Mieux

Let's look at an inconsistent argument you put forth...

[ QUOTE ]
It certainly wasn't an issue that blasters or controllers were hitting the resist caps at the time.


[/ QUOTE ] None the less it was imposed on them...so regardless of the context, a hard limit was set.

[ QUOTE ]
I then point out that defense does not have an extreme outlier that even remotely compares to this

[/ QUOTE ] First off, that's wrong. Perma-Elude allowed /SR to tank as well as anyone in the game in an normal situation. Hell, perma-Elude scrappers were soloing AV's. This is total encrouchment on needing an Ice tanker for anything.

Second, please show what % of stuff an Ice tanker could cap defensively that a perma-Elude scrapper back in I3 could not.

Third, while a scrappers +RES was reduced to 75%...there was no cap placed on how much +DEF a scrapper could get from Invinc.

The bold face truth is the changes were made to /Inv were done strictly to appease people on a mathmatical level. /Inv was still tanking like there was no tomorrow, but the devs could say, "well all their powers are only 75% effective." And they still did not impose any +DEF mitigation max. Invinc scrappers were arguably getting more defense than Ice Tankers.

Even if we accept your argument that there is no +DEF counterpart, so what? Blasters and Controllers got the limit..as well as every other non-tank in the game...regardless of whether they can get that +RES. Your counter is that it would be stupid not to impose it on everyone? Kind of out-of-hand ignores any reason that they might specifically want to impose it on everyone. They could have imposed it just on scrappers...after all Kheldians have a different limit.

[ QUOTE ]
I then point out that defense does not have an extreme outlier that even remotely compares to this, which probably makes the need to give different ATs different "defense caps".

[/ QUOTE ] And we know this is wrong because they nerfed perma-Elude...but they didn't do it by imposing a +DEF mitigation cap.

Putting global caps in the game is an exercise that does not focus on specifics, but on design philosophy. There is a 5% to hit floor regardless because every thing should have some chance to hit you. This is a completely separate concept from +DEF max mitigation. The two can have absolutely nothing to do with one another, evidenced by the fact that we have a 95% accuracy limitation....simply a philosophical based design choice.

[ QUOTE ]
I then point out that defense does not have an extreme outlier that even remotely compares to this

[/ QUOTE ] This whole assertion of yours was based on ignoring Elude. Your rationale "a) overkill...b) not available all the time." Putting Elude back in to the status of the game now, then, or whenever, delivers a karate chop to the neck of your argumnet. Elude/Overload/Moment of Glory..etc... all allow +DEF mitigation equal to Ice tankers. In team of 8, we can take down a Hatched Kraken in under 3 minutes. With Hasten, Fort, Speed, boost, etc, Elude can be up a whole lotta the time, elminating the need for an Ice Tanker..if it were not for Gauntlet. Remember, you can't bring in the more hit point factor because that was true for Inv/ vs /Inv as well and didn't stop the imposition of the +RES cap.

[ QUOTE ]
I explain the conditions that lead to the reduction of the resist cap.

[/ QUOTE ] The conditions were all about how the numbers came out. The devs were simply making the numbers look right. They did not go in and prove that a tanker could still out tank a scrapper because he had more hit points and got more value from Dull Pain, which they could have. The simply made a global decision that scrappers could not hit the same +RES cap, regardless, because they never touched those caps after powers changed.

So even now when /Inv can't reach the cap, or even come close to it in non-S/L, they still haven't removed the caps. Thus, the actual "power" of the powers is irrelevant. It was and remains about the numbers of Tankers vs Scrappers. If it was just about those powers and the context, they could have surgically made the changes.

If we are talking about 'now' where 1==2, then scrappers/stalkers/brutes, are getting the same +DEF mitigation that Tankers are...which by extension is the same +RES mitigation. If the to-hit floor is linked to a max mitigation philosophy in the same vein as that imposed by the +RES cap, then Elude violates those +RES numbers for Scrappers vs Tankers in our brand new 1==2 paradigm.

I see no evidence linking the to-hit floor with any notions of a +DEF mitigation max philosophy. We'll see if that changes.

Goal posts firmly planted. Wide left.

[ QUOTE ]
In that specific tangent, you were talking about how Elude is like Unstoppable

[/ QUOTE ] Not really. What I said is that if there were +DEF mitigation caps, they shouldn't be ignored by Elude. You want to dismiss Elude as some anomally, then argue that it is allowed to do such a thing for balance reasons. That argument is lacking. At least five power sets across three AT's have Elude level defense...hardly something you can dismiss for convience of your argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Unstoppable could be perma and Invincibility was incredibly powerful

[/ QUOTE ] That's irrelevalnt to the discussion about whether there are caps. "Caps" are not ignored for balance sake. You seem to act like Elude was never permable at the same time Elude was permable. They were.

[ QUOTE ]
I pointed out that when the change was made, Unstoppable could be perma and Invincibility was incredibly powerful, so pointing to that as a reason that scrappers should have a different to-hit floor than tankers

[/ QUOTE ] This statement doesn't make any sense. I'm not pointing to them as a reason for anything at all. You are the one who is arguing the balance consideration of those powers as justification for why there is no separate +DEF cap for scrappers versus tankers.

[ QUOTE ]
completely ignores the factors that made changing the resist cap necessary for balance

[/ QUOTE ] As I stated, the resist caps were imposed on everybody not just /lnv sporting P-Uns and Invinc. In addition, those caps have not been changed despite massive nerfing of those powers..why? Because those caps have nothing to do with any notion of maximum mitigation of +DEF versus +RES. They are strictly imposed so that Tankers will be the toughest. For that exact and very same reason, the same limitation should be put on non-tankers for defense if you are going to spout notions of dmg mitigation maximums. Hell, Arcana even agrees in theory.

I don't. Imposing mitigation maximums is arbitrary. While I agree that since this is a game, there should always be some risk, there is no reason why a defensive scrapper couldn't be just as difficult to hit as a tanker and arguably more so. While I can understand that no scrapper could be as "tough" as a tanker, +DEF is used for elusiveness...avoidance of damage...not mitigation of it. The mitigation is only applicable when we talk about statistic performance over a long term. +RES and +DEF have fundamental differences in a game with secondary effects.

The problem arises when you use +DEF to simulate something other than avoidance...except that's what it does, regardless of the conceptual justification. As Arcana acknowledges, each AT could argue why it could be the best at deflecting damage.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, when it's pointed out, you move the goalposts.

[/ QUOTE ] I haven't moved the goal posts one milimeter. You just can't seem to hit them so you're shifting the blame.

[ QUOTE ]
You're arguing now, we're talking about the situation that will exist in issue 7, from the information available now.

[/ QUOTE ] Actually, this topic got started when Arcana suggested the 90% mitigation floor was linked to the resistance cap of 90%. A comparision that breaks down on a number of levels....one of which is that there is little of or no historical evidence of a consistent treament of +DEF and +RES in that manner. Jack himself argued that +DEF is not the same as +RES. Arcana repeated that very same idea herself. Now you are trying to tell me the two should be linked because on a spreadsheet, they come out to offer the same mitigation...or do they?

[ QUOTE ]
You point to Unstoppable as allowing Invulnerable scrappers to cap their resists, but you carefully neglect the fact that Unstoppable could be perma at the time .....

[/ QUOTE ] What? There was a point in time when both Un and Elude were both perma and both not perma.

In addition, they lowered the res caps for /Inv...and that was strictly done because of the tank/scrapper encroachment. They didnt' touch Elude even though we have +DEF tankers. They lowered Elude as part of the global +DEF nerf. It had nothing to do with +RES powers.
[ QUOTE ]
You also neglect the fact that Invulnerability also had a very powerful Invincibility

[/ QUOTE ] Invinc is irrelevant to the discussion. We are not talking about whether /SR balances with /Inv. We are talking about the +RES caps versus the +DEF mitigation caps. Those +RES caps are extended to all toons, not just /Inv.

The fact is, arguing the various sets as proof of a link between +DEF and +RES is unprofitable. There was never any straight +RES set, even if there was a straight +DEF set. And remember, the devs got the balances horribly wrong when we look at launch /SR verus launch /Inv. We have to look at what was theoretically achievable.

[ QUOTE ]
mitigation for 1% defense is, under the new mechanic, equal to 2% resistance.

[/ QUOTE ] Only on a spreadsheet.

Honestly tho, the topic is starting lose my interest. It's not that consequential (if it is at all).

[ QUOTE ]
You can't argue that it doesn't make sense...

[/ QUOTE ] The argument is not about a defensive mit max, but about whether that has anything to do with the resistance max.

[ QUOTE ]
in PvP, there is a similar limit on defense mitigation

[/ QUOTE ] But it has nothing to do with the resistance caps. That is the issue. Referring to the resistance caps as the bright line rule for what the +DEF caps should be is flawed based on the historical treatment of +DEF and +RES and the way its been implemented on Tanks vs Non-Tanks.

EDIT:
It occured to me that they may have lowered the +res caps to 90% based on the +0 Minon's 5% floor. This supports your argument that +DEF and +RES were meant to be linked, but it simply broke down because of how +Level was added.

You can also argue that they knew this...and they didn't change to hit floors because +DEF was broken and they wanted to fix it first.

But that is a convoluted path. All in all, it boils down to an academic discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
a resistance based set can never get penalized more than +90% in accuracy

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure I understand this...what does a resistance set's accuracy have to do with the topic?

[ QUOTE ]
You're also forgetting that the #1 most common secondary effect is defense debuff, something that is still very powerful against Defense in I7.


[/ QUOTE ] If this is true, which it would seem it would need to be...it's a direct result of all the +DEF powers. So this is really an abberation caused by the devs choice to grant so many +DEF/-Acc debuff powers to defenders and power pools. In effect you are suggesting the devs are acknowleding the context of the game now and trying to compensate for all the -DEF powers. <shrug> I'm not sure how they even attempt to balance such a thing.

[ QUOTE ]
The primary metric I choose to use to balance the two is damage mitigation.

[/ QUOTE ] In game where success is based on health: yours versus theirs, obviously the sets have to be based on a raw ability to withstand damage. But the game is much more complex than that. My Kin can only defeat opponenets, not by out damaging them, but by outlasting them. I eventually drain their endo while doing nothing but keeping my health up. So while you have to start with damage mitigation, such a model breaks down quickly when you introduce powers that win by disabling your opponenet.

[ QUOTE ]
and then consider all other imbalances as requiring secondary adjustments after

[/ QUOTE ] But no one on these boards does that in the numeric analysis. They start with damage mitigation and then end with damage mitigation. Secondary effects only come up as a subjective appeal, not a quantitative proof. If you're going to argue equations as the basis for change, then your equations had better be comprehensive.

[ QUOTE ]
And it would start an argument over who should get lower floors.

[/ QUOTE ] Agreed, but then we shouldn't cherry pick our arguments. Either the floor is part of the equivalency argument and it gets applied correctly, or, we acknowledge that it is a wholly separate construct and it is not part of a defense scaling argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Ignoring Elude *** I don't expect Elude to count because it's a) overkill, and b) not available at all times.


[/ QUOTE ] Not at all compelling. Especially since /Inv has Unstoppable which used to give them capped res and they took it away. Unstoppable was not allowed to ignore the res cap, neither should Elude..if the +DEF limit has anything to do with the resistance limit. Which it clearly doesn't since damage mitigation as an /SR, /EA, /Ninjitsu, etc, can all currently exceed 90%. At no previous point has +DEF been limited to any mitigation cap that imposed by a 5% floor. 5/95 = 5.2%. 94.8% was the mitigation % limit simply because a floor was put in. And this was technically achieveable by everyone....even after the res caps were lowered.

As I said, it's possible the devs are now subscribing to a 90% limit for +DEF...but if you are contending that, then the +DEF limit has to be different for Tanks versus non-tanks. Without that imposition, then we have arbitrary enforcement of their own rules.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, 1% def = 2% res will be accurate up to +5 AVs,

[/ QUOTE ] Under the new damage system, yes, ignoring the context of not getting hit versus getting hit.

[ QUOTE ]
You're forgetting some minor but important things. First off, the ACC Floor is 5%, not 10%

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not forgetting anything. I'm using 10% as to what the defense mitigation is. I said reduce someone down to 10% of their damage versus reduce them down to 10% of their to-hit. It's probably confusing with the mix of %'s without labeling one an actual to hit % value versus a relative %. In both cases I was talking about the reduction of your ability to hit by 90% or your ability to do damage by 90%. If we are going to talk about how +DEF should scale like resistance, then if scrappers can only reduce damage by 75%, then they should only be able to reduce MTH by the same amount....75%. This means the minion floor should not be lower than 12.5%.

[ QUOTE ]
At low values for both DEF and RES, 1% DEF == 2% RES

[/ QUOTE ] Actually it has nothing to do with low values. It has to do with the MTH. 1 == 2 only when the MTH is 50%. And in the context of the game, we can show that it's not the same at all. Once it goes to 75% or 95%...then 1 != 2 even ignoring the context.

EDIT:
I'll edit my above post so it's more clear.

[ QUOTE ]
The second (interior) check is meaningless when there are no accuracy buffs/debuffs***Thus, it made perfect sense to me that the absence of the second check might survive in the game *until* arena combat forced the issue.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm confused by this. If PvP brought the internal check, then we should see a 6 acc/dmg HO'd Blaster hit Super-Duper-Eluded-up-the-Wazoo Scrapper with 20% accuracy. Did we see that? It should have been impossible to floor anyone with 6 HO's...regarless of what debuffs or defense you were running. In fact, we could test this now by going on the Test server with 3 acc and see if we get 10%.

[ QUOTE ]
They are if your reference point for defense performance in the game is resistance performance.

[/ QUOTE ] But we can argue that it shouldn't be. Especially at the max. Busting someone down to 10% of their accuracy is far better than busting someone down to 10% of their damage...when you factor in secondary effects. Statesman argued this very notion himself. It's the same reason why Elude doesn't have higher mez protection and Unstoppable does. My DM and my Kinetics would much rather face 90% resistance versus 90% defense (if my acc is 100%). You yourself said defense != resistance. Just go ask Sappers. There are even situations where resistance is better than +DEF...like when the damage is massive enough to one-shot you without resistance and you have a healer.

I think the whole scaling defense thing is an interesting argument. On one level it seems like defense should scale just like resistance. On another level, it's not a given that such a system creates a balance...given the context of the game. Not getting hit has many cascade benefits over getting hit when getting hit has penalties not associated with just taking damage. I've seen you make these arguments yourself, as well as The Confessor.

If you really feel that the resistance cap of 90% is reflected in the to-hit floor of 90%...all non-Tanks should have a much higher to-hit floor than Tanks. It should be 12.5%..not 5%. But the fact that it's not and never was means that the two are not related and never were. If they raise it...then it shows they've adopted this approach. But if you think the 10% should be preserved as we level up, then you'll have to explain why it isn't 25% for scrappers.

[ QUOTE ]
a) I've always felt that way, and I was expressing my opinions, not what I thought the devs thought.

[/ QUOTE ] Ah...my bad on two counts then. I don't recall your ever stating that the to-hit floor should be higher for AV's or +5's. I thought you were suggesting that this is what the devs intended.

[ QUOTE ]
ought not to move because the tohit floor was the true measure of maximum mitigation, which isn't strictly true.

[/ QUOTE ] I agree with you. The to-hit floor is just a construct for the game...not a measure of something on a theoretical design level.

[ QUOTE ]
because the devs have made sufficient statements about how they *want* defense to work in I7

[/ QUOTE ] How defense should work and how to-hit floors should work are not logically connected. They are simply mathmatically connected based on the method of implementation. What I see is the realization by the devs that resistance scales and defense doesn't. This was defended/ignored for several issues. For whatever reason, Statesman suddenly subscribed to this being a problem. Their chosen solution, forces the to-hit floor to rise for everyone who has greater than a 50% to hit. But there is no logical rationale for this when the to-hit floor is simply a "game" construct. I see this as an unavoidable consequence of this method not a mandated necesssity.

Now, they can turn around and argue that they spefically chose this method because of what happens at the to-hit floor, but such an argument would be a change in any previous espoused philosophy. I've never seen them comment on the to-hit floor not working properly, nor has there been any espoused philosophy which would lead us to believe such a result is desired. Perhaps they have to you? Perhaps it is not something they would comment on despite their goals.

Before, you could simply have more defense/debuff than the opponent had accuracy and as such the game imposed some risk. Now, simply because they are a boss or +level minion, they will always have better accuracy than a +0, even if you had infinite defense. It's a nit-pick, but nonetheless, the logic behind the rationale is not compelling and is arguably not logic but compromise

I think any arguments about the to-hit floor having any relational significance based on the +0 minion value are seriously challenged when you consider a lvl 1 Hellion has the same value as a lvl 50 Minion against an Eluded+Toggle /SR.

I'll be surprised if this specific implementation doesn't see some revisions. I see some major problems based on the context of the game.

I repeat my request for you to share what Castle said about how things worked previously with the flooring logic and why they changed it and when.

Time for my long nit pick...and as such is not a big deal...but

[ QUOTE ]
Consider: the 90% resistance cap is unaffected by level or rank. You cannot get better than 90% resistance against a minion, or an AV ***That defense now has the same maximum mitigation against AVs as they have against minions is exactly what we mean when we say "defense will now work just as well against minions and AVs."***I would make it work that way with some form of adjustment.

[/ QUOTE ] I understand the argument here, but I think it's revisionist and I submit that it ignores the most likely reason why there was 5% floor to begin with. I also think we are comparing disimilar mechanics.

First off, non-tankers cannot achieve the 90% resistance. So to allow all individuals through buffs and to-hit debuffs to achieve 90% through +DEF is not commensurate. You are assigning a connection where there is an asymetric occurance. With RI, DN, Bubbles, Flash Arrow, Manuevrs, etc it is very possible for just about everyone to cap PvE accuracy. The same is not true for resistance. Just as you examined the debuff in Uny and decided it was not a balancing debuff, to link the 90% resistance cap to the 90% +DEF cap is tenous and largely circumstancial. But I don't think you are doing that...so moving on...

Second, the devs have never espoused any such philosophy about the scaling caps for bosses versus minions versus AV's, etc. They easily could have implemented such a notion by just adding the scaler on a conditional.

Maybe they've changed their mind and now subscribe to exactly what you're suggesting, but that would suggest that something they implemented to always have some risk was, in fact, intended as a golden ratio. I don't believe this. It was possible to cap an AV and as such the devs implemented a 5% floor so there wouldn't ever be zero risk in fighting it. To go back and say they always wanted us to experience 10% incoming damage seems unlikely.

The argument that the math should work this way is not compelling. It's based on a the premise that the 5% floor was something other than a need to maintain some element of risk. You stated in another post that this result was some how mandated by the need to preserve some average damage mitigation value. It seems more likely that this was the by-prodcut of needing defense to scale and it is convenient to interpret that as some sort of truth.

What I am really arguing is that the floor is artificial. While it is true that the new method preserves the mitigation against minions at 10%, the fact is that the 5% floor is an arbitrary construct from this being a game. If we remove the floor conditional, then higher level/rank mobs will do more damage proportionally. If the inside value is negative, it's zero. As soon as mob gets 1%, the +level and rank values will kick in appropriately. The only problem is that once you get to high level toons, many of the mobs won't do any damage at all. It's far to easy to exceed the 50% base accuracy once you throw in multiple debuffs.

So I submit, this 5% accuracy floor is not some truth about the universe in its relationship towards minions. Nor does it bear any relationship to the 90% resistance max because that only applies to tankers, not to all toons. There is no 90% resistance max that a defender can achieve, but now you've forced that defense max on all +DEF.

This could be countered by my whole Uny argument. The difference there is that Uny was a power built within a set which has to achieve both a artistic effect and a quantitative/qualitative balance. The acc floor is not meant to achieve a balance, but the existence of some risk, regardless fo the circumstances, for the same reason we can't achieve 100% accuracy. There is no real world reason why we shouldn't be able to achieve 100% acc. Aren't some of the super heroes supposed to be machines? Nor should there be a "streak breaker." These things are artifacts for a game, as is the 5% floor. To argue that this 10% is consistent with the statement that now our defense will work "equally well" ignores that this is not a result of how are defense works. The 5% floor has nothing to do with how our defense works, but rather places where our defense is not allowed to work. It is in fact a discontinuity in +DEF environment. The engine is inserting a 5% chance when none should exist.

Of course...this could all be wrong if there is already code in the game that gives AV's and +level mobs a higher capped accuracy. But your posts don't contend this.


[ QUOTE ]
Castle has pointed out to me...

[/ QUOTE ] can you clarify this? In PvP, are your acc enhance applied to the 5%? What exactly did they change, when did they change it, and where did they change it?

[ QUOTE ]
sometimes it gets the best of both worlds, and sometimes it gets the worst of both worlds

[/ QUOTE ] Correct me if I'm wrong, but the PP was introduced to the game. It wasn't part of the original design strategy as far as we know. That is why I don't see why Debuffs would be any less effective than +DEF if we ignore the context of the game.

[ QUOTE ]
Then we have been argueing entirely different points here.


[/ QUOTE ] Too funny. Then I owe you an apology since it was I who challenged your assertion. It is incumbent upon me to understand your point.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not saying the debuff itself is inappropriate...

[/ QUOTE ] Disregard my comment as I thought you were referring to +Levels.

[ QUOTE ]
you can revisit your arguments

[/ QUOTE ] No need as I don't have anything compelling to compare the differences that might occur between a minion and a boss.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This suggests there is no inherent weakness of one versus the other from a design perspective. Which is why Arcana's statement is a curiosity. It doesn't preclude the PP from reducing the debuff, but I haven't seen any statement that says the PP provides -to hit buff resistance as of yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Debuffs are affected by level difference, so that 30% debuff won't be a 30% debuff against a +2 enemy.

[/ QUOTE ]I know things like Slows are less effective in what appears to be both duration and magnitude.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That facet is that they are reduced by the purple barrier (as are all powers that affect foes)

[/ QUOTE ] Ahhh, I see where you are coming from. I am not under the impression that RI debuffs less against a +5 than a +0.

[/ QUOTE ]

Debuffs are listed as "attack" powers (and cause aggro) so are resisted directly by the purple patch on mobs.

Damage debuffs were tested and proven to work this way, and it was clarified that accuracy did too, I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

From Castle:
[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, To Hit Debuffs essentially fulfill the function of Defense for everyone the Debuffed target attacks.


[/ QUOTE ] This suggests there is no inherent weakness of one versus the other from a design perspective. Which is why Arcana's statement is a curiosity. It doesn't preclude the PP from reducing the debuff, but I haven't seen any statement that says the PP provides -to hit buff resistance as of yet.

[ QUOTE ]
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.



[/ QUOTE ] The artistic is not a red herring, but directly pertinent to the issue you raise. You want to ignore it and suggest the game is focused on preserving some illogical application and should ignore any artistic purpose the math intended to support.

[ QUOTE ]
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"


[/ QUOTE ] My response doesn't take your statement out of context at all. I refute your whole contention that the social aspect of ths game is no more important than a conversation I might have with someone while playing Halo. I simply quoted part of it for the sake if brevity. I guess that confused you, but you seem to not have processsed my response at all. It refutes the entire assertion and not just the part I quoted.

[ QUOTE ]
My assertion rests upon the fact that in certain cases the developers desire varying effects dependant upon mob classification...

[/ 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 ]
If the original idea was to make the debuff effect a 6.67% increase in damage from bosses

[/ QUOTE ] Again, apoloogies for the confusion, but I am not stating anything in terms of bosses vs minions.

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


[/ QUOTE ] Out come the strawmen. My response to your feelings that the debuff is not appropriate. It is not a statement on whether they should confirm the effects.

[ QUOTE ]
yet you resist my attempts to garner new information here for no reason that is really clear to me.


[/ QUOTE ] Well, the discussion is over. You've repeated this like 10 times now and you haven't show one single statement where I say this or suggest this. What is your disfunction here Hunter?

EDIT:
Btw, it looks like you are right about the Acc added to the 5% base on the low end once they move the to hit modifier outside.

[ QUOTE ]
That facet is that they are reduced by the purple barrier (as are all powers that affect foes)

[/ QUOTE ] Ahhh, I see where you are coming from. I am not under the impression that RI debuffs less against a +5 than a +0.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its unclear to me if there are any specific instances where tohit debuffs are explicitly meant to be as strong as pure defense.


[/ QUOTE ] This is a curious statement. RI and DN seem to be better than pure defense as they have a higher base value than say /SR's toggles and they require less slots for completely comprehensive acc reduction..i.e. three slots emulating six powers in /SR in the non-resistance days.

[/ QUOTE ]

As powers imposed on a foe, debuffs have always suffered directly from the purple barrier, where defense has only suffered as an indirect function of the increased base toHit of foes (and this is clearly now considered a defect).

[/ QUOTE ]I don't see how that addresses my question. Arcana is suggesting that a power like DN, or RI, or Flash Arrow was not mean to be as effetive as the +DEF in /SR for example. Against an even level minion, it seems that one should be just as effetive as the other.

You said the lack of scaling is a defect, then we can not use the scaling defficiencies as a design intent.

I should rephrase my question as the comparision between base values is not the context under which I think her statment is made. I am curious what in the game leads her to make the statement she did.

[ QUOTE ]
Its unclear to me if there are any specific instances where tohit debuffs are explicitly meant to be as strong as pure defense.


[/ QUOTE ] This is a curious statement. RI and DN seem to be better than pure defense as they have a higher base value than say /SR's toggles and they require less slots for completely comprehensive acc reduction..i.e. three slots emulating six powers in /SR in the non-resistance days.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, in Korea, hero don't talk.

[/ QUOTE ] Where does that come from?

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe typing in the chat window should grant a +35% defense bonus and +60% resistance bonus while you are typing,

[/ QUOTE ] Honestly, they should make you un AS'able
EDIT:
Didn't see Devian's post.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but you are presenting your case as if you have an inside track on what that "vision" is...

[/ 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. I never once claimed to have the inside track. My post to Arcana was series of logical progressions that attempted to understand what the purpose of the debuff was/is. My post includes many question marks and lot of "maybe." Likie..."Maybe the debuff is there to retaint the root effect...."

You completely ignore that line of reasoning and try and present my position like I am absolutely certain.

[ QUOTE ]
we have no evidence to support your assertion that it was always intended for the defense debuff to scale in this manner

[/ QUOTE ] 110% false. We have the very logical evidence, which you simply choose to ignore. Arcana goes through it herself in her last post as of my writing. I'll break down for you one last time..

1) The balance is based on +0 mobs.

2) Defensive and resistance sets are supposed to be balanced against +0 mobs.

3) Since defense did not scale, defense fell behind (this is stated explicity by Statesman in the OP).

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 ]
My assumption here is no more or less valid than your own

[/ 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.

The only leg you have to stand on, which you did not make interestingly enough, is that the debuff base does not appear to be mathmatically correlated to anything else. Arcana goes through this. Why is it the same for Tanks/Scraps? Why was it never adjusted after other changes? Etc etc...are valid questions about what the purpose of the debuff is. But they do not undermine the notion that what ever the debuff value is, it should scale appropriately.

[ QUOTE ]
your premises may well be false, in which case your whole argument falls apart.

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

[ QUOTE ]
and if that is the case isn't it important to even mention it?

[/ QUOTE ] You keep trying to take this tack..it has become a contemptable tactic on your part because I have repeatedly agreed that things should be reexamined when global changes are made.

[ QUOTE ]
I am functioning under the assumption that this change might not have even been considered with the unyielding debuff in mind

[/ QUOTE ] It's possible, but it's more likely that this change considered ALL defense related buffs/debuffs...as they have been play testing it since October.

[ QUOTE ]
You are getting into a whole different argument here than really is necessary...

[/ QUOTE ] I think his is an odd statement because you are the one who falsely accuses me of putting the aesthetic above all else and then claiming I played the game for the social aspect.

[ QUOTE ]
and that the social aspect is a seperate but altogether important part of setting up a gaming community.

[/ QUOTE ] Let's just remember that this is an MMO...its business model is predicated on the social aspect. This is not a console game with a tacked on multiplayer aspect. There are missions that you can get solo where you have to have another player.

[ QUOTE ]
so lets just agree that it is something fo find out, alright?


[/ QUOTE ] Please show me one single quote where I say the devs should not answer this question?

[ QUOTE ]
and frankly I am not the only one who thinks so

[/ 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 ]
you are looking at the social aspect that it permits you to engage in.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure how you've come away with this perspective, but it is not accurate. 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 ]
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 ]
I would argue that the scaling of the defbuff actually alters the aesthetic.

[/ QUOTE ] Well of course. But this point is whether they had achieved what they originally wanted. George Lucas went back and added all kinds of special effects in his remake of Star Wars. The movie is altered as a result, but in GL's mind, this is what it was supposed to look like. GL was orginally limited by technology.

Why the devs implemented +Rank the way they did is unknown. But it would seem they had the tech. Perhaps in this circumstance they did not have the understanding...or they weighted the math differently. There were many posts from States arguing that +DEF was better than +Res. In some ways he's right. In some ways he's not. The idea that X+DEF=Y+RES is by no means an absolute truth in this game.

But if the game is modeled on the +0 mob, then one can argue from a stronger position that the debuff was not scaling properly and this change will see that it does.

[ QUOTE ]
its an automatic consequence of attempting to satisfy the design constraint "defense should work just as effectively against higher ranked and higher level foes" by setting mitigation average constant

[/ QUOTE ] I don't see that.

[ QUOTE ]
is floor/ceiling checked once

[/ QUOTE ] For what? is it checked to make sure the value is non-negative or to set it at 5/95?

[ QUOTE ]
You should keep in mind that the absolute tohit floor has *never* been 5%.

[/ QUOTE ] That's because of the streak breaker, not because the floor isn't 5%, IIRC.

[ QUOTE ]
I proved that was not the case: certain mobs *right now* have heightened accuracy

[/ QUOTE ] Then those mobs could be used to determine the floors right now.
[ QUOTE ]
its possible that Geko is wrong

[/ QUOTE ] It's more likely we have misinterpreted what was said.

[ QUOTE ]
then in the arena anyone that was packing 6 dmg/acc HOs should have never seen a tohit on a perma-elude or MoG scrapper less than 20%

[/ QUOTE ] Which is why I said based on my experience and the posts of other people, Elude was flooring people at 5% who had 6 Acc/Dmg HO's.

We'll have to see if Geko can clear this up for us.

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I am making this guess is that you keep asserting how unimportant mathematical considerations are when it comes to a "simulation"...

[/ QUOTE ] A total and complete mischaratization of my point.
[ QUOTE ]
and how the aestetic takes precident in all cases

[/ QUOTE ] Another gross and inaccurate characterization of my position.

[ QUOTE ]
This entire game is a mathematical simulation

[/ QUOTE ] The entire game is not a mathmatical simulation. There is no programmed math involved in how we communicate or team or strategize...so the game transcends pure math. It is not a simulation any more than a card game is a simulation. It is the game. The "simulation" occurs when people try and break down balance into equations designed to capture some aspect of the game. You are attempting to simulate what actually happens in the game. The game itself is not trying to simulate anything as there is not such things as super heroes. Please don't tell me this is trying to simulate comic books.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ] There is a fundamental premise on which such an asssertion rests, that being that the aesthetic is based on a mathmatical truth. I have already acknowledged that this is true for the game in many ways based on the psychological importance of perceptual equality in the game. The devs wanted the sets to play/ be perceived as balanced, so they needed to work out a mathmatical model to preserve that balance.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you not believe this is even something that should be looked into?...

[/ QUOTE ] Now you are being obtuse. I already stated that this is not the issue. I thought we covered this.

[ QUOTE ]
neither does Arcana

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure what Acrana has to do with this discussion. I am not contesting anything she's said, quite the contrary, I am using her own acknowledgement of a mathmatical fact as the counter argument to your suggestion that the debuff is greater than it should be.

[ QUOTE ]
but that does not mean we should ignore the possibility that it might cause an issue altogether.


[/ QUOTE ] Once again, this is not the issue before us.

[ QUOTE ]
and your response is not to bother looking at it at all because all I have come here with is mathematical evidence.

[/ QUOTE ] First, this is now the third time in this very thread you are falsely maintaing that I am opposed to some examination. It has become tiresome. Second, your mathmatical assessment was fundamentally lacking. In my response to another poster I showed, mathmatically, how the debuff is not being applied consistently with our current setup; the penalty is lessened simply because defense does not scale. You haven't even acknowleged it...and it's pure math.

[ QUOTE ]
I am having a difficult time understanding where you are comming from here.

[/ QUOTE ] Then I suggest you reexamine what it means to have defense scale based on its interaction with +0 mobs. Admittedly, it's not a basic concept, but you proport to be a man of science, so I assume you will understand it.

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

[/ QUOTE ] What we are talking about is applying a conditional or case statement to the result of an equation:

If X > 95%, X=95%
If X < 5%, X = 5%.

Simplicity and consistency requires that all modifiers are computed prior to this check. I'm not 100% sure this is what they do, but it would be consistent with what I've experienced.

[ QUOTE ]
I am having a difficult time understanding where you are comming from here.

[/ QUOTE ] I am coming from two positions:

1) The math: the 10% incoming DPS increase against even level minions was not preserved due to defense not scaling. Now that the defense scales, the model on which the debuff was created...even level minions, will now be preserved if it is left unchanged. 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.

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.

You haven't seem to acknowledge either one of those positions.

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


[/ QUOTE ] Yes, but the scientific/quantitative is a tool used to create the gaming experience, it is not an end in and of itself.

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ] I think you are again talking about two fundamentally different things. CoH is not a celebration of the power of math. The math is mandated by the medium of the game. CoH's vision is not some endeaver to show what math can do for the beauty of math. You don't build a bridge because you are a mathmatician, you use math to build a bridge because you want to cross a river.

I'm not saying that there isn't any mathmatical genius used or necessary in making CoH what it is, but I'm not subscribing to the notion that the devs are doing things simply because they mathmatically inspired. Required is probably more accurated...required in a restrictive sense.

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

[/ QUOTE ] That's true, but the underlying purpose of one based on psychology: the sets should feel balanced. The devs created a mathmatical model that would allow players to experience variety and balance at the same time. This is an artistic vision. The believe that balance and variety are necessary elements. Contrast this with AD&D which was not as strongly based on comparative balance, but on a role based philosophy (though perhaps the weapons might have been number crunched). The math model in CoH is not 100% accurate nor 100% predictive. Posters seem to ignore that fact when they post their own math.

[ QUOTE ]
the two are more interrelated than you seem to be willing to admit.

[/ QUOTE ] Quite the contrary. The math provides a useful and necessary tool in creating the aesthetic. 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 ]
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).


[/ QUOTE ] They simply broke off how they added the accuracy. Yes, the order of operations is changed, but the construct isn't new at all. We already use +Acc, we already use +To Hit...we already new that putting the Acc where they put it would allow +DEF to work better.

It's actually surprising this change wasn't made sooner as it was suggested soon after Stargazer showed us how accuracy was really calculated. I guess what is still in question is whether this really balances +DEF. Since the devs have been pay testing it since October, I assume it balances well enough that they are happy.

[ QUOTE ]
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%)


[/ 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 ]
I do however think you could have gotten the point across in a manner that was easier to digest.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Unless I missed something, that is not what Arcanaville said at all.

[/ QUOTE ] I submit that you did.

Against an +0 minion which has a 50% chance to hit, a -5% debuff increases your incoming damage by 10%.

Against a +5 minion, which has a 75% (assume for the sake of argument) , a -5% debuff increases your incoming damage by 6.7%.

You're taking less damage than you should because 5% is a smaller value of your opponents chance to hit you as you go up in level.

If the standard is set at +0 mobs, and things should "scale" properly, then as you scale up, that 10% should be perserved.

[ QUOTE ]
The level of the mobs is irrelevant ; what is relevant is the extra slots a higher level character has in order to offset the penalty. Thus the power penalizes lower level characters more than higher level characters.

[/ QUOTE ] No..this is wrong. You misunderstood the point of the sentence you quoted. Arcana was arguing that the debuff penalty was not intended to be offset by the resistance because at higher levels you can slot resistance and it more than compensates for the debuff. She was talking about whether the debuff was a "balancing debuff."