as intended if this system is instituted without any adjustment made to the debuff.

If it was not working as intended originally then this might very well "fix" the debuff to act in accordance with the developers design plans.

I am not even going to get into the details of the "game as a mathematical simulation" with you here as this is all a matter of perspective... I am looking at the game in terms of it's programmed components... you are looking at the social aspect that it permits you to engage in.

To me the social aspect is no more a part of the game itself than a conversation you might have with a friend as you are playing a video game on a ps2, gamecube, or xbox... the conversation is fun, but in my opinion it takes place while you are playing the game... it is not actually part of the game structure itself. I guess you are just going to have to accept that we see things differently here and I am not going to be convinced by your arguments in this area.

[ QUOTE ]
2) The art: The debuff may have been a way to simulate the old "root" aspect of Unyielding Stance. As such, once an preserve that aspect by increasing the resistance instead of loweing the -DEF debuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly would the "art" be disturbed by a concerted effort to maintain the current aesthetic in it's current form as opposed to seeing it expanded?

I would argue that the scaling of the defbuff actually alters the aesthetic.

I appreciate that you have corroborated my explanation of the to-hit system as I was fairly confidant in my assertion, but always try to remain somewhat reserved considering I do not actually have the code sitting in front of me.

I will say one thing though... if they are checking for floors and ceilings twice then they are wasting processing power as they really only need to check for a floor when it comes to the "to-hit" factor as this is the only region where we can skew into the negative... and they only need to check for a ceiling after accuracy is taken into account.

You end up with the exact same result, but with two less checks on every to-hit calculation... unless of course I have missed something, but I do not believe I have in this case.

Mieux, this is not a criticism by any means as I have great respect for those in fields not entrenched in computation, but I am going to take a wild guess that you are neither a scientist, nor a mathematician.

The reason I am making this guess is that you keep asserting how unimportant mathematical considerations are when it comes to a "simulation"... and how the aestetic takes precident in all cases (if this were really true then the computational limitations would never even come into play as why would the development staff ever sacrafice the game aestetic for pure mathematical practicality?... needless to say the game would never actually run if the mathematics was ignored in preference for the aestetic under all conditions)

This entire game is a mathematical simulation, every character has stats, those stats can be enhanced via mathematical formulae, we all have a numerical value for our hp.

As such it is completely viable to do a mathematical comparison to lead us in a direction of a "potential" aestetic problem... a way to shine a light on something that may be an issue.

Is it a guarantee?... absolutely not, but neither I, nor Arcana have asserted any of this as being definative.

Do you not believe this is even something that should be looked into?... and if not, why should it be ignored without checking to see if it is a problem before hand?

I have no means to test the aestetic of this suggested change, neither does Arcana, nor do you... all we have to go on at the moment is numbers, and the numbers seem to indicate that the penalty in a particular power is going to be expanded when it does not necessarily have to be... it can instead be balanced in such a way as to keep the penalty on the order of what it is currently (i.e. not 50% greater under certain conditions)

Is it necessary to do this adjustment?... I have no idea... but that does not mean we should ignore the possibility that it might cause an issue altogether.

Frankly your logic escapes me here... I am asking that it be looked into as a potential problem... and your response is not to bother looking at it at all because all I have come here with is mathematical evidence.

That mathematical evidence should be enough to warrent some measure of consideration... maybe it has already been considered in the testing, I really have no idea. I am having a difficult time understanding where you are comming from here.

It is akin to hearing a strange noise comming from your car engine, you decided that it is best to have it looked at by a mechanic... then someone tells you "so long as the car runs fine don't worry about that noise, there is no reason to even have it looked at"... but the point is that if it does not sound fine, it may cause a problem in the future that can be avoided merely by having it checked out before it becomes a real issue... the noise may be absolutely nothing, but on the off chance that it is not, wouldn't it be wise to even mention it to an expert (which in this case is the development staff)?

[ QUOTE ]
But there is a fundamental difference based on recommending changes based on inaccurate models and simulations versus using the math to achieve an artistic vision. Posters seem to insist their modeling is 100% accurate in representing the truth about how sets compare.

[/ QUOTE ]

My recommendation at this point is for it to be looked at... to be considered... if that is an unreasonable expectation then I am afraid we are just going to have to dissagree.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think so. The to-hit floor is still 5% for everyone. The coding should look to see if you have a value below 5% and if you do, simply raise it to that level. It should not then apply the +Acc for the same reason it doesn't apply our +Acc to our 95% ceiling. If we can be floored at 5% with our own +Acc enhancments, then so can mobs.

[/ QUOTE ]

From my understanding the to-hit code looks something like this :

(1+Acc)*(Base To-Hit + Total To-Hit Bonus - Total Opponent Defense)

In this case the check for a min is done only on the second set of parenthesis where as the check for a max is done on the whole thing.

If I am correct then the Acc multiplier is applied after the computer checks for a minimum, in which case once the to-hit floor is hit you multiply by the accuracy thereby increasing the "floor".

Since the max is checked after all of this it is never greater than 95%.

If I am incorrect about this assumed model then feel free to correct me... but I am fairly sure this is accurate.

[ QUOTE ]
On a general level, it's unfortunate that the point has to be made at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point really did not have to be made... I appreciate that you did... but it certainly was not required by anyone here.

Just to clairify though... the same way you felt compelled to make your point... so too did I feel compelled to point out a potential problem... the difference here being that you saw fit to tell me my point was essentially unnecessary, while I encourage you to bring your ideas here for open discussion and debate.

[ QUOTE ]
There is a fundamental difference. This is art...not science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Portions of the game are artistic in nature whereas other portions are scientific/quantitative.

This particular change for example is more of a mathematical alteration than an aesthetic one.

Also, isn't there room for mathematical arguments and concerns here as well as arguments founded in the aestetic experience of the game?... the two are more interrelated than you seem to be willing to admit.

I can name two mathematicians off the top of my head who would disagree with you... namely M.C. Escher and Fibonacci who both used mathematics to express art and beauty... this is no different, the mathematics underlying the game helps to express the aestetic of the game... so to ignore it completely would be silly in my opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
That's true. The change is based strictly on a mathmatical comparison...that doesn't make it proper to subject everything else in the game to the same scrutiny.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't said we should only consider the mathematical aspects of the game and nothing else. I took the proposed mathematical change and applied it to an existing power to see what the new mathematical effect would be.

This seems completely reasonable from where I am sitting and I am uncertain why you might object.

Should the aesthetic of the game be disregarded for pure mathematical reasoning?... absolutely not... but that does not mean that mathematics has no place here.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not a new mathmatical system. It's simply change to where the accuracy modifier is applied.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it is a new mathematical construct because the order of operations is essentially altered (not precisely... but for all intents and purposes the result is the same).

Addition is accomplished prior to a multiplicative operation which simultaneously expands one extreme while contracting another in this situation.

Furthermore, we have a new consideration as the to-hit floor is demonstrably different for the various villain classes (minions 5%, lieutenants 6.25% and bosses 7.5%)

Is this new system radically different than the old one?... that depends upon perspective... but it is different.

[ QUOTE ]
And that is what I am trying to inculcate. The method is very important to what makes this game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not disagree with you here... I do however think you could have gotten the point across in a manner that was easier to digest.

[ QUOTE ]
Simply because I suggest you aren't interested in what is truly proper? Was the point of your inquiry completely unbiased in motivation? Perhaps you don't really care whether it changes or not, but I dont' think you suggested it because it needs to be increased.

[/ QUOTE ]

I took great care to craft my post in such a way as to present the mathematical proof that this change would expand an existing debuff without clouding it in personal rhetoric or bias.

Tell me, while we are on the topic of bias... why is this issue of such import to you that you feel the need to even assault the proposition that it be looked into or taken into consideration?... doesn't that smack of a greater personal bias than someone who merely says "this change will bring about this alternate effect... is this what you are really looking to achieve?"?

My post was because it essentially was increased by this change and I do not want people to just look at portions of this alteration without considering all of it's ramifications at once... it is the only way to iron out potential issues.

I can point at an experiment and suggest that there is a problem with the setup without having a vested interest in how the experiment turns out... this is no different... do I like the debuff in unyielding?, not really... but that has nothing to do with the intent of my post considering if you read closely I was only suggesting that they alter the stats to maintain it's current effect (i.e. I did not even bother suggesting that the debuff be eliminated entirely)... so how am I biased if I am merely saying that if the only intent is to help defense based sets scale better, then this 1 portion is not in keeping with that intent and can be remedied quite easily.

[ QUOTE ]
None at all. But the game is more than just about the math. It's about an experience. When people insist on reducing everything to a mathmatical comparison...that doesn't factor in all the variables, then I do believe it hurts the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting... because this entire change is about a change in variables and boils down to a mathematical alteration. So in this singular instance I believe it is quite reasonable to set down a mathematical argument for where this change might have an unintended result.

This whole new system is actually a new "mathematical" system... so if you object to mathematics so vehemently, then why aren't you argueing that the suggested change itself is "hurting the game" because of its mathematical nature?

[ QUOTE ]
Every time a change gets made, people lobby for more improvements to their sets using what ever rationale is available to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lobby is a rather strong word to use when someone says the equivalant of "was this secondary effect an intended result of this change?... and if not, perhaps it should be fixed"... sorry, I'm not buying into your line of reasoning here.

[ QUOTE ]
It is. Which is my response to Arcana is not that the debuff should remain untouched, but to first understand the purpose of the debuff and determine what is the best way of dealing with it. A suggestion that seeks to preserve the experience the game creates and not just reduce it to spreadsheets on comparative damage mitigation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no vested interest in any particular mechanism of solution, if one is even deemed necessary. If you believe that an enhancement to resistance is more appropriate as a solution over Arcana's belief that the debuff should be reduced that is entirely reasonable.

If you believed that no change was necessary at all that is reasonable as well... but I do ask that you not impugn my motivations here as I have put some effort into presenting information in a manner that is as unbiased as possible.

[ QUOTE ]
I find it funny that people always assume they aren't getting enough of a benefit but never concede they might not be getting enough of a penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have not assumed anything... in fact the only thing I have done is noticed that this change expands an existing debuff and I desire to know if that is intended, or an oversight.... see the difference?

[ QUOTE ]
Of course. But what if they determined that TH and Invinc were actually reducing the penalty more than it should, would accept them increasing its effect? Or is your objective only to change it if it benefits you? The reason I ask is you present the question as though you are really concerned that the "proper" effect is in place.

[/ QUOTE ]

The tone of your statement leaves something to be desired... I have not come here with an objective to benefit myself... I have brought up a legitimate issue that so far as I am aware no one else really considered here.

Exactly why does it bother you that I might bring to light an actual mathematical effect to see if this particular effect is really warrented?

Isn't that part of this process?... bringing to light potential problems that the developers might have missed?... you know, like what happened with the proposed changes to stealth.

My only interest is in seeing this change have the effect that is intended, if that means the current debuff stays then so be it, but it is certainly reasonable to discuss the secondary effects this system will bring to the game.

[ QUOTE ]
The other perspective is that it wasn't giving the debuff that it should have against higher level foes???

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this honestly your opinion?... or are you just playing devils advocate?

I cannot tell you whether or not the intent of the developers was originally to scale the debuff of unyielding to meet higher level foes... however I have a strong suspicion that is not the case.

Considering we are not really discussing something we can have "proof" for or against, I still think it is an important issue to bring to the table and not just let it get swept under the rug(I love mixed metaphors lol), don't you agree?

Let the developers take a look and say to themselves "wonderful... we finally get that debuff to scale like we always wanted it to"... or to say "this is definately not what we intended to occur with this change in how defense works... we'll have to adjust this to get the proper effect"

The point is that with a multiplicative scaling effect in place, the defense debuff is also scaled such that it is more powerful than current levels.

I am just saying it should be looked into, the type of solution that may or may not be instituted is less important to me than the fact that it is at least "solved".

[ QUOTE ]
Its entirely possible that this change will come with a basket of small tweaks to powers, though. Consider that they already admitted that lucky/evasion are probably going to be dialed back down to melee/ranged defense values in SR.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect you are correct here... I just wanted bring to light an issue or two that needs to be ironed out before this change really does benefit everyone in terms of the scaling issue.

The issue with the defense debuff in unyielding is not an insurmountable one by any means, it just needs to be mentioned so that it does not slip through the cracks.

What this scaling change effectively accomplishes is an exaggeration of certain effects over what we currently see... it is an unavoidable part of changing from an additive system to a multiplicative one.

With a small adjustment to the debuff in unyielding the minor problem I bring to the table here can be completely solved. I just don't want it to be forgotten, or left without consideration.

Even taken "in context" it is 25% more potent against lieutenants than it is currently, and 50% more potent against bosses.

The problem is that just as defense will now "scale" with villain class (i.e. minion, lieutenant, boss)... so will the defense debuff in unyielding.