Toastyr

I really hate to say it, but I give I9 a 2. I very much like the addition of the crafting system and the IO system, but it does need fine tuning.

As for the market system, I don't believe I can convey how much I despise the market system.

I'm writing a longer post discussing I9 (for people to flame ), but here's the short list:

<ul type="square"> [*]Consignment interface is incredibly clunky (Try pricing salvage for 10 different recipes on a limited budget)[*]Market prices are easily rigged (200 items for sale, 500 bids? Definatly not normal.)[*]Market prices are crazy high or crazy low, due to lack of common pricing scheme (and rigging)[*]Last 5 sales indicator useless. (if cheaper items already sold, the next sale will probably cost X more)[*]Hidden price system useless for purchasing. (Start low bid, then keep increasing until item bought)[*]Hidden price system useless for selling. (Since last 5 fluctuates wildly, and no common pricing scheme, setting prices is a guessing game)[*]Overpriced bids cutting out all lower bids. (Throw up high bids for 20+ items, then let it sit there to control the market)[*]Most set bonuses are very low, (and figuring out how to slot sets is very complex)[*]IO slot planning incredibly complicated, set or individual IO's (good for hardcore, bad for new/casual)[*]Planning to get salvage for full IO sets is insane. (thanks to market flux, consignment interface and lack of pricing scheme)[*]Recipe creation screen somewhat clunky, (not too bad, but it does take extra sorting)[*]Recipe/salvage storage overly complicated (x slots at y level?!?)[/list]Ya, I was one of those "laying explosives under the market system" I don't like saying it, but since I'm no longer a hardcore player with tons of time to experiment, I find the new market/IO system is pushing me out of the game.

Thanks Devs for Listening!!!

I know we may not see this till 6-8 mo down the road, but it is so reassuring to see that the devs have some good stuff in the works.

That being said, I have to place my vote for:

DUAL PSIONIC ENERGY BLADES!!!!

Why just do one when we can combine 3 really good ideas. Seriously, I like the Energy and dual blades tho

As for defense sets, those are all awesome, but we really need a *basic armor* set. Something basic and non GFX based for the RP'ers.

My old post is still around: Augmented Armor

It was for tanks, but with some modification it could be a good scrapper/brute set.

Hmm

1) normal acc vrs normal defense: miss rate 1:6 or 83% accuracy. (1:4 or 75% has some extremely frustrating miss streaks)

2) max tohit vrs normal defense: miss rate 1:10 or 90% accuracy (A chain is rarely 20 attacks long)

3) normal to hit vrs max defense: miss rate 2:3 or 33% accuracy

4) max hit vrs max defense: miss rate 1:2 or 50% accuracy

by comparison, the numbers stand at
normal accuracy vrs normal defense 75%
max accuracy vrs normal defense 95%
normal accuracy vrs max defense 75-45=30% or 1:3 hit rate
max accuracy vrs max defense 95-45 = 50%

I believe accuracy SO's are calculated after defense is calculated, so thats 30*1.66 = 50% and 50*1.66 = 83.3%



The main Problem is High accuracy burst damage. Defense based chars fall apart since the dmg mitigation from defense is based around spreading out the hits over time. In PVP burst damage means extra damage that doesn't miss, bypassing defense completely.

By comparisons, resists (and regen somewhat) only work if the player gets hit, so if they're getting hit every time the resists provide a perfect defensive boost.

I think defense should be balanced around the amount of mitigtion the equivalent resistance would provide. Most chars push 60 to 80% resist (fire, dark, etc) so max defense should provide a 70ish% defense after calculating SO's (30% accuracy)

One of the other problems in PVP currently is high defense or resist can totally negate characters not built around doing massive and accurate burst damage.

Having that much resist basically negates lower dmg builds from participating in non-team pvp tho. Defense and resists overall need to be looked at in relation to issues like support class damage. I'd have to look more in depth before I could provide useful feedback tho.

[ QUOTE ]

Damage mitigation is the percentage of damage that you resisted or dodged, so if you want to find the amount of damage that the tank can absorb, you should multiply the damage mitigation percentage to the amount of incoming damage, not multiplying to his hit point.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, almost exactly. Measuring survivability means we want to know the exact amount of damage it takes to deplete all the HP. Unfortunatly, the formula I gave was actually completely incorrect, sorry about that.

The formula is actually:

HP/(100%-mit%) = total dmg

So 1000 hp with 90% mitigation would be the equivalent of: 1000/(1 - 0.9) = 10,000 dmg


Heres how it works:

Basic resist formula: tdmg = dmg *(100%-mit%)

Basic kill formula: HP - tdmg = 0 hp

Combining the two: HP - dmg * (100%-mit%) = 0 hp

Thus we get:

HP = dmg * (100%-mit%)

HP/(100%-mit%) = dmg




[ QUOTE ]

Interesting, but shouldn't that be "((50% + ((def - def debuff) + (acc - acc debuff)))*acc bonus)*(dmg * (100% - Tres%)) = Total dmg"?

Other than that, I think we're arriving at the same point, just from opposite directions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually there was a goofy reason why I wrote the original dmg mitigation formula as: 50% + (defdebuff - Def).
The formula is an accuracy formula and not a defense formula. Reason being, that particular notation accomodates for player and AV accuracy being larger then 50%. For example, the formula for a players atk power would look something like this:

((75% + (Defdebuff - def) + (tohit - tohitdebuff))*acc so's) * ((dmg * (100%-dmgdebuff%))*(100%-tres%)) = total damage %

So, with a mob that hits 50% of time as a base, the player automatically has a 50% damage mitigation. However, a player that hits 75% of the time, that only means 25% damage mitigation.

This is also why 1 Def = 2 res, the accuracy is reduced from 50% to 49% hits landing. That formulates to 49/50 = 98% less damage, as opposed to Res which reduces from 100% to 99% dmg. If base accuracy was 100%, 1 point of defense would = 1% dmg mitigation. For players its 1 def to approx 1.5 res, since the player hits 74/75 = 98.666%

Realistically the formula could just as well be written 75% - (def - defdebuff), except in terms of accuracy, Def functions exactly the same as Tohit Debuff. In any case, it's most likely the exact formula your using except retermed to show the accuracy and resistance differences.

As for the dmg debuff, I just figured you might want to look at that eventually too. The reason dmg resist is less effective for every point of dmg debuff and defense is actually due to the fact that dmg resist only works on damage taken, while debuff and defense prevent the damage completely. On the other hand, the advantage of resist is that it automatically reduces damage, whereas defense does not reduce damage and debuffs must be applied to be effective.

[ QUOTE ]

I think what you said is right. But on the other hand, what I really care is whether I live or not. While the damage that I avoided, which you called damage mitigation, is nice to know, what really matters is "survivability".


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, theres a really easy way to calculate the increase in suvivability for straight resistance/defense calculations:

HP * (100% + Total Dmg Mit%)

Or, a tank with 2000 HP and 90% dmg mitigation can actually absorb about 3800 dmg.


In regards to the OP, You might like this formula a little better T.T.:

(50acc%+Tacc%)*(100% - Tres%)=Total % dmg taken

The reason I say this formula specifically is it shows why the Defense and Resist values aren't just added together, they're really multiplied.

25% def is actually -25% Tacc, so with 50% defense we have (50% - 25%)*50% = 12.5% damage taken, or 87.5% dmg mitigation.

20% def and 20% resist = (50%-20%)*(100%-20%) = 24% dmg taken, or 76% dmg mitigation.

Tacc% is the full accuracy/defense formula, and Tres% is the total resistance, so the complete formula actually is:

((50% + ((def debuff - def) + (acc - acc debuff)))*acc bonus)*(dmg * (100% - Tres%)) = Total dmg

The other reason this is important is powers like damage debuffs: 25% dmg reduction from EF + 20% resist doesn't actually = 45% dmg mitigation.

Its actually (100%-25%)*20% = 40% mitigation.

Ya, I've been having a great deal of fun experimenting with this spreadsheet.

I've added in more detailed instructions for the averages page, and a bunch of tips and tricks for sorting in a new version. Culex will put them up later today hopefully. (Big thx there btw )

Interestingly, Smash and Lethal aren't resisted the same amount, in fact quite the opposite. Groups seem to be usually weak vrs one and tough vrs the other. It seems to favor Smashing by a good margin, since many tech oriented groups take extra damage from smashing. (Like clockwork or some sky raiders)

What is really strange is psy really does seem to be one of the most resisted damage types. Problem is, there are a number of holes in the data so its probably only like 98% accurate.


Here's some real resist numbers I pulled out of the spreadsheet.

<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
With all the data in the table:

Smash Lethal Fire Cold Energy N.Nrg Psy Toxic
0.94 0.92 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.92

Resists for Common enemies (Minions, lt's, normal bosses)

Smash Lethal Fire Cold Energy N.Nrg Psy Toxic
0.95 0.94 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.93



Minions:

Smash Lethal Fire Cold Energy N.Nrg Psy Toxic
0.97 0.96 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.97 0.93


LT's:

Smash Lethal Fire Cold Energy N.Nrg Psy Toxic
0.94 0.92 0.98 0.97 0.98 1.00 0.98 0.96


Bosses:

Smash Lethal Fire Cold Energy N.Nrg Psy Toxic
0.94 0.92 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.95 0.92



Rare Enemies (EB's, AV's, Monsters, Named Bosses.) Really need more data to make this completely accurate though.

All Rares

Smash Lethal Fire Cold Energy N.Nrg Psy Toxic
0.86 0.86 0.92 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.86 0.89


AV's

Smash Lethal Fire Cold Energy N.Nrg Psy Toxic
0.87 0.88 0.93 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.84 0.92


EB's

Smash Lethal Fire Cold Energy N.Nrg Psy Toxic
0.87 0.84 0.96 0.92 0.93 0.97 0.96 0.90
</pre><hr />


As a side note until the next version comes out, Best way to clean up the overall averages is to filter out the group averages, by setting rank/type filter combobox to show: "Nonblanks"

Unfortunately its not the most user friendly, but it is as flexible as I could make it.

Any questions or comment about the sorting page feel free to post here or PM me.

While I do appreciate the buff, it really didn't change anything about my playstyle. (Yes, I tested it)

Even with Hasten shortening the down time between dominations I could still rebuild domination in about 45 seconds. Without hasten I would have to wait for domination to recharge, creating a much longer down time.

The problem has nothing to do with domination, the problem is the downtime. Sure, with domination I can solo +2's and 3's, but during that downtime I certainly cannot do so.

Domination needs to be changed from its current All or Nothing status to a Switch. When domination is inactive, Dom's get the damage bonus. At any time, dom's can activate domination and get the control bonus instead of damage. Penalty being, Domination is a 1 minute buff, and dom's will not have the damage bonus for that minute.

It's the only solution I see that makes dom's reliable and doesn't require a damage buff. Without making dom's reliable, it will continue to be 1/5th of the game play in COV that is not being played.

As a side note, Holds need to be revamped to have a damage reduction vrs targets with hold resist. At the current state with Purple Triangles and BF's, Holds offer no protection if it has no effect. This is putting dom's at a huge disadvantage to builds that can protect themselves and team mates via other means.

Gotta vote for bases, but my favorite isn't on the list.

My fav would be: Creating New chars! Give us more really wild new powersets!

Stories, Pvp, and zones are all great, but the more different kinds of chars we can play in them the more it varies game play.

Really wacky stuff like Illusion trollers, dark blast, Ice assault. How bout some debuff armors like the Rad armor set kicking around, or an attack set that debuffs mob dmg. (IE, my old Light blast and Light melee set). Stuff thats good but gives players new ways to play.

That said, I really like the base editor, and if it gets a bit of TLC it could become a really nice game feature. It really needs to be turned into something that everyone can use though, not just pvp'rs. That means it should probably be turned into a PVE mish designer. Yes, I have a post on that too

In regards to the OP, this is a great idea, but I’m not so sure this would do the trick.

What’s the difference between this and using an alt to start a new SG and base? Both give the player their own little private apartment. Then just set up coalitions and presto, instant mini-sg apartment, with functioning equipment and storage.

Also, there is another problem that I ran into when I tried a similar thing in game. My SG offers base privileges and a 2x2 room for anyone who provides room cost. I’ve even got a max size plot on test currently with 75 rooms including hallways and base equipment.

I’ve had no interest though, even with players already in the SG. Problem is, upgrading to a new plot size is about 200,000 prestige per character after rooms and equipment. It’s much more economical to just start a new SG and get a whole plot as an apartment.


The real problem with bases isn’t making them more fun for everyone. In fact their already pretty awesome in terms of decorating. Problem is: the reward for designing, decorating and maintaining a base. Bases were intended for PVP play, but the costs and difficulty of building a real PVP base are astronomical.


IMO, the only way in the current system to make bases successful is to drastically reduce base costs. Make it so everyone can design a pvp-able base, which would make fighting in bases more common, and thus, bases being used more often.

Also the reward system should be revamped a little, instead of getting a destroyed base for letting pvp’ers into the base, the defending SG should be rewarded with more prestige to build a better base. The more attackers defeated, the more prestige the SG gets. Same goes for the raiders, give them prestige for destroying base defenses.

Two things have to happen though, defenses need to be strong enough to take out raiders without player backup, and player defenses respawn automatically after the raid is over. That way different raiders can raid a base multiple times, and players don’t have to repay to rebuild all the items.

One third thing I’d really like to see happen though, is being allowed to pick a specific NPC group to spawn randomly in the base as defenders as well. So, for instance a group could pick Legacy of Chain to defend the base.

Here's quite a few pics for the Skull Corp base on Justice.

http://www.nwlink.com/~scourney/Coh/SkullCorpCoh.htm

Been working on it for months, but finally got enough of the details finished to want to post. Believe me, it has a lot of details and ambiance for such a really small base.

It currently features 6 teleporters and a medbay. From here on out we'll be working on upgrading the plot size and getting some bigger rooms to play with. (It's a 2.75 RL person sg)

If anyone wants access to it on Justice, Send a tell @cold sun, and I'd be glad to set up a coalition. The more people using it, the happier I'll be.

This is also being set up as a sort of level design sample piece as well, Showing what I can do with prefab construction tools (Which COH has some great tools). I've been wanting to get into game level design for years. Feel free to PM me any critique's.

Thank you Fanboy!

That post is actually exactly what I needed to know.

Apparently that post never showed up in my searches because it uses "Damagescale" without a space.

That post also explains why DS*25 is nearly always a whole number.

I apologize for the confusion.

If people would please be more careful to site their exact sources in the future tho. On these boards, someone will always turn up to say X is wrong. So, it's always important to verify why they make the claim.

Ok, this has annoyed me a little too much. Searches of all the posts by devs bring up *2* total posts where the devs mention a damage scale like the one currently being researched.

The devs have *never* said the Damage scale system was the right system either, so far I have only the arbitrary decision of the people designing and researching their DS system that it is correct and right.

Since the devs have never said that the DS system was right, I'll let the numbers speak for themselves:


<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
Damage Factor vrs Damage Scale.
.
Power DF DS
------------------------------------
Brawl 9 0.36
Ice Bolt 25 1
Ice Blast 41 1.64
Frost Breath 35 1.4
Freeze Ray 2.5 0.1
Ice Storm 66 2.64
Bitter Ice Blast 57 2.28
Bitter Freeze Ray 33 1.32
Blizzard 90 3.6
</pre><hr />


I look at DF system and see that it uses simple, whole number integers, unlike DS with weird arbitrary decimal points.

That makes the DF system more accurate than the DS system, it uses the simplest values possible while still being true to the math that appears in the game.


I also see that the simple Accuracy of the DF System, would not allow a system like the DS system to actually be in game.

*If* the game actually used DS values, the DF system would be far less accurate; Only 1 out of 4 DS values can produce a whole number DF value. This means that only about 25% of DF values would be whole number integers. Since the above set has 9 out of 10 powers, or 90% of powers have integer values, that means that the DS system cannot account for the accuracy of the DF system.



Whats more, the DF system is superior to the DS system in several ways.

It allows the flexibility of the BI system, a player can divide brawl damage by 9 and get the base damage. The DS system does not, it uses a power to determine base damage that not all AT's have access too.

The DF offers simpler, more intuitive numbers. DS offers long decimal values that are not as intuitive.

The DF system makes math much simpler, making it easier to calculate damage chains or SO values, or comparing across different AT types.


So no, I don't agree that the DS system is the one used in game, the devs have never said it was correct, any more then the devs have said the BI system is correct.

In fact, the accuracy of the DF system means that the DF system is probably the same numbers used in game.

I apologize for the rude tone of the post, but I'm a little tired of hearing that "the ds system is the right system." There is no basis for believing that it is.

Let me see if I can answer your questions there Voxen, I apologize for not answering sooner, I've been away for a week.

I think you got a little mixed up, let me see if I can help.

Firstly, reducing the base damage by 50% reduces the base damage, it doesn't effect the actual powers. So the DF (or DV as you called it) would stay at 44. (which is also why I called it a DF, or Damage Factor, its a factor * a changing base damage. The reference comes out of a different post.)

Also, 50% of normal is: normal*0.5. So if the DF of gloom was reduced 50%, it would be 22, not 88. (88 is 44/0.5,.)

Lastly, The reason 88/18 works is because its also (44*2)/(9*2). For instance (44*20)/(9*20) or 880/180, would also = 4.8888. Also, remember, 9 is the DF of Brawl as well, so any DF/9 will give the brawl index, just like any power dmg/brawl dmg.

Did that answer your questions?

Actually, this is a repost of something out of Iakona's BI replacement post, but I've come to find it useful enough to warrant reposting.

I was looking over Iakona's data and finally determined what the true base damage for each AT was.

In short, heres the damage factors next to the BI values.
Brawl = 9
2.777 = 25
3.666 = 33
4.555 = 41
5.444 = 49
6.333 = 57
7.222 = 65

Otherwise its just like the BI system, multiply the base AT damage times the Power damage factor. Its a lot nicer for calculating damage chains though, the math is much easier without any of the decimals getting weird.

Since these values are actually non-decimal values I suspect that they are the in game values used.

Basically, to convert BI of a power to the real power factor, just multiply the BI value by 9, or multiply Iakona's values by 25. (since Iakona's is actually based off of a Damage/(2.777*brawl) instead of a damage/brawl)


Heres the recalculated base Melee damage charts, keep in mind that scrappers and doms are slightly different base ranged damage:

<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
level blaster control defende scrappe tanker peacebr warshad brute stalker masterm dominat corrupt
1 0.40 0.36 0.36 0.41 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.36 0.38 0.38
2 0.43 0.39 0.39 0.44 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.39 0.40 0.41
3 0.46 0.41 0.41 0.47 0.44 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.45 0.41 0.43 0.43
4 0.49 0.44 0.44 0.51 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.48 0.44 0.45 0.46
5 0.52 0.46 0.46 0.54 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.51 0.46 0.48 0.49
6 0.56 0.48 0.48 0.58 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.54 0.48 0.51 0.52
7 0.59 0.50 0.50 0.62 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.57 0.50 0.53 0.54
8 0.63 0.52 0.52 0.66 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.60 0.52 0.55 0.57
9 0.67 0.53 0.53 0.70 0.61 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.64 0.53 0.58 0.59
10 0.71 0.55 0.55 0.75 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.67 0.55 0.60 0.62
11 0.74 0.56 0.56 0.80 0.66 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.70 0.56 0.62 0.64
12 0.78 0.57 0.57 0.84 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.74 0.57 0.64 0.67
13 0.83 0.58 0.58 0.89 0.72 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.77 0.58 0.66 0.69
14 0.87 0.59 0.59 0.94 0.75 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.81 0.59 0.69 0.72
15 0.91 0.60 0.60 1.00 0.77 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.84 0.60 0.71 0.74
16 0.95 0.61 0.61 1.05 0.80 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.88 0.61 0.73 0.76
17 1.00 0.62 0.62 1.10 0.83 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.91 0.62 0.74 0.79
18 1.04 0.62 0.62 1.16 0.86 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.95 0.62 0.76 0.81
19 1.09 0.62 0.62 1.22 0.88 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.99 0.62 0.78 0.83
20 1.14 0.62 0.62 1.28 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 1.02 0.62 0.79 0.85
21 1.18 0.65 0.65 1.33 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.89 1.06 0.65 0.83 0.89
22 1.23 0.68 0.68 1.38 0.98 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.11 0.68 0.86 0.92
23 1.28 0.70 0.70 1.44 1.02 0.96 0.96 0.96 1.15 0.70 0.89 0.96
24 1.33 0.73 0.73 1.49 1.06 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.19 0.73 0.93 0.99
25 1.37 0.76 0.76 1.55 1.10 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.24 0.76 0.96 1.03
26 1.42 0.78 0.78 1.60 1.14 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.28 0.78 1.00 1.07
27 1.47 0.81 0.81 1.65 1.18 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.32 0.81 1.03 1.10
28 1.52 0.84 0.84 1.71 1.21 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.37 0.84 1.06 1.14
29 1.57 0.86 0.86 1.76 1.25 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.41 0.86 1.10 1.17
30 1.61 0.89 0.89 1.82 1.29 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.45 0.89 1.13 1.21
31 1.66 0.91 0.91 1.87 1.33 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.50 0.91 1.16 1.25
32 1.71 0.94 0.94 1.92 1.37 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.54 0.94 1.20 1.28
33 1.75 0.96 0.96 1.97 1.40 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.58 0.96 1.23 1.32
34 1.80 0.99 0.99 2.02 1.44 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.62 0.99 1.26 1.35
35 1.84 1.01 1.01 2.07 1.47 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.66 1.01 1.29 1.38
36 1.88 1.04 1.04 2.12 1.51 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.70 1.04 1.32 1.41
37 1.93 1.06 1.06 2.17 1.54 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.73 1.06 1.35 1.44
38 1.96 1.08 1.08 2.21 1.57 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.77 1.08 1.37 1.47
39 2.00 1.10 1.10 2.25 1.60 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.80 1.10 1.40 1.50
40 2.04 1.12 1.12 2.29 1.63 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.83 1.12 1.43 1.53
41 2.07 1.14 1.14 2.33 1.65 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.86 1.14 1.45 1.55
42 2.10 1.15 1.15 2.36 1.68 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.89 1.15 1.47 1.57
43 2.13 1.17 1.17 2.39 1.70 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.91 1.17 1.49 1.59
44 2.15 1.18 1.18 2.42 1.72 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.93 1.18 1.50 1.61
45 2.17 1.19 1.19 2.44 1.74 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.95 1.19 1.52 1.63
46 2.19 1.20 1.20 2.46 1.75 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.97 1.20 1.53 1.64
47 2.20 1.21 1.21 2.48 1.76 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.98 1.21 1.54 1.65
48 2.21 1.22 1.22 2.49 1.77 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.99 1.22 1.55 1.66
49 2.22 1.22 1.22 2.50 1.77 1.66 1.66 1.66 2.00 1.22 1.55 1.66
50 2.22 1.22 1.22 2.50 1.78 1.67 1.67 1.67 2.00 1.22 1.56 1.67
</pre><hr />

Heres the link to Iakona's BI post,

http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showf...amp;PHPSESSID=

Thx for the great post Iakona, I really could not have figured it out without examining the two charts side by side.

ok, DOoooooooooOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooOOOOOOOOOoooooOOOOO OOOOM

ok just kidding, had to get that out of my system.

Actually, I like the idea a lot, props for a creative solution to the problem.

Only difficulty I really see is the supremacy range limitation. Pets don't typically run right next to the player, so if the pets are stuck around a corner somewhere the MM's still going to get ganked.

Still, a lot better then what we had.

Definatly really favors dark heals and triage beacon a little more. Any chance of making poison heals and single target debuffs into AOE like their supposed to be (ala rad), or at least increasing its heal amount to a reasonable level.

lessee, any other mm whines I can pack in here as well, lol

Oh ya, Do my lvl 1 summoned minions really have to operate at -2 lvls to an even lvl minon after i can summon 3 of em?

Any hope of pets sticking around once were defeated?

Ok I'm really done.

Lookin forward to this one.

[ QUOTE ]
This seems to confirm where folks thought these values were. The issue I have is that numerically a Dark/ defender's Darkest Night has a base tohit debuff of 18.75% and a /Rad controller's Radiation Infection has a base tohit debuff of 25%. I play both, and it just doesn't "feel" as if the controller has the stronger debuff. With both 3-slotted with SO's I feel as if I get hit through RI much more often than I get hit through DN.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm, might be a factor of with the damage reduction in DN. While mobs are more likely to hit, they still recieve a considerable reduction in damage.

Considering the relatively small percentage of difference (6.25% or roughly 1 out of 16 more likely to miss), DN compensates with at least a 20% reduction in damage. Even with both slotted it isn't a huge difference.

That could account for why DN seems a little better, your character is taking less damage. however, if you take in to account EF on the numbers it favors the Radiation set more.

Excellent list! Tons of useful information in this thread.

Actually, it got me to thinking about the brawl index system and I started to tinker with the numbers a bit. End result, I managed to figure out what the actual values for brawl and the powers actually are.

In short, 2.777~ = 25/9, which makes sense since 2.777~ = power damage/brawl damage. All we needed to know was what amount to multiply times class dmg to get total brawl, which appears to be 9.

Basically this means we can get rid of the decimals almost all together. We just need to use the base damage value of the character per class times the damage factor of the power.

If you need to find the damage factor from the old brawl index system, just use the BI*9 and round up.

Brawl = 9 * lvl damage. 2.777 = 25 * lvl, 3.666 = 33, 4.555 = 41, 5.444 = 49, 6.333 = 57, 7.1111 = 64, etc.

So, for example, lvl 1 blaster dmg is 0.4

brawl = 0.4 * 9 = 3.6 (or 10 * 0.36)
2.777 * BI = 0.4 * 25 = 10
4.555 * BI = 0.4 * 41 = 16.4

Using Iakona's data, I recalculated the base melee damage per lvl for each class.

<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>

level blaster control defende scrappe tanker peacebr warshad brute stalker masterm dominat corrupt
1 0.40 0.36 0.36 0.41 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.36 0.38 0.38
2 0.43 0.39 0.39 0.44 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.39 0.40 0.41
3 0.46 0.41 0.41 0.47 0.44 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.45 0.41 0.43 0.43
4 0.49 0.44 0.44 0.51 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.48 0.44 0.45 0.46
5 0.52 0.46 0.46 0.54 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.51 0.46 0.48 0.49
6 0.56 0.48 0.48 0.58 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.54 0.48 0.51 0.52
7 0.59 0.50 0.50 0.62 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.57 0.50 0.53 0.54
8 0.63 0.52 0.52 0.66 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.60 0.52 0.55 0.57
9 0.67 0.53 0.53 0.70 0.61 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.64 0.53 0.58 0.59
10 0.71 0.55 0.55 0.75 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.67 0.55 0.60 0.62
11 0.74 0.56 0.56 0.80 0.66 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.70 0.56 0.62 0.64
12 0.78 0.57 0.57 0.84 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.74 0.57 0.64 0.67
13 0.83 0.58 0.58 0.89 0.72 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.77 0.58 0.66 0.69
14 0.87 0.59 0.59 0.94 0.75 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.81 0.59 0.69 0.72
15 0.91 0.60 0.60 1.00 0.77 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.84 0.60 0.71 0.74
16 0.95 0.61 0.61 1.05 0.80 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.88 0.61 0.73 0.76
17 1.00 0.62 0.62 1.10 0.83 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.91 0.62 0.74 0.79
18 1.04 0.62 0.62 1.16 0.86 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.95 0.62 0.76 0.81
19 1.09 0.62 0.62 1.22 0.88 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.99 0.62 0.78 0.83
20 1.14 0.62 0.62 1.28 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 1.02 0.62 0.79 0.85
21 1.18 0.65 0.65 1.33 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.89 1.06 0.65 0.83 0.89
22 1.23 0.68 0.68 1.38 0.98 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.11 0.68 0.86 0.92
23 1.28 0.70 0.70 1.44 1.02 0.96 0.96 0.96 1.15 0.70 0.89 0.96
24 1.33 0.73 0.73 1.49 1.06 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.19 0.73 0.93 0.99
25 1.37 0.76 0.76 1.55 1.10 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.24 0.76 0.96 1.03
26 1.42 0.78 0.78 1.60 1.14 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.28 0.78 1.00 1.07
27 1.47 0.81 0.81 1.65 1.18 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.32 0.81 1.03 1.10
28 1.52 0.84 0.84 1.71 1.21 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.37 0.84 1.06 1.14
29 1.57 0.86 0.86 1.76 1.25 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.41 0.86 1.10 1.17
30 1.61 0.89 0.89 1.82 1.29 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.45 0.89 1.13 1.21
31 1.66 0.91 0.91 1.87 1.33 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.50 0.91 1.16 1.25
32 1.71 0.94 0.94 1.92 1.37 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.54 0.94 1.20 1.28
33 1.75 0.96 0.96 1.97 1.40 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.58 0.96 1.23 1.32
34 1.80 0.99 0.99 2.02 1.44 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.62 0.99 1.26 1.35
35 1.84 1.01 1.01 2.07 1.47 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.66 1.01 1.29 1.38
36 1.88 1.04 1.04 2.12 1.51 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.70 1.04 1.32 1.41
37 1.93 1.06 1.06 2.17 1.54 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.73 1.06 1.35 1.44
38 1.96 1.08 1.08 2.21 1.57 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.77 1.08 1.37 1.47
39 2.00 1.10 1.10 2.25 1.60 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.80 1.10 1.40 1.50
40 2.04 1.12 1.12 2.29 1.63 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.83 1.12 1.43 1.53
41 2.07 1.14 1.14 2.33 1.65 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.86 1.14 1.45 1.55
42 2.10 1.15 1.15 2.36 1.68 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.89 1.15 1.47 1.57
43 2.13 1.17 1.17 2.39 1.70 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.91 1.17 1.49 1.59
44 2.15 1.18 1.18 2.42 1.72 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.93 1.18 1.50 1.61
45 2.17 1.19 1.19 2.44 1.74 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.95 1.19 1.52 1.63
46 2.19 1.20 1.20 2.46 1.75 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.97 1.20 1.53 1.64
47 2.20 1.21 1.21 2.48 1.76 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.98 1.21 1.54 1.65
48 2.21 1.22 1.22 2.49 1.77 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.99 1.22 1.55 1.66
49 2.22 1.22 1.22 2.50 1.77 1.66 1.66 1.66 2.00 1.22 1.55 1.66
50 2.22 1.22 1.22 2.50 1.78 1.67 1.67 1.67 2.00 1.22 1.56 1.67

</pre><hr />