-
Posts
804 -
Joined
-
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the things Blasters and Stalkers can do with EM haven't made us Nerf EM yet, absolutely nothing said here will. Carry on.
EDIT: Said Scrappers, meant Stalkers.
[/ QUOTE ]
I want to be able to link to this in-game after I take down a Regen Scrapper (Non-Dull Pain) with Build Up, Assassin Strike, Energy Transfer.
Never do you hear the word 'nerf' more than when an FotM Spine/Regen goes down.
[/ QUOTE ]
whiney b*tches are hardly the province of scrappers. theres plenty playing stalkers too. -
[ QUOTE ]
I understand what you're saying about scale values being consistent across all levels, but I'm not sure you understand what I'm getting at.
Specifically, when I contemplate defender builds in my brand-spanking new hero planner, I want the defender version of Air Superiority to list damage as .55, because it does 55% of the blaster Air Superiority. This is only true for levels 20+, as you have said. That is why I made that consideration.
[/ QUOTE ]
you want to take the most basic blaster attack value, a 2.778 bi attack on the blaster 100% brawl value scale and then adjust the number for every other attack in the game as they are relative to that attack.
right? -
at least ea doesn't have poopfeet.
-
[ QUOTE ]
how much DEF does stone armor have?
[/ QUOTE ]
pre granite? I'd put stone better off because they have rooted and earth's embrace on top of their defense and resists. their def numbers are about equal to EA. -
well, i think now that castle's numbers are right, he just left out the energy def in Kinetic Shield.
so that puts power and kinetic at these values when combined and 3slotted with white SOs
S/L : 19.89%
F/C : 23.40%
_ N : 16.38%
_ E : 23.40% at least (might be as high as 31.2% depending on the value in Kin)
I'll do some leveling tonight and work towards Energy Cloak. -
i would be posting the energy def number for Kinetic shield too but i forgot to email it to myself at work.
tomorrow then. -
alright. TopDoc sent me back the breakdown of my original Kin Shield test, this time with the streakbreaker taken into account.
[ QUOTE ]
Hits skipped after 6 missed: 144
Total counted attacks: 5159
Hits: 1905
Miss: 3254
Hit %: 36.9257608064
Miss Streaks: 1:469 2:322 3:184 4:110 5:57 6:144
It looks like Kinetic Shield is about a 13.075% Defense bonus.
[/ QUOTE ]
so, slightly higher than Castle's number. Then test was done against an even con minion. For reference, the test run without any shield on gave back a base tohit of 50% for this minion.
just trying to see how statistically significant the 0.325% is. -
that's how i am taking it, actually. either way, i'm home now and am going to test the Energy defense from Kin and Pow combined right now.
-
is that what you did with stuff like the healing and HP max chart too?
-
perhaps they don't want a brute using a KB field to round up mobs into one place to conveniently raise fury and smash the crap out of the in short order?
would you not object to my statement if I referred to Repulse as gamebreaking and exploitive when combined with brute playstyle?
[ QUOTE ]
I can almost guarantee EA brutes are still going to be damn-weak against multiple +2 and higher Bosses.
[/ QUOTE ]
i'm pretty sure that's one of those behaviors they aren't exactly grooming us for either, so this statement isn't worth much. -
scrapper EPPs then are also melee it seems as they follow the current brawl tables perfectly.
i think all scrapper, brute, tank, and stalker attacks are inherently melee. this was done to get around range debuffs to melee attacks making them unable to attack. -
[ QUOTE ]
I suggest converting the brawl index database to the Damage Scale database. Multiply all the BIs by .36 to get the DS value, and then you just find your corresponding damage mod in the tables above and multiply it by the DS to get your real, in-game damage.
.
Also, any new DS values that do not come out as fairly round numbers (the most I've seen in my testing is 2 digits after the decimal), then those numbers should be retested and verified. For example, if you found a DS of 2.846, it's probably inaccurate; but a DS of 1.64 (with no additional decimals) is probably accurate.
[/ QUOTE ]
cool, that's actually what i've done with all my own charts anyway. i hope you get this to work. i hate those friggin repeating decimals.
It's just a bit weird to not be able to look at the actual brawl value for that AT at that level. -
so then we also have to determine all "ranged" attacks on your scale and then set up a separate chart for them too right?
-
what do you suggest we do with the brawl index database now?
also, why not simply leave your melee and range brawl index as actual numbers instead of carrying the -.36 multiplier?
by applying the .36(i like making it 36) multiplier to the actually BI numbers on attacks, they become these very round easy numbers.
why not do that? -
[ QUOTE ]
The new modifiers are probably closer to how things are actually coded. The Brawl Indexes tend to be things like 2.778, which is really 2.7777... These are clearly not nice simple numbers that people would pick. Well, with these Power Data Standardization (PDS) modifiers, that same number would be 1.0. I believe the Devs refer to it as Damage Scale. If you want, you can just multiply every Brawl Index value by 0.36 to get its PDS value. You'll get a lot cleaner numbers. In fact if a number isn't clean, it's probably wrong!
[/ QUOTE ]
this I don't have a problem with. i already do this on my own charts. well, i multiply by 36 instead of .36, but the effect is the same. my numbers are nice and round, i just don't have decimal points.
[ QUOTE ]
Range and Melee have different charts because on some ATs they are different. Compare a Scrapper's level 1-10 temp power (ranged) and Brawl. Going from level 1 to 10, Brawl will increase about 83%, while the temp power will increase only 47%. On the other hand, a Controller will see both increase 50%.
[/ QUOTE ]
hmm. this i was not aware of. though on my claws scrapper, with two ranged attacks, they have adhered to the melee brawl index that we have been using. i'll check this when I get home.
(did you get that compressed file?)
-
[ QUOTE ]
could you explain why you added these modifiers rather than simply listing the brawl damage for each at at each level.
also, could you explain why you differentiate between range and melee charts because i see it as adding an unnecessary level of complexity.
[/ QUOTE ]
*cough* -
i know how def works.
i can understand neg being weaker than the others. my problem is that why are the elemental numbers as strong as the energy numbers?
either way, i don't trust any of it right now and I'm gonna test every single combo. if it ends up agreeing with these goofy numbers then cool. -
it doesn't make sense to me why'd they do that without also updating the powers descriptions. or why they would suddenly make fire and cold def as strong as energy def, leaving negative out in the cold.
i don't like it at all. I'm gonna test Kin tonight to see if any energy defense is in there. -
now i'm more confused.
gonna PM Jonyu -
could you explain why you added these modifiers rather than simply listing the brawl damage for each at at each level.
also, could you explain why you differentiate between range and melee charts because i see it as adding an unnecessary level of complexity. -
I PM'd him and showed him his numbers along with what i think the numbers are. he's usually pretty good about replying. I'll post again when he does.
if he does say he made a typo about the numbers, and my idea is correct, then i'd be confident enough in those numbers to stop testing.
I'd move onto Nrg Cloak then. -
to recap castle's numbers
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>S/L : 12.75 %
F/C : 15.00 %
__E : 15.00 %
__N : 10.50 %</pre><hr />
I gave TopDoc my test for Kin shield against lethal damage. I will say that even without taking the streakbreaker into account, it looks to aggree with Castle's 12.75% number.
i did some testing against an even level Luddite lambent of light last night. Used only power shield for energy defense and let him use his nrg/smash range attack.
463 attacks
169 hits
270 misses
miss streaks
1:36
2:24
3:18
4:10
5:4
6:7
the seven hits that came after the 6miss streaks were streakbreaker hits, so taking them out we have this
162/463 = 34.989% hit rate, or 15.01%defense
that's the number Castle gave too
i don't think Castle took into account the energy defense of Kin shield, or if he did -he made a mistake and subtracted it from the Negative def% instead of adding it to the NRG def%.
i'm going test again tonight using both power and kinetic shield against the white luddite. -
[ QUOTE ]
Yay!
and In Jacks abscence ... about them heart boxers
[/ QUOTE ]
1 less than 3 heart boxers!!!
pretty please? -
as a back up to Firebomb's great post which needs no backup, I just want to note that numerically, Barrage is right in line with the devs balancing metrics.
i also liked it when the OP replied about how the higher tier EM attacks all have long recharges in a thread where he bemoans the existance of a low cost fast recharge filler attack. -
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So to wrap this all up back to the PM by castle. There are only 2 possibilities:
1 Castle looked at the S/L numbers from pre boost.
2 The other poster's test was flawed and S/L is really 12% base.
I tend to favor 1 because of the pre boost numbers said to be around 12%.
[/ QUOTE ]
I PM'd him again asking him if he looked at pre-boost #s, and if he could explain why people were getting 16%s . . . hopefully he'll chime in again and lay this to rest.
[/ QUOTE ]
alright, the awesome TopDoc analysed my control test against the luddite minion weilding the cross bow. After factoring out the streakbreaker, the accuracy of the white luddite minion was 50.1% over ~3700 attacks.
[ QUOTE ]
5303 attacks
2049 hits
38.64% hit rate
11.36% defense in Kin Shield
[/ QUOTE ]
that's the original stuff i got, but doesn't take into account the streakbreaker. So it does in fact look like 12.75% defense is the current base for Kinetic Shield.
i still have no freakin clue how the elemental and energy defenses break down between power and kin.