Kamendae

[ QUOTE ]
I read the thread, I know it's about salvage, I simply frowned upon reading further into what you guys were actually wanting to say. LOWER COSTS ON EVERYTHING!


[/ QUOTE ]
Translation: I'm not going to bother trying to use my brain; I'm just going to flame anyways, because this is SURE to be another thread about 'BASE COSTS ARE TOO HIGH OMG!'. Even though it's actually not, I don't care.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe they are putting a cap on the amount of salavage that you can hold because they WANT you to use it, NOT hold onto it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't see the contradiction between "They WANT you to use salvage rather than hold on to it" and "They have made starting costs too high to use salvage before you start losing drops"?

Kam

You're missing the point of the thread. This is not about "bases cost too much, waaah" - this is about "we're losing drops because we can't DO anything with 'em yet".

Kam

[ QUOTE ]
For those players who have reached the Salvage Limit with one or more pieces:

Is your SG capable of making a Worktable so you can consume some of that Salvage into the raw material? (Raw material has a limit of 99 currently).

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting close, on both; I've got one salvage type (Body Armor pieces, I think) that's at 17, and my VG is about 170k shy of having a single functional worktable.

However, that 17 body armor pieces is *solo*; I'm not muling for anyone. And the VG that's working on the base is currently about thirty or so strong. Perhaps this is (another) indicator of prohibitive starting costs? I don't mind that the later stuff is pretty expensive, but the early stuff REALLY should be cheaper.

Basic base with a working worktable:

Energy Room, 150 K
Control Room, 100 K
Workshop, 100 K
Generator, 225 K
Mainframe, 150 K
Basic Worktable, 25 K

Grand total of three-quarters of a million Prestige, just to be able to do something with all these nifty drops. When you can cap out on a particular piece of salvage, losing further drops, before it's even possible to do anything with that salvage, something's wrong somewhere.

Kam

[ QUOTE ]
11:59.99999999999999999999999999999999999... is AM.

Actually approaching Noon which is is neither AM or PM. This is why the limit was approached from both sides ..think of noon as dividing by zero so it is excluded. It gets messy I know. <removed irrelevant time clock issues that only muddy the waters>

[/ QUOTE ]

Um... yeah, that's exactly what I just said. You're looking at a step function y = f(x) that's undefined at x, and trying to decide what the value of y 'should' be at x by looking at the limits from both directions. You can't *do* that in this case.

Kam

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
12am is midnight. We go from 11:59pm to 12:00am. "am" means "ante-meridian", or "before noon". "pm" means "post-meridian", or "after noon".

You can read "pm" as meaning "afternoon, evening, and night", while "am" is "morning" (including the pre-dawn hours).

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that's not entirely accurate. AM is before noon, PM is after noon. 12:00 is noon. In actuality, it is neither PM nor AM, just like midnight since midnight could either be considered to be 12 hours after noon or 12 hours before. However, since the 59mins following midnight are in AM, midnight is commonly considered AM as well.

[/ QUOTE ]


In a calculus class we dedetermined 1200 is noon 2400 is midnight. Since this only exists for a breif moment in time

12:00.00000000000000000000...1 is PM.

Using limits on both 12:00 and 24:00 Noon becomes PM and Midnight Becomes AM.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, you could use limits from below just as easily...

11:59.99999999999999999999999999999999999... is AM.

The trouble is, you're dealing with a discontinuous/step function. If it's not defined AT the point you're approaching, you can easily get into trouble trying to apply limits.

...

That said, I agree... 1200 is PM, 0000 is AM.

Kam

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rock!

[/ QUOTE ]

Paper! I win!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to go with Wolf.

"Wolf chews up paper"

[/ QUOTE ]

Dammit, nothing beats all three.

But, since the paper's already chewed up... I'll go with Gun. Targets Rock, and shoots Wolf.

HAHAHA!

*hides from the Nuke that's sure to be coming*

Kam

[ QUOTE ]
As far as missed patch notes go, wasnt hasten nerfed but yet I cant find anything in patch notes that says anything about hasten. Seams like it is a longer recharge than before I5 and does'nt auto fire when you are in combat like it should. Just an observation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This rumor has come in every issue since Update 2. Rechecked. Still not true.



Seriously, though, I've noticed no difference in Hasten's recharge time. And since you're saying it "doesn't autofire in combat properly" - powexec_auto can be overridden by manual clicking of powers. You know how, when you click two attacks close together, the first one fires, and the second one gets a little red ring around it? Powexec_auto sets that red ring automatically for the auto'ed power. But that can be overridden by your frenzied attacking continually queueing up 'ready' powers.

HTH,

Kam

[ QUOTE ]
"It was never intended that claws actually be used by anyone over level 4; the original goal was just to let people get their 'Wolverine-itis' out of their system then grow into a 'real' scrapper set. Henceforth claws are now made out of rubber, and do only 1 point of damage per attack..."

I can see it now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I *have* seen it. Excalibur #57 IIRC.

*boing!*

Kam

[ QUOTE ]
The probelm with combining ice patch and end drain into the equation is it doesn't help on range, doesn't help on flyers and definetly doesn't work on AV's and Monsters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention "doesn't help on non-Ice Melee tankers"... :P

Kam

[ QUOTE ]
Will you do my taxes next year, Kam?

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh... Taxes are a WHOLE different ballgame.

Kam

[ QUOTE ]
I believe this is what is actually happening and it adds up correctly.

7.5 * (1+ ( 6 * (.2 + .03))) = 17.85

Basically, each enhancement is worth .20 and each + is .01 on the enhancement (assuming maximum +3 difference.)

{{PS. I am amazed that I figured it out if it is right. I'm not that good at math.}}

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what's happening, but not why; your numbers work out because:

6 * .2 * 1.15
6 * (.2 * 1.15)
6 * ((.2 * 1) + (.2 * .15))
6 * (.2 + .03)

Each over-level + is worth 0.01 simply because 5% of 0.2 = 0.01. This wouldn't work properly for the "damage-type" enhancements which have a base of .333.

HTH,

Kam

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I have 2 questions:

1. What are the incremental increases for green SOs?
+1 = ? +2 = ? +3 = ?

2. Why do you calculate it like that with the 1.15 instead of just adding the incremental increase? Like .2 + (+3 value increase) Is it because the incremental increase is a run-on decimal or something i.e. .1234567 ?

I'm not being snarky or anything. I just want to understand this better.


[/ QUOTE ]

1. Enhancements get a scalar multiplier to their base percentage for being over/under your level.

If the enhancement is -3 to you (27 when you're 30), the multiplier is 0.7 (so a -3 "damage-type" SO gives (.333 * 0.7) = 23.31% buff, while a -3 "defense-type" SO gives (.2 * 0.7) = 14% buff.

-2: multiply by 0.8.
-1: *0.9
+0 (even level): *1.0 (no effect)
+1: *1.05
+2: *1.10
+3: *1.15

2. I'd surmise it works that way so you don't have to keep track of "defense-type" enh. bonus, "defense-type" modifier, "damage-type" bonus, and "damage-type" modifier. As long as you know the bases, you can calculate the additional factor pretty simply, since

6 * .2 * 1.15

is the same as saying

(6 * .2 * 1) + (6 * .2 * .15)

or, in other words, base enhancement + bonus.

HTH,

Kam

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Circeus, there is something you (and many others) have glossed over about Statesman's numbers...they are off...WAY off.

As stated, invul passives are 7.5% (which has been tested and everyone agrees on that number) but where the error comes is in the enhancements. Statesman said that max with +3 level SO resists you would get 18.975% from the invul passives. Think that through everyone. To get 18.975% from +3 level enhancements each enhancement would need to provide 25.5% buff (((1 + (6 * .255)) * 7.5) = 18.975). This means that each defense and resist SO is gaining a 9.167% boost each level, as opposed to the accepted (and dev quoted from long ago) 5% boost each level.

Invul max on passives should be 17.85 = ((1 + (6 * (.2 * 1.15))) * 7.5)

[/ QUOTE ]

7.5% base * (1+ (6 Enhancements * .2 Enhancement increase)) * 1.15 for +3 Enhancements = 18.975.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hm. This seems off to me. Is the +/- level enhancement modifier really applied to the base percentage as well? All powers I've tested seem to show that the modifier applies only to the enhancements: (different brackets used to denote nesting levels for easier comprehensibility)

buff = base percentage * (1 + [{# enh} * {enh %age} * {enh modifier}]),

rather than

buff = base percentage * (1 + [{# enh} * {enh %age}]) * (enh modifier)

Kam

[ QUOTE ]
Some have asked "have you looked at Circeus' numbers?"

Of course! Circeus does an absolutely terrific job of number crunching. His spreadsheets are great.

Here's my analysis of them.

The Defense given by Invincibility is incorrect in the table. Invincibility has a cap of 14 mobs; no more. The Invincibility Defense max for Tankers (with the Enhancement limitations Circeus placed) around 53% not 107.8%.

That changes the numbers significantly, but Invulnerability still ends up superior overall.

Now that assumes that the Invulnerability Tanker has 14 mobs within the slight range of Invincibility. Let's say that there's only 7 mobs within reach. Now Invincibility's defense boost (according to Circeus' chart) drops down to 26.5%. A quick scan down at the damage comparison shows that Invulnerability is superior only in Smashing, Lethal Damage and Fire damage; Ice bests Invulnerability in the other categories.

Unless an Invulnerability Tanker fires off Invincibility when 12 or more mobs are within range, according to Circeus' chart, Ice Armor will be superior to Invulnerability against Cold, Psionic, Toxic, Energy and Negative.

Also, Frozen Armor and Glacial Armor have a base 16% Def, not 15%.

I used Circeus' post here for the spreadsheets.


[/ QUOTE ]

One (possibly nitpicky) point: Invuln does not have to gather its fourteen mobs before using Invincibility - Invince is a toggle. This means you don't have to wait to get those twelve-fourteen mobs in range in order to 'fire it off' - you can make use of the lower +DEF from, say, five or six, while you're gathering up the rest of your minion shield.

Kam

No, that time shows an (approximately) 30% buff for AM:

AM lasts two minutes, so

120 = x / (1 + .3); x = 156 seconds; this is the amount of Phantasm's base recharge that elapses under the effect of AM.

240 - 156 = 84 seconds; this is the amount of base recharge left to elapse without AM.

120 (time under AM) + 84 (time not under AM) = 204 seconds - three minutes 24 seconds. Close enough to 3:27 (given your IIRC ).

HTH,

Kam

Yes, membranes are better: 0.5 buff rather than the 0.333 base buff of an SO (or the 0.38295 of a +3 SO).

I don't know the recharge debuff that Granite provides, so I can't answer the second part directly. However: for perma-Hasten, the recharge boost to Hasten (other than the boost of Hasten itself) must be >= 2.05. Since HOs provide 0.5 each, as long as Granite's debuff is 0.95 or less, you can have perma-Hasten with some number of HOs - which number must be determined by the value of the Granite debuff.

HTH,

Kam

20/21 - missed Yellow Jacket (and got a couple of PoE ones right )

Kam

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*snickers*

I might have to show up with my University of Michigan sweathshirt....wouldn't want to drive down from ann arbor without it

/em sticks tongue out at OSU fans

[/ QUOTE ]

You will get lynched you understand.
I'll be there waiting, with Brutus Buckeye and a can of whoop [censored] in tow.

Don't give a damn 'bout the whole state of Michigan, whole state of Michigan, the Whole state of Michigan....
Don't give a damn 'bout the whole state of Michigan, I'm from
O-HI-O

(PS- Non Ohio/Michigan residents should not bother reading this post... you just won't understand)

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, at least you went for the 'clean' song... there's (plenty) of worse ones out there...

"Hail to those...." *evil grin*

GO BUCKS!

Kam

*sad*

Now I wish I hadn't left Columbus :P

oh well, Washington's good too...

Enjoy Origins, man - I know I did when I was still there...

Kam

For knockback/up/down: my understanding of the knockback/down powers is that they are essentially the *same* power - knockdown is just "knock back for 0 distance". Slapping a KB enhancement in a KD power will make that power KB instead. Knock*up* I'm not as certain about - I could see it going either way.

Kam

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And in the end....

It's

Still

only

a

GAME!!!



[/ QUOTE ]

THERE...

ARE...

FOUR...

LIGHTS!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn Cardassian torturers...

[ QUOTE ]
The only other powersets I can think of that can actually do enough damage and take enough damage to solo an AV is illusion and fire controllers.

Regardless, how was regen nerfed in issue 2 again? I really want to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tanks have done it. Defenders have done it. Other (i.e. not regen) Scrappers have done it. That (together with Controllers) makes 'most' in my book.

As to a supposed "I2 nerf" to Regen - you'll have to ask the person that made that comment. It wasn't me.

Kam

Yes, Taser, we did get the math of the Regen changes. Now, what would you describe as the "point break reason"?

[ QUOTE ]

As to why we made the change, the answer is simple. Regen was simply too good in PvE and PvP. As many of you have already said, it was not uncommon to survive a mission 3 levels higher than you built for 3 player, or even take on and defeat an ArchVillain. Combine that with no down time, and Regen Scrappers were unparalleled in PvE and unstoppable in PvP.


[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I don't see much more than a vague "you guys were overpowered" - no specifics, just a general statement that doesn't actually match up with my own experience. Sure we could take difficult missions. *Most* ATs can say the same. Sure we could solo AVs. Again, *most* ATs can say the same. That, to me, calls into question the "unparalleled" categorization in PvE. PvP may be different - but if we're only unparalleled in PvP, then the changes should only have *been* for PvP. We never - not *once* - got any evidence of how "unparalleled" we were in PvE.

Kam

I've been, while not *the* most vocal poster on this topic, at least a fairly frequent poster. I'd like to make a couple more comments, if I may...

[ QUOTE ]
Recent Regen Test Results

We have read quite a few comments that are concerned that the recent test results posted were the only tests done on regen. This is NOT the case. This was just a small set of data from a much larger range of tests. Statesman just wanted to post a small example of the results.

The comments the community has made have been read and were considered before Issue 4 went live. It was decided that the dev team felt the changes were needed and the issue went out with them.

No recent response to an issue -

Many times, if you do not see a response from the dev team about an issue then either investigation is ongoing and no conclusions have been made yet or the dev team is satisfied with the issue as it is. I want to stress that even though this may be the case, they are always reading your feedback and taking it into consideration.


[/ QUOTE ]

I kind of had the feeling that the latter was what was going on. Speaking specifically to the "Internal Scrapper test results" thread, however - without *any* feedback, we had no way of knowing which of the two ("we're reconsidering" vs. "we're happy as-is") was actually the case. This ended up creating a large quantity of unhappy players, unsure *what* was happening, or if we were even being heard - and also attracted a fair number of "nerf-herders", saying not much more than "see? You deserved it!!". Which, of course, ended up creating a much more hostile environment around the changes.

To be honest, though, those test results are *so* far wide of my experiences that I'd still be interested in seeing more results - if only to have it shown to me that yes, we (Regen) really *were* that overpowered. I realize you guys aren't obligated to show us *anything* - but showing us only a single set of possibly biased tests, without any baseline (i.e. pre-I4 values) to compare them to, simply ended up adding more fuel to the fire.

I guess the upshot of this post is simply - more communication is a *good* thing. If a decision has been made, and we're wasting our time debating it - *tell us*! And if you do begin to justify your decisions (which I acknowledge you're not required to do at all), *please* be prepared to continue doing so if we ask questions.

As always, thank you for your time, and this wonderful game,

Kam

Quick question: You say you tested this with the 'nerfed' I4 numbers (at least, that's how I read this) for Regen. Did you also test with current live Regen? How about perma-Elude and perma-MoG builds?

Just at a quick glance, these numbers say to me:

Inv > SR ~= Regen >> DA.

Which is about the 'feel' I get from playing, so that helps.

Kam