Quason

[ QUOTE ]
Based on a strick HP/Defense aspect, I guess you're correct. Factoring in other things is going to be a nightmare, and probably not easily done in as simple a fashion. I dont have any idea how you would factor in Hide, Placate and so on compared to a Scrapper who obviously lacks those tools (though I think we can all agree that Confront probably doesnt add to survivability ). Primary sets come in there too, as things like Cobra Strike, Stun, and so on.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what I was thinking. There's a LOT more that goes into survivability than that, and I tried to point that out in my post. That's just a direct side-by-side comparison of HP and Defense numbers. Take it FWIW.

Basically, that was just a response the whole "stalkers have less def/no they don't/yes they do!/well stalkers have less hp!/no they don't/yes they do!" discussion that was taking place. That's how the def and HP break down.

Basically, Mage, here's the deal. You don't have to like FC. That's fine, there's plenty that share your opinion. However, you don't have to convince us that it has it's problems, because we're fully aware of that. Everytime a Tanker challenges a Dominator, we're aware of the problems. Everytime a Blaster challenges me and then flies out of range and hoverblasts me, I'm aware of the problems.

However, for the majority of cases, it's balanced and it's fun. I've heard a LOT of people say that it's the most enjoyable PvP experience they've had. I've heard quite a few even say that they hate PvP in general but love FC, so there must be something right about it to counterbalance all that's wrong with it. But again, it's all dependant upon your perspective I guess, and perspectives certainly vary.

We tried FC in Warburg today and it was a complete catastrophe IMHO. Balance just breaks down after level 30. You had stone tankers challenging everything that moved, then just standing there with Granite Armor on doing nothing, knowing full well there's probably not a build in the game that can kill them solo. And that's just one example. There are a LOT of things that unbalance one on one PvP at that level. So I decided it wasn't working for me and moved it back to Siren's Call, and CitizenZero for whatever reason decided to accuse me of whining because there were more Stalker counters at Warburg level. I'm not sure why he'd do that, but I let it go and didn't worry too much about it.

So yeah, point being, there's certainly nothing perfect about what we're doing but it's the best solution for an open challenge one on one sytem that's available to us now, so that's what we're doing and I don't see it ending sometime soon. I'd love to invite you to come and try it out some day and fight several different players and archetypes. I really think you might enjoy it but it's fine if you don't want to, no one is going to twist your arm or anything.

Here's some additional numbers for concideration regarding AT survivability:

A SR Scrapper has 1165 HP in Warburg. He has 28% defense, so it takes 1165 + 28%, or 1491 damage to kill him.

A blaster has 1050 HP in Warburg. He has 0% defense, so it takes 1050 damage to kill him.

My Stalker has 885 HP in Warbug. He has 23.5% defense (vs S/L), so it takes 885 + 23.5%, or 1092 damage to kill him.

My Stalker is 104% as survivable as the Blaster and 73% as survivable as the Scrapper.

That's ignoring a LOT of important factors like ACC enhancements, To-Hit buffs, etc but it's an interesting comparison I think.

[ QUOTE ]
All this does is tell me two things about Stalkers...
1) They really aren't that bright.
2) They really are a bit over the line when they get as far as the chopper where you enter the zone.

well... and a third thing that I already knew...

3) They have no skill - if they have to gank to get a kill.


[/ QUOTE ]

Holy overgeneralization, Batman!

Dude. I'm in Warburg, it's like 6am, I'm doing the nuke mission and low and behold I see a nice juicy Corruptor standing outside a door just hanging out.

What would YOU have done in that situation?

Just checked it. My Stalker's HP is Warburg is 885.

That comes out to be 75.9% of Scrapper HP. Given the only direct analogy, SR Scrapper vs SR Stalker, the Stalker is 75.9% as survivable as the Scrapper.

An Energy Aura Stalker would be a bit less survivable than that since the defense values are a bit lower than SR. A Ninjitsu Stalker would be a bit less still, since its numbers are slightly lower than EA.

Regen is very difficult to calculate, which is why I didn't concider it a direct comparison. Regeneration is based on a percentage of maximum HP rather than a set HP/sec, meaning that a Stalker is going to have less HP being regenerated than a Scrapper with identical slotting. Dull Pain further muddies the waters. Honestly, I have no idea how to calculate a comparison.

[ QUOTE ]
I meant that the ability of the none stalker to keep moving makes it a important way of avoiding AS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Giving away one of my trade secrets here, but that's why people should always try to fight Stalkers in the middle ring, which is the larger of the three. There's a LOT more room for maneuverability.

Take Kagemon for instance. He has a very unique fighting style where he manipulates the suppression of Super Jump by queueing up an attack and jumping past you. The attack animates as he's moving so the suppression has ended by the time he lands.

In one of the smaller rings, I'm able to just hit build up, stand still, and spam the Assassin Strike button. Since there's so little room for him to move, odds are good that he's going to come near me and the attack will activate. However, the odds are MUCH lower that I can make that happen in the larger ring since there's less chance of him getting close enough to me for it to activate.

[ QUOTE ]
As for blasters maybe yeah some do well Im sure but its just a big game of paper, rock, scissors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, it comes down to that sometimes, especially when you have two players of very comparable skill. When skill is evenly matched and no longer a factor, that's when things like AT and build, range, enhancement levels and the like come into play. I think that's why I have such a hard time beating karaza. We're both pretty evenly skilled. We know our archetypes, we know our powers, and we know how to fight each other because we've done it so many times that we've learned exactly what the other person is going to do. In a case like that, it comes down to the powers themselves, and he just plain has me outmatched in that regard. Not to take *anything* away from karaza because he's probably the single best fighter on the roof most nights, but sometimes there's more than skill that's being factored into a fight.

Is that unfair? I dunno... I don't think it is. We can only play with the characters we have, so if someone has a build that just happens to excel in the particular environment that FC creates, they're going to do better than someone that would benefit from a different environment. That's just how it is, and I've never really heard anyone complain about it. If you can't beat someone in FC, catch them in Warburg trying to do the nuke mission and gank them then.

[ QUOTE ]
I have already presented numbers that suggest that Stalker HP = 90% of Scrapper HP

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? 90%? I'd heard 75%. Can you point me to your numbers?

Stalker and Scrapper DEF numbers are identical, and in fact you could concider Stalker defense even higher than Scrappers' due to the addition of Hide. The balancing factor is the fact that Stalkers have lower base damage and much less HP.

[ QUOTE ]
The ability to keep moving is a a chief defense of stalkers. The limited area that is greatly shortened.

[/ QUOTE ]

AHA! So THAT must be why I suck so bad in FC!

Except that I went 9-0 last night (if you don't count the one loss that came from me losing internet connection midway through) and 11-1 the night before.

Blasters also do spectacularly well in FC. Defiance has a lot to do with that. Anyone that thinks defiance sucks should come to FC and watch a blaster.

Honestly, the limited maneuvering room in the FC rings only comes into play in two scenarios. First, and most glaringly, it makes MMs damned-near unbeatable since all their firepower is concentrated in one small space. Second, it makes Rads VERY difficult since you can't get far enough away to break range on RI and EF. Other than that, I've not seen a situation where the ring itself was a factor in a fight.

That's... pretty bad, though. I mean, killing spectators is fine. In fact, I've acclimated myself to that dynamic and have begun using it myself. When I'd already fought everyone in FC last night that were interested in a match, I ended up with about 4000 bounty. So I killed a couple of spectators to finish out my 6k.

I got called all manner of nasty names in broadcast, but I've been called worse. *shrug* So yeah, I don't mind spectator hunting and have even engaged in it myself, but it's a totally different matter to intentionally give someone debt for no reason other than the fact that they're there and you can. That's just juvenile.

[ QUOTE ]
What are the legitimate issues with one-shotting and how do we address ALL PVP situations that raise those issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll be damned if I know. As I said, I'm no more happy with one-shotting as a Stalker than I'm sure anyone that I do it to is. However, as I think we've established here, Stalkers aren't the only ones guilty of this.

I think the first step is defining what exactly IS a one-shot and what isn't. Obviously, that's proven difficult so far. The idea would be to reach a consensus on what a reasonable amount of time would be with which to react and prevent a player from being killed in less than that amount of time, but even then you run into issues. For example, would it make sense for a team of 8 Stalkers to all AS the same target and that target survive?

So yeah, I'm really at a loss on this one. As far as I'm concerned, the best solution is to just limit the percentage of a target's maximum HP a single attack can remove (90% sounds good to me) and just see if the situation resolves itself. If that doesn't fix it, revisit it later.

Stop derailing our science and religion discussion with your bothersome posts about a video game!

[ QUOTE ]
Deism (the closest description for what was practiced by those two) is much more of a philosophy than a religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Hence the "In God We Trust" on American currency, as many of the Founding Fathers were Deists.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh well... at least we can accept that the probability of any religion being even remotely correct is near nil. So science is still the only worthwhile paradigm to live by.


[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting you say this since Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Heisenberg, and Hawking all had/have personal spiritual beliefs or make clear allowances for a creator.

*opens a big ole can of worms, officially derailing the thread*

[ QUOTE ]
Strange how nobody else is complaining about any of the other new CoV AT? Coincedience huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, yeah they are. Apparently Force Field MMs, EM Brutes, and Rad Corruptors are also ruining PvP, eating babies, and kicking puppies.

The sky is, in fact, falling.

I'd imagine the devs, who are impartial on the matter (though certainly not infallible), would simply play the game and determine how balanced it is.

As Statesman (I believe it was) pointed out, they don't always bow to the whims of the forum posters. They read the boards looking for "smoke", then test it in-game to determine if there's actually a "fire".

[ QUOTE ]
It has proven difficult to construct quantum models of gravity, the remaining fundamental force. Semi-classical approximations are workable, and have led to predictions such as Hawking radiation. However, the formulation of a complete theory of quantum gravity is hindered by apparent incompatibilities between general relativity, the most accurate theory of gravity currently known, and some of the fundamental assumptions of quantum theory. The resolution of these incompatibilities is an area of active research, and theories such as string theory are among the possible candidates for a future theory of quantum gravity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source

The sources of THAT article are listed at the bottom of the page.

[ QUOTE ]
Kudos though, I still keep snickering everytime I think about "Anne Coulter 2008"

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, she'd at least simplify matters by nuking every other country on the planet. *shrug* A lot less complicated than this whole "invasion" BS we're trying now.

Personally, I think a full scale nuclear war would be GOOD for humanity. Take us down a peg or two.

But most people ARE going to college now. The College Board (people that do the SAT, among other things) recently reported that the percentage of students who go on to college directly out of high school has risen above the 50% mark. I read that in the NEA journal (my wife is a public school teacher) but I'll try to find an online source to link for you if you like.

[ QUOTE ]
Even though Newton's Laws are, in fact, incorrect, I bet they tuaght them to you in school. Why? Because you can still make a lot of good decisions wbased on those laws - even though they aren't universally true.


[/ QUOTE ]

*nod* And then you take Physics in college and they tell you "forget all that BS you learned in grade school, it's wrong. here's how it actually works..." and you wonder why you wasted your time learning Newtonian Physics if it's been proven incorrect.

[ QUOTE ]
Newton's Laws of Mechanics are not universally true. They are especially inaccurate near the speed of light.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why they've been largely rejected in favor of the General Relativity Theory. That, however, breaks down in very small masses and singularities, so the difference is made up with Quantum Theory. Unfortunately, neither are universally true, hence the search for the Grand Unified Theory, which doesn't exist just yet.

So even Newton, Heisenberg, and Einstein aren't absolutes. It's not likely we're going to find the grand unified theory of PvP, either.

[ QUOTE ]
It's about having a PvP experience that isn't just fun for stalkers or Stalker Hunting teams.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're presenting it as an absolute here. "...isn't just fun..." sets this statement up as a universal truth since it excludes counter-examples. Hence the presentation of a counter-example.

...and there's our counter-example.

Mieux, I'm not saying you're wrong in your argument. I'm just saying that the logical construct with which you attempted to prove it is invalid. You're certainly welcome to attempt to construct a new one.

What you're doing is attempting to construct a logical argument, and you're doing it exactly right.

You start with a universally true premise, then you apply that premise to a specific situation within the universal truth. That's "deductive reasoning" since you're deducing from the universal to the specific.

For example. Premise: PvP isn't fun unless you're a Stalker or a Stalker Hunter. Given: There are other players besides Stalkers and Stalker Hunters. Deduction: PvP isn't fun for those players.

The argument is rock-solid. The Given is accurate and the Deduction follows very smoothly and logically from the given and the premise.

In order to deconstruct that logical argument, the PREMISE would have to be deconstructed. In other words, one would have to present a counter-example that proved that the premise is NOT, in fact, universally true, in which case any deduction derived from that premise would be suspect.

Therefore, logically, if there is a single person playing CoH/V that is neither a Stalker nor a Stalker Hunter that enjoys PvP, the logical argument is deconstructed.

I'm sure we can find one.