[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Circeus, there is something you (and many others) have glossed over about Statesman's numbers...they are off...WAY off.
As stated, invul passives are 7.5% (which has been tested and everyone agrees on that number) but where the error comes is in the enhancements. Statesman said that max with +3 level SO resists you would get 18.975% from the invul passives. Think that through everyone. To get 18.975% from +3 level enhancements each enhancement would need to provide 25.5% buff (((1 + (6 * .255)) * 7.5) = 18.975). This means that each defense and resist SO is gaining a 9.167% boost each level, as opposed to the accepted (and dev quoted from long ago) 5% boost each level.
Invul max on passives should be 17.85 = ((1 + (6 * (.2 * 1.15))) * 7.5)
[/ QUOTE ]
7.5% base * (1+ (6 Enhancements * .2 Enhancement increase)) * 1.15 for +3 Enhancements = 18.975.
[/ QUOTE ]
...Statesman and Circeus have just managed to nerf my brain.
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting, Damage Debuffs rock, as my Dark Miasma playing brethren well know. This should help Ice significantly with the one shot by AVs problem, when combined with the lowered AV damage you have proposed.
[/ QUOTE ]
How about using this Debuff INSTEAD of the global AV change? Why help out other AT's that are already OK against AVs? It would just leave Ice weak by comparison.
Simply make that damage debuff larger when applied to an AV, to the point where we survive 1-shots.
[ QUOTE ]
Oh - one other change coming soon to the Training Room...
This was an idea taken right from this forum. Since Ice Armor has no Resistance, it's a zero sum sort of power set. In other words, you're hit or your not. Well, someone (I've forgotten who) suggested adding a Damage Debuff to one of the powers - and we did! Chilling Embrace gains the ability to debuff mob damage (though it's Recharge debuff is slightly slower now).
[/ QUOTE ]
I still don't like the idea of having a damage debuff and think is yet another lazy/poor solution, but I have to admit that so far that is the best idea you guys have come up with.
Would be nice to know the numbers. If I know you guys the -recharge debuff is now going to be 15% and the -damage is going to be 10%.
Anyways, they are going to be welcome changes for all the farming I'm going to be doing once I5 hits live servers.
[ QUOTE ]
You're 100% correct about assuming 14 mobs in EA AND Invincibility - though something else isn't taken into account. Invincibility works only while mobs are in melee. So as the number of mobs decrease, Invincibility decreases. If a Tanker leaves melee range for 1 second, the buff from Invincibility fades...This isn't the case with EA; it's a click that lasts 45 seconds. The calculation of mobs is done at the moment it's used - and that buff carries throughout the 45 seconds. It doesn't decrease like Invincibility.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but similarly, you're forgetting that the continuing effects of EA works on both sides of the fence. First off if its not ready when you run into mobs then you can't buff, and if there are no mobs to buff from you can't buff either.
Not to mention that Invincibility is a toggle running at 0.36 EPS, but EA, because its a click with a base recharge of 60s, but only a 45s duration, you need to slot in 1 Recharge enhancer to make it always active (recharge at 45s) - however this makes its effective EPS 0.44. Much higher than Invincibility.
Granted that now EA has a nice return on investment with the End recovery, but the end costs are still highly disparate. And you should address that.
While I'm mentioning End, drop Icicles by half its cost please. Way too expensive for its damage output.
Also, the Scrapper testing is extensive and showing Invincibility for them to be at 2.625% base. So if its 1.5% for Tankers, then what is it for Scrappers? Also 10 minutes after you posted it not being 3.5% I saw two posts demonstrating it closer to 3%. So can you please recheck this value.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Chilling Embrace gains the ability to debuff mob damage (though it's Recharge debuff is slightly slower now).
[/ QUOTE ]
So I take it that now Ice Tanks should move there WI slots to CE, slot WI with end, EA with recharges and CE with def debuffs. So now we have some SL in FA, Eng/Neg in GA and a def debuff in CE. Am I missing something here but isn't our def still gone? Without any gain from EA or WI?
Perma Frost is still a power that is questionable to take because frankly the two types of dmg that are most rarely used are toxic and cold. The game is really SL and Fire from 1 to 50. That is the majority of the dm types coming against us (at least in my experience).
[/ QUOTE ]
You are reading wrong. They are adding damage debuff, not defense. By the way, there is no such thing as a damage debuff enhancement.
removed
[ QUOTE ]
Oh - one other change coming soon to the Training Room...
This was an idea taken right from this forum. Since Ice Armor has no Resistance, it's a zero sum sort of power set. In other words, you're hit or your not. Well, someone (I've forgotten who) suggested adding a Damage Debuff to one of the powers - and we did! Chilling Embrace gains the ability to debuff mob damage (though it's Recharge debuff is slightly slower now).
[/ QUOTE ]
"Slightly," eh? Does that mean there will be no more recharge debuff... excuse me, I mean... does thism mean that it will only debuff by .5%?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
7.5% base * (1+ (6 Enhancements * .2 Enhancement increase)) * 1.15 for +3 Enhancements = 18.975.
[/ QUOTE ]
Like others have pointed out, bad math...
The forumla is
7.5 * (1 + (6 * 0.2 * 1.15)) = 17.85%
[/ QUOTE ]
Now they have to go back and rebalance everything again 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Circeus, there is something you (and many others) have glossed over about Statesman's numbers...they are off...WAY off.
As stated, invul passives are 7.5% (which has been tested and everyone agrees on that number) but where the error comes is in the enhancements. Statesman said that max with +3 level SO resists you would get 18.975% from the invul passives. Think that through everyone. To get 18.975% from +3 level enhancements each enhancement would need to provide 25.5% buff (((1 + (6 * .255)) * 7.5) = 18.975). This means that each defense and resist SO is gaining a 9.167% boost each level, as opposed to the accepted (and dev quoted from long ago) 5% boost each level.
Invul max on passives should be 17.85 = ((1 + (6 * (.2 * 1.15))) * 7.5)
[/ QUOTE ]
7.5% base * (1+ (6 Enhancements * .2 Enhancement increase)) * 1.15 for +3 Enhancements = 18.975.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry Jack, but that is not correct...at least not in the game on live and test.
You are saying it is (Base * (100% + (6 * 20%))) * 115% bonus for +3 level enhancements
Live/Test shows it is (Base * (100% + (6 * (20% * 115% bonus for +3 level enhancements))))
If I remember correctly it was Geko that stated each enhancement gives 5% bonus on that enhancements level..not on the overall buff. Thus 100% + (20% * 1.15) = 123%...not 120% * 1.15 (which is what you are saying is happening).
Please please please double check your numbers, because live and test do not jive with the method you are quoting is being used. If it was then Unyielding would be giving a max of 50.6% (on live) when in reality unyielding gives a max of 47.6% (on live, which uses the method I have posted).
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People have recorded the base of Invincibility at 3.5%, so I was only going by that, please feel free to give the correct number (for range too please!)
3.5% * (1 + (6 * .22)) = 8.12% per mob.
8.12% * 14 mobs is 113.68.
[/ QUOTE ]
The number isn't 3.5% base - it's 1.5%. To be honest - I don't know where the data came from that led to 3.5%.
Certainly, your points on Toxic and Psi are true; let's not forget that Invulnerability has an inherent weakness to Psi in Unyielding, though. It's safe to say that Ice is better (albeit marginally) because it lacks that weakness.
You're 100% correct about assuming 14 mobs in EA AND Invincibility - though something else isn't taken into account. Invincibility works only while mobs are in melee. So as the number of mobs decrease, Invincibility decreases. If a Tanker leaves melee range for 1 second, the buff from Invincibility fades...This isn't the case with EA; it's a click that lasts 45 seconds. The calculation of mobs is done at the moment it's used - and that buff carries throughout the 45 seconds. It doesn't decrease like Invincibility.
[/ QUOTE ]
At last check, Ice still had no psi defense (sans Weave)
This space is intentionally left blank.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Circeus, there is something you (and many others) have glossed over about Statesman's numbers...they are off...WAY off.
As stated, invul passives are 7.5% (which has been tested and everyone agrees on that number) but where the error comes is in the enhancements. Statesman said that max with +3 level SO resists you would get 18.975% from the invul passives. Think that through everyone. To get 18.975% from +3 level enhancements each enhancement would need to provide 25.5% buff (((1 + (6 * .255)) * 7.5) = 18.975). This means that each defense and resist SO is gaining a 9.167% boost each level, as opposed to the accepted (and dev quoted from long ago) 5% boost each level.
Invul max on passives should be 17.85 = ((1 + (6 * (.2 * 1.15))) * 7.5)
[/ QUOTE ]
7.5% base * (1+ (6 Enhancements * .2 Enhancement increase)) * 1.15 for +3 Enhancements = 18.975.
[/ QUOTE ]
...Statesman and Circeus have just managed to nerf my brain.
[/ QUOTE ]
Normally I would not do this...but grrrrrrrr. Circeus is not the one that Statesman quoted...it is ME. Yes I am ego trippin, but man, I am the one pointing this out and 2 people go back and say that Circeus did it. 
Ice Armor does not have any protection against Psionic damage.
Even if you WERE to add it to Energy Absorption, we'd only get a max 17% defense to it. Why waste a power choice and 5 slots on something that an inspiration can do better?
Thinking further... why play a Powerset that an Inspiration can outperform?
[ QUOTE ]
The number isn't 3.5% base - it's 1.5%. To be honest - I don't know where the data came from that led to 3.5%.
[/ QUOTE ]
The number comes from the fact that we don't have access to those unless we do the testing. And like more things with this game it's easier to determine damage and resistance numbers then defense and accuracy.
The same reason why we all were thinking that WI and EA weren't giving any defense (Silly us were thinking that was a bug)... The fact is that the numbers are so ridiculously low that they were mistaken as simple statistical errors...
Funny how all this works, isn't?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Invul max on passives should be 17.85 = ((1 + (6 * (.2 * 1.15))) * 7.5)
[/ QUOTE ]
7.5% base * (1+ (6 Enhancements * .2 Enhancement increase)) * 1.15 for +3 Enhancements = 18.975.
[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, States... you don't get a 15% buff to your BASE defense based on +3 SOs. It's
7.5 * (1 + ((.2 * 6) * 1.15)) == 17.85
Edit: sorry to be the 9 millionth person to correct this
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
7.5% base * (1+ (6 Enhancements * .2 Enhancement increase)) * 1.15 for +3 Enhancements = 18.975.
[/ QUOTE ]
Like others have pointed out, bad math...
The forumla is
7.5 * (1 + (6 * 0.2 * 1.15)) = 17.85%
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, I have 2 questions:
1. What are the incremental increases for green SOs?
+1 = ? +2 = ? +3 = ?
2. Why do you calculate it like that with the 1.15 instead of just adding the incremental increase? Like .2 + (+3 value increase) Is it because the incremental increase is a run-on decimal or something i.e. .1234567 ?
I'm not being snarky or anything. I just want to understand this better. 
One last thing. I agree with Circeus as well that we need the end cost of Icicles lowered. With the taunt/punch/aura-voke and the changes in taunt, tankers in general are much more reliant on their auras (and attacks) to manage aggro.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
7.5% base * (1+ (6 Enhancements * .2 Enhancement increase)) * 1.15 for +3 Enhancements = 18.975.
[/ QUOTE ]
Like others have pointed out, bad math...
The forumla is
7.5 * (1 + (6 * 0.2 * 1.15)) = 17.85%
[/ QUOTE ]
Kind of brings you back to the whole I4's Scrapper's test with wrong numbers and enviroment, doesn't it?
removed
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People have recorded the base of Invincibility at 3.5%, so I was only going by that, please feel free to give the correct number (for range too please!)
3.5% * (1 + (6 * .22)) = 8.12% per mob.
8.12% * 14 mobs is 113.68.
[/ QUOTE ]
The number isn't 3.5% base - it's 1.5%. To be honest - I don't know where the data came from that led to 3.5%.
Certainly, your points on Toxic and Psi are true; let's not forget that Invulnerability has an inherent weakness to Psi in Unyielding, though. It's safe to say that Ice is better (albeit marginally) because it lacks that weakness.
You're 100% correct about assuming 14 mobs in EA AND Invincibility - though something else isn't taken into account. Invincibility works only while mobs are in melee. So as the number of mobs decrease, Invincibility decreases. If a Tanker leaves melee range for 1 second, the buff from Invincibility fades...This isn't the case with EA; it's a click that lasts 45 seconds. The calculation of mobs is done at the moment it's used - and that buff carries throughout the 45 seconds. It doesn't decrease like Invincibility.
[/ QUOTE ]
At last check, Ice still had no psi defense (sans Weave)
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure he was talking about Unyielding Self -Def, meaning that Inv has a better change of getting hit by psionic...
Or at least that's how I took it, but with the latest display of knowledge this guys are giving I'm not so sure anymore.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Invul max on passives should be 17.85 = ((1 + (6 * (.2 * 1.15))) * 7.5)
[/ QUOTE ]
7.5% base * (1+ (6 Enhancements * .2 Enhancement increase)) * 1.15 for +3 Enhancements = 18.975.
[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, States... you don't get a 15% buff to your BASE defense based on +3 SOs. It's
7.5 * (1 + ((.2 * 6) * 1.15)) == 17.85
Edit: sorry to be the 9 millionth person to correct this
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe this is what is actually happening and it adds up correctly.
7.5 * (1+ ( 6 * (.2 + .03))) = 17.85
Basically, each enhancement is worth .20 and each + is .01 on the enhancement (assuming maximum +3 difference.)
{{PS. I am amazed that I figured it out if it is right. I'm not that good at math.}}
Still here, even after all this time!
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I have 2 questions:
1. What are the incremental increases for green SOs?
+1 = ? +2 = ? +3 = ?
2. Why do you calculate it like that with the 1.15 instead of just adding the incremental increase? Like .2 + (+3 value increase) Is it because the incremental increase is a run-on decimal or something i.e. .1234567 ?
I'm not being snarky or anything. I just want to understand this better.
[/ QUOTE ]
1. Enhancements get a scalar multiplier to their base percentage for being over/under your level.
If the enhancement is -3 to you (27 when you're 30), the multiplier is 0.7 (so a -3 "damage-type" SO gives (.333 * 0.7) = 23.31% buff, while a -3 "defense-type" SO gives (.2 * 0.7) = 14% buff.
-2: multiply by 0.8.
-1: *0.9
+0 (even level): *1.0 (no effect)
+1: *1.05
+2: *1.10
+3: *1.15
2. I'd surmise it works that way so you don't have to keep track of "defense-type" enh. bonus, "defense-type" modifier, "damage-type" bonus, and "damage-type" modifier. As long as you know the bases, you can calculate the additional factor pretty simply, since
6 * .2 * 1.15
is the same as saying
(6 * .2 * 1) + (6 * .2 * .15)
or, in other words, base enhancement + bonus.
HTH,
Kam
Will you do my taxes next year, Kam?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. Why do you calculate it like that with the 1.15 instead of just adding the incremental increase? Like .2 + (+3 value increase) Is it because the incremental increase is a run-on decimal or something i.e. .1234567 ?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because its actually 1.15, saying 0.23 is actually a shortcut. Since you asked, and that I actually have this coded (for my EA calc program):
double CCoHEnhInfo::sm_dfType1Bases[eEnhTypeCount] = { 0.08300, 0.16700, 0.33300 };
double CCoHEnhInfo::sm_dfType2Bases[eEnhTypeCount] = { 0.05000, 0.10000, 0.20000 };
double CCoHEnhInfo::sm_dfLevelMods[eNumLevels] = { 0.70000, 0.80000, 0.90000, 1.00000, 1.05000, 1.10000, 1.15000 };
const char *CCoHEnhInfo::sm_szEnhTypeNames[eEnhTypeCount] = { "Generic", "Dual Origin", "Single Origin" };
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the clarification. I thought it was .05 per level. I'm used to using the short-cut of .23, but I couldn't remember the increase per level. 90% of the time I just calculate with even-con SOs since I'm mostly doing it for myself and not to test and provide numbers to the Devs. Thanks for that btw Circeus.
On another note, I didn't realize the reduction was twice the increase.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People have recorded the base of Invincibility at 3.5%, so I was only going by that, please feel free to give the correct number (for range too please!)
3.5% * (1 + (6 * .22)) = 8.12% per mob.
8.12% * 14 mobs is 113.68.
[/ QUOTE ]
The number isn't 3.5% base - it's 1.5%. To be honest - I don't know where the data came from that led to 3.5%.
Certainly, your points on Toxic and Psi are true; let's not forget that Invulnerability has an inherent weakness to Psi in Unyielding, though. It's safe to say that Ice is better (albeit marginally) because it lacks that weakness.
You're 100% correct about assuming 14 mobs in EA AND Invincibility - though something else isn't taken into account. Invincibility works only while mobs are in melee. So as the number of mobs decrease, Invincibility decreases. If a Tanker leaves melee range for 1 second, the buff from Invincibility fades...This isn't the case with EA; it's a click that lasts 45 seconds. The calculation of mobs is done at the moment it's used - and that buff carries throughout the 45 seconds. It doesn't decrease like Invincibility.
[/ QUOTE ]
At last check, Ice still had no psi defense (sans Weave)
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure he was talking about Unyielding Self -Def, meaning that Inv has a better change of getting hit by psionic...
Or at least that's how I took it, but with the latest display of knowledge this guys are giving I'm not so sure anymore.
[/ QUOTE ]
But Invul doesn't get any Psionic Def either... so a debuff of Any% wouldn't make any difference at all.
How can you DeBuff 0%?
[ QUOTE ]
I believe this is what is actually happening and it adds up correctly.
7.5 * (1+ ( 6 * (.2 + .03))) = 17.85
Basically, each enhancement is worth .20 and each + is .01 on the enhancement (assuming maximum +3 difference.)
{{PS. I am amazed that I figured it out if it is right. I'm not that good at math.}}
[/ QUOTE ]
That's what's happening, but not why; your numbers work out because:
6 * .2 * 1.15
6 * (.2 * 1.15)
6 * ((.2 * 1) + (.2 * .15))
6 * (.2 + .03)
Each over-level + is worth 0.01 simply because 5% of 0.2 = 0.01. This wouldn't work properly for the "damage-type" enhancements which have a base of .333. 
HTH,
Kam
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Invul max on passives should be 17.85 = ((1 + (6 * (.2 * 1.15))) * 7.5)
[/ QUOTE ]
7.5% base * (1+ (6 Enhancements * .2 Enhancement increase)) * 1.15 for +3 Enhancements = 18.975.
[/ QUOTE ]
Um... the 7.5% base does not benefit from the 1.15 multiplier - only the enhancements do. Circeus's numbers look right to me.