Samuel_Tow

For Tankers, that I could actually go with. After all, it makes sense that people wouldn't be stupid enough to beat on the unbreakable rock creature that walks so slowly they can stroll faster than it. Losing threat while in Granite Armour does indeed sound very natural, and it WOULD be a huge deterrent for Tankers. Perhaps too huge, however, as I dare say many will declare the power broken. After all, a Tanker surviving while the rest of his team dies is counter-productive, and a power which facilitates that has little use.

Furthermore, this does little to address the problem of Brutes, for whom controlling aggro really isn't that big a deal. They CAN tank, but they aren't meant to. This does little to stop them, as Brutes have an even easier time ignoring Granite Armour penalties, and are only left with the sheer annoyance of the power, which, to be honest, further penalties will not solve.

The point of bringing up Permadom is to demonstrate how FOTM builds are handled. Dominators, as originally designed, were not intended to have high outgoing damage, hence why they were given a low damage mod. However, Domination till offered a significant damage buff, and when people found out they could make that permanent, they did. This, then, became baseline, to the point where non-perma-Domination Dominators started getting odd looks. The response from the development team was basically "That's how you want to play it? Fine, that's how you'll play it. Let's just let in all the other folks who can't go after that specific Inventions build." In the process, they managed to burn those with perma-double-stacked Domination, but that was an "oh, well" moment. They also managed to burn Psychic Shockwave by culling its power and redistributing it among the rest of Psychic Assault.

Granite Armour is in much the same situation. Granite Armour IS Stone Armour, and my Stone Brute can't go through two teams without someone gasping that I'm not Perma-Granite, or indeed asking me to be. It's come to the point where, penalties or no penalties, design or no design, Granite Armour is what Stone Armour is. This has become the baseline. At this point we can either go the Domination Route by instituting higher-than-normal but lower-than-granite protection to the whole set, sustainable all the time, constantly, we we can go the Elude/Unstoppable path and make the armour's drawbacks crippling or the armour itself temporary. Personally, I'd vote for the former, but I'd lie if I said I wasn't biassed.

Example: Poison Gas Trap from Traps used to spam-spawn pseudo-pets, one for each person in range of the trap at the time the trap was activated. Getting, say, a dozen enemies to walk over the trap at one time created a LOT of pseudo-pets. Putting damage procs in Poison Gas Trap would, therefore, put a damage proc on EACH pseudo-pet, resulting in a LOT of damage for a power that wasn't actually designed to deal damage to begin with. When this was fixed, people immediately cried out that this was the only thing holding the set together and that now, without it, the set was DEAD. This on a power that, on its own, is just about "good" but not spectacular, not in my opinion.

This is what Granite Armour with set-negligible drawbacks is. It's a power that's supposed to bring one kind of functionality that players are perverting into bringing a very different kind of functionality. Even though the power CAN be run all the time, set design makes it pretty clear that it really wasn't supposed to be, much in the same way as Instant Healing. In this case it's not just sets that are the problem, but the mere fact that players can negate the drawbacks distorts what Granite Armour actually is. Look at it this way - playing with JUST your set and not reaching outward, Perma-Granite SUCKS, and a set-restricted character would represent your average casual player, one who plays by the seat of his pants and does not do build plans and calculations. As such, you are creating a higher-than-intended baseline that people aren't actually going to achieve if they play naturally. Hence, the Domination conundrum.

In fact, I've long maintained that any single set that ends up hinging on one power to the point where, if this power were changed or removed, the set would become "broken" in people's eyes... That is a set that is badly designed. I mean, sure, there are key powers in every set, like status protection and so forth, but no set should be MADE by a single power. Whenever a set entirely revolves around a single power, that's a red flag for balance problems. Either the set is so weak that's its one saving grace, or that one power is so strong that it overshadows the rest of the set. Neither of those is good.

The key problem with this is that AoE damage gets magnified the more targets you have to inflict it on. Something like Tremor does damage per target. It would do ten times the overall damage when used on ten targets as it would do when used on one. Higher levels of survivability allow one to take on more enemies, thus allowing one to more easily multiply one's AoE damage, thereby increasing one's overall damage beyond the levels of lower-survivability sets. Furthermore, sets with lower survivability face more downtime and more of their uptime is taken up with non-offensive actions like self-healing and control.

All of that is to say that SURVIVABILITY ITSELF increases damage outpit, hence making up some of the difference that its own debuffs are trying to make. In other words, Granite Armour counters the very debuffs that are meant to counter it.

And there is also the other point - damage is not the only offensive capability a Tanker or Brute has. Control effects count as offence, as do Taint effects. Clearly, they are slowed down by the recharge debuff, but they still operate at full power. The ability to tank while in Granite Armour is itself something I view as bordering on an exploit. The limiting factor to a Tanker's ability to tank is his own survivability. It is unreasonable and impractical to expect to remove survivability out of the equation and still be able to perform as a tanking Tanker. Granite Armour pretty much removes survivability out of the equation, hence why a proper penalty would take your ability to deal damage, control and tank right along with it.

But that would result in a pretty crappy power, now wouldn't it?

Simply opening up Granite Armour to stack on top of existing shields is insane just on its face. The power is designed to function on its own and itself provide superior survivability to all the rest of the set combined. It's built on the expectation that you CAN'T run the other shields along with it. It's only natural to lower its stats if you let it stack. That's not the question.

The question is, how low do you make them? You can make them pretty low, but if, upon stacking with existing armours, you still get up to the level of old-style Granite Armour numbers, then you have effectively accomplished nothing. You are still seeing Granite Armour levels of survivability, it's still permanently sustainable. Nothing has changed but semantics. Whether it's one toggle or six, that level of survivability maintained constantly is the problem.

If you want Granite Armour perma with negligible drawbacks, you need to give up survivability. If you want Granite Armour perma with its current survivability, you need to accept more crippling drawbacks. If you want Granite Armour with its current survivability and negligible drawbacks, you need to give up its ability to be up all the time. You just can't have all three like it is now. And I assume that's a major reason why this hasn't been touched in ages. It's a hornet's nest of GUARANTEED player unhappiness.

Designing sets for one AT and then porting them to another without accounting for how that AT plays is probably the WORST practice of game balance that I can cite in this game. If I had a penny for every time I've been told that "Yeah, well it's great on my <other AT>!" when I complained about a power, I'd probably be swimming in coins like Scrooge McDuck. And this happens with practically every new powerset they make. Just recently, people kept telling me how great Dual Pistols debuffs were on a Defender and how well they stacked with Defender primaries, so OBVIOUSLY they were worth the balancing costs, all the while me asking why my Blaster should care how much her inferior debuffs could stack with powersets she didn't have. This is bad design all around.

As such, I'm citing Brutes, because for them, Granite Armour is just a bad power choice. Granted, some people try to tank with their Brutes, but really, that's not what they're designed for. You can try going with a Petless Mastermind or an offensive Defender, but you can't expect game design to promote this. This is my major beef with this. I can see why Granite Armour would be popular for Tankers, but every time a team-mate tries to tell me to just stay in Granite and tank, I want to dropkick him in the mouth.

---

Basically, I feel Granite Armour is the Instant Healing of recent years. Nothing has been done to it partially because it's a controversial matter and partly because touching Granite would necessitate retouching the entire set, and that just takes a lot of development time.

So, if my phone rang and my response was "What now? Can't you people leave me alone for five minutes!" you'd tell me to get the **** over myself.

OK, in that case you can go to hell.

Ha!

I don't think they're a biotechnics company. They have a Crey Biotechnics branch, but I believe the company itself is called just Crey Industries, or possibly just Crey. Most of their research actually goes into technology, with the entirety of their generics research programme probably devoted to the Paragon Protectors via Project Revenant Hero.

On the flip side, "splicers" is pretty much what Paragon Protectors are, so I guess my argument is kind of moot.

Yeah, I'm not a religious person, really. In fact, I don't think my country is even the slightest bit religious. Sure, we have a long history of Christianity and our own Orthodox church, but I dare say most people here are agnostic, at least to a large degree.

And again, my problem with 666 was more that it was cheap and uninventive more than anything else. Seriously, 666 is like the RickRoll of demonology.

True, the developers are very cool about this sort of thing. I went through pretty much the same with Ghost Falcon in Beta and he basically told me "Don't worry, I trust you." I can't tell you how much I appreciate a developer like. This is really the sort of thing that keeps me with City of Heroes even when I burn out.

But at the same time, the system of permanently freezing arcs unless developers circumvent their own security feature is just BAD. In fact, one of the reasons you are told about Developer's Choice status is so that you can refuse it if you want to keep updating your arc, or so it was said in Beta, and that's just not good design.

I realise why it's needed - so someone doesn't get Developer's Choice and full rewards, then turn around and change the arc into something completely different. But can't we still get some kind of system where players can submit updates to DC arcs and just not have them forwarded unless they are reviewed or something? I don't know, it just seems really counter-intuitive to lock arcs against any change, since just about every time someone plays one of my arcs, I'm notified of still more spelling mistakes.

By the way, would it be too much to ask to get an automatic spell check in large text fields? That REALLY bites.

Elude is problematic largely because of its history, at this point. When Elude was turned from a PFF clone into a defence-granting God mode, enemy base to-hit was 75% and +anything enemies got more to-hit than even that. Of course, I'm not sure how easy it was to soft-cap defence back in the day when SR toggles gave (off memory) around 30% defence, but back then we were basically trying to overbuff defence to such an extent that enemy to-hit additions couldn't punch through the softcap. This is no longer the case, as JUST elude is capable of capping your defences, to the point I have to wonder why my SR Scrapper still has his 3-slotted for defence.

This is more of a legacy problem, though. It's similar to Unstoppable in this regard, in that an Invulnerability character (Scrapper or Brute, actually) is capable of capping his own resistance to physical damage, making Unstoppable's physical protection unneeded. I'm still not sure why Elude comes with only an endurance penalty when Unstoppable has both that AND a hit points penalty, but that's neither here nor there.

[qutoe]So let's suppose there's another risk floor out there: the sustained participation floor. We don't know what it is, yet, but we'll assume it's somewhat higher than PFF, which means it's probably somewhat higher than Granite as well. So, given that Granite is "too good", what I'd like to do is try to work out how good it can be and remain a toggle. Because, to repeat myself ad nauseum, I rather do like being able to turn on Granite and become as tough as the game will allow me to be and still participate in fights. I like that Stone Armor does not have a timer on its peak performance. That is a draw for me, and it would be the one thing I would most deeply regret seeing disappear.[/QUOTE]

This is where I have to tap out. I tend to do numbers for fun from time to time, but I'm not one of the smartest guys that do comprehensive, build-by-build survivability and damage statistics. At the very least, I haven't done my homework on this one.

At this point, I don't think we have a clear answer as to what an acceptable level of infinitely sustainable protection is for the ability to participate without doing damage. At this point, I can't give you a good level of survivability, but I suspect we could start by formulating the problem systemically.

Given a Rage-style 9999% damage debuff for as long as the toggle is up, how high can we push the numbers of infinitely sustainable protection?

Me, I'm not sure. I know the Rage debuff isn't nearly as bad as it looks, for one because temporary powers ignore damage buffs (and debuffs) and for another because the Super Strength user is more than capable of abusing status effects and tank. The ability to tank was actually why the Rage crash went from an Only Affecting Self effect to a damage debuff. However, that's a minor crash on a relatively more minor power intended to be a nuisance, not a severe penalty. I'm not sure how much protection this effect in itself would buy.

Explained above. I guess more people cared than I expected

That's a very good point. The Vahzilok Plague is an excellent story that is just insufficiently well delivered. "Say, go kill zombies that are infected with a disease. Oops, you're infected with a disease! How could this have happened?" Really, this is just begging for a re-write.

If I were doing it, I'd start it out much more innocently with a regular raid on a Vahzilok sewer, only later on revealing that I might have just walked in on a bio hazard, dismissing that fear, only for it to later crop up as real. And that's just off the top of my head.

Insomuch as answering your phone is a reaction to it ringing, but you don't tell people answering their phones to get the **** over themselves. Well, OK, I don't.

Hey, if you wanna' hear it, I'll post it

I don't have a problem with pretty much anything in the conceptual design of Demon Summoning as it is. BABs said it best when he explained that the Demons' origin doesn't have to match your own. But even if I were so inclined to want, say, techno-demons or Doom the Movie style ******** mutant demons, I can fudge the sigils a number of ways. Technologically, it's fairly easy to explain the sigils the kind of mystical made-up science required to warp the space-time continuum, or even matrix-style code to run the Demon Kernell (good name for a character, there). For sciency demons... I'm actually not sure. I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.

6.66% damage resistance isn't something that bothers me on a conceptual basis, as I tend to ignore numbers in concepts anyway. In fact, and I could be wrong on this, but I believe what I said was that it sigils BOTHER me less, not that they're easier to hand-wave. And it's true. Art design I can respect, even when I don't agree with it. This, however, was not necessary, and I simply don't appreciate it. And I don't appreciate it because it's a needless reference to what has got to be the MOST OBVIOUS aspect of demonology ever. You couldn't get more blatant if your Ember Demon had 100% chance to cause DEVIL on the target.

I recently got into an argument over the radios they introduced into Portal over Steam recently, and was told that, though an elaborate procedure of pointing them in the right direction, getting messages interpreted as Morse code, decoding those and so forth, you'd get an announcement for Portal 2. If that is indeed true, THAT is the kind of reference that's actually very well hidden. This is akin to slapping a Portal 2 banner at the end of the credits and relying on people to just not sit through to the end (which, with Still Alive, is a bad bet).

Then again, I'm easily bugged by cheap references. I couldn't begin to describe the kind of seething hatred I have for City of Heroes detectives. Even when I can't tell which movie they are from, I still know they're out of a movie, which, honestly, takes their creative value down to somewhere between Wolverine knockoffs and toilet humour. At least in my eyes.

And if you see me talk about hating fun or hating humour, know that I'm not joking.

As has already been mentioned, increasing the number of enemies you fight increases your rate of reward gain significantly simply because of how AoEs operate. The number of enemies does indeed go up, but the time needed to kill them all goes up rather a LOT more slowly. If you can survive large numbers of enemies, then your AoE (any amount of AoE, really) will keep your kill speed almost consistent. In fact, Stone/Stone is a bad example, but practically anything else, such as Electric Melee, Battle Axe, Fiery Melee and so forth will have a much easier time thanks to better AoE damage.

Additionally, with better survivability, you are facing less need for resting and recuperation in more hostile conditions. A Fire Tanker may be able to handle as much as a Stone Tanker, but he'll be getting hurt, possibly KILLED a lot more, slowing him down. The Stone Tanker, by comparison, will just keep marching on. Fighting more enemies as he does and killing them not noticeably slower than he would fewer (with the right Primary choice) would and in fact DOES result in better gains.

What's more, the purported "speed decrease" isn't as much as people try to claim it is. Again, this can be made up in a variety of ways with not too much thought or build space given to it, meaning a Granite Tanker's actual speed isn't that much lower than any other Tanker can achieve.

Again, my complaint with Granite Armour is not that it performs poorly. If anything, it performs far too well. No, my complaint is that it SUCKS. I HATE having to use this power, not because my efficiencies drop, but because it irritates the hell out of me how it's designed.

I thought of Hybernate (and Quantum Flight and Phase Shift) when I made that statement, but I didn't think it worthwhile to bring up. Powers like Personal Forcefield and Hybernate exist as toggles, but their balancing mechanics basically FORCE their users to turn them off, either because it's pointless to turtle with no outgoing action, or because the game shuts down your toggle for you. As such, they are still uptime-bound.

What you are proposing (and what Granite Armour actually is) is a power that's is not uptime-bound. A power with that level of protection requires crippling penalties to balance it, but by instituting these penalties, you effectively DO make it uptime-bound, because you're forcing people to turn it off if they want to participate.

You stated that, as long as it allows you to tank/taunt, you have no problem with an offence-crippling mechanic. The problem is that tanking/taunting IS an offensive action, and as such breaks your own rule of removing offence entirely. You could argue that it does no damage and so should be permitted, but a variety of status effects deal no (or negligible) damage, and yet they are clearly classed as attacks. And, to be completely honest, causing enemies to attack an unkillable target while ignoring other, less unkillable players is functionally identical to control in all but a few corner cases (large-scale undirected AoE, basically).

The point of a tanking Tanker is to redirect enemy attacks onto himself and take on damage that could have otherwise been going into his team-mates, all the while ensuring not to die. The ability to force enemies to redirect their fire IS an offensive action as much as a hold is. In fact, oftentimes it's BETTER, because almost nothing has protection from Taunt effects and Tanker and Brute Taunt powers cost no endurance and are auto-hit against enemies, as well as recharging easily fast enough for them to be stacked a number of times.

In a single sentence: If you want to allow a Tanker to live literally indefinitely, you will have to trade away his ability to not just deal damage, but also to actually tank.

And I gotta' scratch my head at everyone because I can't see where I'm over-reacting, or indeed reacting at all. I see a number, I comment on it, and people read some kind of malice and anger into it? Enough to tell me to "get the **** over [myself]?" Really? Why are you guys so ready to jump up and down on people for expressing what, for all intents and purposes, is opinionated taste? I mean, yeah, you could turn the argument around on me, but that kind of fails when you start running into the language filter.

I don't like it. You can insult me till the cows come home. You're not going to make me like it any more. I have my reasons for how I feel. You may not like them, but since they were not intended to convince you but merely to explain my own stance, I don't see why that has to bother anyone. Why is there this compulsive NEED to try and convince people they are wrong to feel as they do and to show them how the reasons they feel that way are false. It's an opinion. You can no more convince me to like the 6.66% resistance value than you can convince me to like coffee or mountaineering or soccer. At the end of the day, it will always come down to "I don't like that" and, as much as it may irk people, this is not a position I will reconsider just because you tell me to get over myself in a stern tone of voice. That's not how things work.

As far as it being intentional, yes, that would bother me more. If it's unintentional, then these things happen. I could smirk at it, though I'd probably roll my eyes, but either way I'd go on. If it's intentional, however, I know that someone put it there on purpose, and I don't enjoy that prospect. It's like... Oh, here's a good one. It's like the playback volume on my microphone always returning to default (50%) upon restart even though I turned it down and muted it so I don't get microphone feedback. If it's just crappy coding in Windows 7, then what are you gonna' do? Every version of Windows has to suck in some way. But if it's intentional because someone assumed I would never have a reason to NOT have my microphone broadcast, then I'd be slightly more pissed off, because that's a very bad idea.

If it's unintentional, it bugs me, but I have no-one to blame. If it's intentional, it bugs me and I blame it on the people who did it on purpose. Having someone to be angry at makes anger ever so slightly more poignant, believe it or not.

And again - I don't like this. You guys may not like it, but browbeating me about it is not going to change things. In fact, it's likely to make me even LESS receptive to reason if that's possible.

*edit*
And as to why 6.66% resistance bugs me more than all the other stuff... I could get into that, but do you really care? REALLY? Can anyone honestly tell me that you'd like to sit down and read through what will probably end up being five paragraphs expositing the finer points of what bugs me by how much in comparison to what else? Seriously? Because I can do that. I just don't believe anyone actually wants to know.

Sorry, I meant to say I had that in I14 Beta. As I understood it, back then Developer's Choice status was handed much more freely by many people (I got mine tagged by Ghost Falcon), but when it came to Live, I believe it was either Positron or him and a couple of others who tagged the Live DC arcs, and mine wasn't the only one that didn't transfer over. They really had to thin the number of DC arcs, because they gave out a LOT in Beta, so I really don't hold it against the development team. I feel it's a reflection on my arc's quality - good enough to impress some, but not enough to impress overall. And I'm OK with that.

My beef is that arcs that aren't tagged as DC have a snowball's chance in hell of getting played, and I don't believe that's a problem which can be solved with ANY application of technology.

To be fair, Tech, that can be reasonably fudged with a new powerset on, say, Blasters. We talked about it over on Suggestions, and I liked it as a powerset. Power Armour is harder to do, but I still say we need to get access to Epic pools sooner. That'd solve a LOT of problems. Say, put them at 30 or 32. That'd give Blasters access to their Epic shields at, what, level 35? 38? Sooner than 45, anyway.

Maybe not necessarily Christianity as a source, but it's definitely a reference to religion (if it is intentional, that is). 666 is the number of the beast, aka the number of the devil. For a set that already leans heavily towards magic with the sigils it displays on summoning and upgrading, it really doesn't need to work any more references in than that. I, myself, went with a rather basic concept of a pretty much traditional demon, just with unorthodox motivation (and in the shape of a little child) whom I made Natural for reasons that don't bear discussing, but if I wanted to go with, say, a Technology or Science Mastermind, that little reference (if it's intentional) WOULD bug me.

Yeah, a third looks right, but I was saying it's not 30%, as 30% is not a third, it's three tenths. I guess I'm too used to percentages and keep overlooking non-decimal fractions.

You know, what really bugs me, and I'm only going to say this once because I feel bringing it up is out of line to begin with, is that I actually got Developer's Choice for my arc on Test, but when we moved over to Live, it wasn't re-selected. No big, they apparently had to cut down on the Developer's Choice arcs at the start, but here's the thing - just in the few short weeks it was on Test, the arc got more playthroughs as Developer's Choice than it's had since I14 went Live.

I enjoy replaying my own arcs as much as the next guy... Once they're already made. Making them, however, is hard work, and if I'll be making them just for myself, then I'd rather just not bother and simply write it down as my own fiction, which incidentally no-one ever reads, either I know it's kind of the name of the game, but it's simply demoralising, and it basically kills whatever motivation I may have once had to make arcs.

Yeah, "you think" and "you feel" are probably my biggest turnoffs in any story arc. I can deal with bad writing, but as soon as I see either of those, I just roll my eyes, specifically because they are never ever necessary. I've never met an instance where they can't be replaced with an equal-meaning, less-assuming alternative. Though, granted, "you think you saw" ought to be acceptable. I'd still avoid it, though, going with something along the lines of "Wasn't that a...?"

For my arc, I tried to keep the narrative guidance down to common sense decisions. Things like "doesn't hurt to try," "you might as well" "that seems like a good idea." I generally try to let the narrative give a vague appraisal of the situation, painting the intended course of action as the most reasonable one, but without actually explaining why the character chooses it. Players can then pick if they do it because it really does make sense, or whether for whatever other reason they can think of. It's not always easy to work around this, but it's rewarding in the end.

Again, developer-made content has a LOT of these, and they bug me every time. Say, "It smells like Hellions. You HATE the smell of Hellions!" Um, no I don't. They smell like popcorn. Why couldn't you have said "Don't you hate the smell of Hellions?" instead, guys? I mean, it says basically the same thing, but it presumes a LOT less. Doesn't it, now?

Do you honestly want the response of someone who hates fun... Like me?

*edit*
I wanted to comment on this a little but more, because something occurred to me. I use Granite Armour on my Stone Brute (and I do use it intermittently), but the only reason I even consider using it is because it's patently easy to get around its limitations. As I said before, Swift, Hasten and Fury more than make up for the toggle's penalty and remove any real reason I have for not using it as often as I could.

On the flip side, if the armour were altered such that I REALLY didn't want to use it outside of extreme-damage situations (such as killing my offence when it's on), then I... Wouldn't use it. Period. That's the big problem with Granite Armour. The only way to retain its use as a perma-God-mode toggle is to make it useless for anything but basic survival. Historically, the developers have not only shied away from doing this with T9 powers, but they've actually altered powers that did just this into other things.

Again, Elude used to apply an Only Affecting Self effect on people while it was on, allowing them to not die (and presumably run away), which ended up having remarkably little point in existence, let alone as your T9 power. Elude as it is now is a change from just this original design. I'm pretty sure it was a toggle, too, but my old manual is buried under a mountain of crap.

I would wager that's Rain of Arrows (or at the very least it should be), if for no reason other than because Full Auto is a TERRIBLE power in actual practice. I will say without a shadow of a doubt that Full Auto has killed ME about as many times as it has killed other things per use of the power. Part of this is because the power is weak and doesn't tend to KILL things, part of this is that it kills me a LOT.

Rain of Arrows has a four-second activation and a bit of a delay before the pseudo-pet delivers its damage, but the amount of time you spend locked in animation AND under attack is laughably small, if it even exists, simply because enemies aggro AFTER your animation has played. Full Auto keeps you rooted and under fire for its entire four-second duration.

Basically, Rain of Arrows deals more damage with greater ease over a larger area for less threat in return. This is not balanced, specifically since Rain of Arrows comes with Aim, to boot. Honestly, how does this keep being neglected for, what... Five years now? Oh, they altered the power all right! Once upon a time, they increased its recharge from I think 20 seconds to 60 seconds. Ugh...

Show of hands: When's the last time Assault Rifle has received a numbers buff? It got a special damage component on Sniper Rifle that fires if used with Targeting Drone on, for what fat load of good that did. And then... What? The animation increase doesn't really count for a numbers buff, but I'll take it. Of course, it came at the cost of castrating Ignite without actually improving its animation...

It's not 33%, it's 33.2% to get 666. 133% of 5 is 6.65, not 6.66.