[ QUOTE ]
Let me start off by saying, I have an Ice/Ice Tank, and he's fun. I have no real problems with him on Live or Test. Now that that is over with...
No offense to anyone...but now I know why the Devs would rather Not give out numbers. This forum has turned into a [censored] math debate. Are we playing a game, or taking a [censored] test? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having fun, but to debate over +/- 1% is re-damned-diculous. If you were to show me, in-game, that you Always fell to a group of 5 +1 Carnie Minions, then I could see your point. If you could prove that you Always fell to a pair of +0 Banished Pantheon Bosses, I could see your point. If you can prove to me that you Always fall to a group of 10 +4 Malta Lieutenants, then good, you should be able to do that. To argue over a single percentile of a chance of being hit is just asinine. I don't play City of Heroes to practice differential equasions, I play to kick villainous [censored].
As for Chilling Embrace, (possible) cool beans.
Cyclone Jack
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay...Devs make changes...in order to test these changes (like they tell us) they should give numbers...ESPECIALLY for stuff like defense where there is no convenient way for players to test out besides say, going up against 1000 even con minions and crunching THOSE numbers. In which case you end up with a number that should be CLOSE to accurate and possibly you end up with even further debate depending on what that number is. If it's high or low enough, you start wondering if it's a bug. So you start clamouring on the boards trying to figure out wth is going on. Instead...we could bypass all that crap, get the numbers straight from the horses mouth, do theoretical calculations and then work from there.
No one is forcing you to read through the posts about numbers, or look at all the math. I, for one, enjoy reading through it and looking at all the calculations. It's a way of testing out the changes without spending 5 hours wailing on mobs in the Test server. And the thing is, looking at these numbers, most of us can safely say that Ice tankers just AREN'T going to be able to cut the mustard anymore, or at the very least don't stand up under close scrutiny compared to some of their other brethren.
Yes, 1% really isn't THAT big a deal under most circumstances. But sometimes, 1% can be a very significant amount.
[ QUOTE ]
Let me start off by saying, I have an Ice/Ice Tank, and he's fun. I have no real problems with him on Live or Test. Now that that is over with...
No offense to anyone...but now I know why the Devs would rather Not give out numbers. This forum has turned into a [censored] math debate. Are we playing a game, or taking a [censored] test? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having fun, but to debate over +/- 1% is re-damned-diculous. If you were to show me, in-game, that you Always fell to a group of 5 +1 Carnie Minions, then I could see your point. If you could prove that you Always fell to a pair of +0 Banished Pantheon Bosses, I could see your point. If you can prove to me that you Always fall to a group of 10 +4 Malta Lieutenants, then good, you should be able to do that. To argue over a single percentile of a chance of being hit is just asinine. I don't play City of Heroes to practice differential equasions, I play to kick villainous [censored].
As for Chilling Embrace, (possible) cool beans.
Cyclone Jack
[/ QUOTE ]
No offense, but if the math isn't your thing, then just ignore it. Play how you like and don't berate others for their style of play. For many of us the numbers are important. They show in this case that Wet Ice is quite clearly useless as a defensive power. They show that EA is a hard sell.
People are debating the numbers because the numbers are more important in this context than what you can solo. In fact, that's irrelevant because we're talking about relative balance among the tanker sets. You can't do that using subjective tests like you state because they might be survivable for all tanks.
Using math to argue for balancing has much more use than anecdotes. It does in nearly every field of human endeavor. Many of the people posting these numbers have subjected their characters to rigorous analytical testing. Instead of berating that, you should be thankful because they are doing the work that will ensure you a better character to play.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
[ 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 ]
Same place 99% of the data for this game comes from - unofficial sources. See what happens when you don't provide numbers to your players? Don't assume your policy of keeping players in the dark always works to your advantage. . .
This is probably a stupid question, but here goes: If this Issue goes live, as is, is it the consensus of those on this board that it is better to NOT slot my primary defenses, and to place those slots in my secondary attack or power pool?
[ QUOTE ]
No offense to anyone...but now I know why the Devs would rather Not give out numbers. This forum has turned into a [censored] math debate. Are we playing a game, or taking a [censored] test? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having fun, but to debate over +/- 1% is re-damned-diculous. If you were to show me, in-game, that you Always fell to a group of 5 +1 Carnie Minions, then I could see your point. If you could prove that you Always fell to a pair of +0 Banished Pantheon Bosses, I could see your point. If you can prove to me that you Always fall to a group of 10 +4 Malta Lieutenants, then good, you should be able to do that. To argue over a single percentile of a chance of being hit is just asinine. I don't play City of Heroes to practice differential equasions, I play to kick villainous [censored].
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I thought math tests were hard enough, I can't imagine doing a math test with 5,000 people watching over my shoulder just waiting for me to make a mistake (and pounce on it).
If you're going to look at numbers so much, you chance losing out on the other part of CoH, the game. I took my Ice Tanker to test, and I winged my respec based on gut choices. Then I went out and I fought a bunch of different kinds of groups. I wasn't paying attention to the numbers. I was trying to see if it was fun (theres no BI for that). The best part was in the back of CF, when I took on a group of nemesis, and our fight spilled over into a second group of nemesis, after I finally finished off the first group, we spilled into a third, and finally a group of crey. All these groups were clearly intended for groups larger than 1. It got really tough, but I held out for a while(finished off the second group and half of the third). But, since I had the end recovery from EA, I could actually sustain the battle(something I was never able to do previously). Now, I can't give you any numbers to back up my experience, but I can tell you that I had more fun in that one battle than I've ever had on live with my tank.
[ QUOTE ]
Here's the real numbers (that's what I get for doing stuff from memory).
Wet Ice
0.5% base
1.265% Defence from Wet Ice with +++ SO's.
17.71% Max Defence from Energy Absorbtion (not what I had earlier).
[/ QUOTE ]
So, what this means is that running Wet Ice 6 slotted for defense and firing off EA 6 slotted on 14 mobs you herded up is still less than Wet Ice alone 6 slotted on live (27.5% Eng/Neg, 19.8% everything else but psi and toxic). Ice was already underperforming on live with this, the armors at 22.5% instead of 16%, and EA actually worth something. How is the set supposed to be equal to what it was in I4, let alone be improved?
[ QUOTE ]
Reduced Accuracy of Minion level Turrets from 75% to 58%.
Reduced Accuracy of Lieutenant level Turrets from 94% to 65%.
Reduced Accuracy of Boss level Turrets from 113% to 75%.
Reduced Accuracy of Snipers from 75% to 65%.
Reduced Accuracy of Archvillains from 90% to 75%.
Reduced Accuracy of Giant Monsters from 90% to 75%.
Reduced Accuracy of Monument Minions from 75% to 58%.
Reduced Accuracy of Rularuu Bosses from 90% to 75%.
[/ QUOTE ]
The reduction in villain accuracy does not seem to be keeping up with the decrease in defense. Instead of making us 6 slot Wet Ice and EA and herd up 14 enemies to get defense equal to I4 Wet Ice (20 levels later), why not just keep the issue4 version of Wet Ice, make EA the Ice version of Consume, and implement the changes to permafrost and CE. This would let us reach nearly the same defense levels as your changes call for earlier in the game when we really need them, and eliminate the need for an Icer to herd.
So Wet Ice will now only be 1 slotted by everyone, making this power only useful for no knockbacks, mezzed or held, seems kinda lame, also is i have it 6 slotted already and i might even have a hami on it, i can't remember, but you say they still will be on there and giving me defense, even though it will no longer offer defense?
And did EA ever slow villians at all?
I'm seriously thinking of putting all my slots into my damage attacks and just making myself a scrapper, even though i'll still be lower then a scrapper!
Thx again on those numbers Circeus!
Although I was better off not knowing the numbers 
I almost forgot to post. STATESMAN dont forget to help ice tanks in pvp by nerfing the acc of all heroes.
Some Ice Tanks like to pvp too.
I can post another video for laughs....
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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).
[/ QUOTE ]
Geko explanation is the one that makes sense. Each enhancement level has an effect separately on the bonus (TO/DO/SO) it provides, not on the overall bonus.
[ QUOTE ]
7.5% base * (1+ (6 Enhancements * .2 Enhancement increase)) * 1.15 for +3 Enhancements = 18.975.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll be the 10 millionth person to point out your slight math error.
With one +3 enhancer that formula gives a value of 10.35, which must be wrong
7.5% base * (1+ (1 Enhancement * .2 Enhancement increase)) * 1.15 for +3 Enhancement = 10.35
[ QUOTE ]
but to debate over +/- 1% is re-damned-diculous.
[/ QUOTE ]
People interested in the defense sets tend to quibble over small percentages because the way defense stacks, small percentages can sometimes mean a great deal.
1% difference in EA translates to 14% with the maximum number of targets for EA. 14% extra defense is almost two whole levels higher defense. In other words, your defense is just about effective on targets 2 levels higher if its 14 percentage points more.
I4 SR scrappers were adding 1-slot stealth for only 9 percentage points more defense, and that was (for some builds) reducing damage from +1 bosses roughly in half.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
I currently have a lvl 43 ice cubed (ice/ice/ice) tank on live. Here's my current suggestions after reading most of the posts.
1. Reduce the end cost of icicles to something reasonable. Also, why does this not slow enemies as well? I would think that cold shards of ice would definitely slow someone.
2. Move Glacial armor to an earlier slot. I agree with some posters on this count.
3. Since the issue is to curb herding, why not change EA to a single target attack. Boost it to 20% (same as parry for a sword scrapper). Make the end recovery the same as it is on test for 7 mobs (enhancable). Keep the recharge the same. Also, give it an acc check. This would create situations where the player would have to make choices on what to slot so it wouldn't become overpowered. Also, it would help icers out a bunch when we go 1 vs. 1, and we could strategically pick out a particular mob to end drain (if someone would slot it that way).
Since we are on the topic of ice...Can ice melee please have a superior attack..preferably greater ice sword...i wouldn't mind if you took away the secondary effects. It would be nice to have a better attack than heavy damage. *crosses fingers that I will be heard*
Rooster!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You still arent addressing the fact that in Issue 5 (the "End to Herding" issue) Ice and Invulnerability tanks are being basically forced to herd up enemies to max out their defense using EA and Invinc since the rest of their defenses have taken a large hit.
Wouldnt it be better to increase the buff per mob and cap the total def (still allowing it to hit more mobs for the taunt effect)?
Also, can you give us an idea how Ice tankers will deal with Energy and Fire attacks before 18 and 26 respectively? It really seems like this slipped someone's mind when they were coming up with these changes.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would like to add my voice to concern on the facing energy attacks prior to level 18 with Galacial Armour and getting attacked by fire ( I will have to experiment with Permafrost now ). Is Blade, a test tank on the test server has found the outcasts much tougher then the other groups do to their high usage of pure energy and fire attacks. There are other groups that can also leave you with almost no defense. The .5% protection in Wet Ice even if it was maximum slotted to 1% would still leave minions with an accuracy of 49%. Galacial Armour is a basic defense and should come earlier than level 18 and it would be good if it included the same value of defense that energy and negative energy provide.
I would like to say thanks to you Statesman for giving us some feedback and discussing ice primary with Geko. The adding of Toxic to Permafrost is nice as is the damage debuff in Chilling Embrace. The review of maximum damage in one hit is also great news. I look forward to testing these changes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I tried editing my post this morning but I guess the time limit had expired.
I just wanted to add a couple of things.
1> Invincibility for Invulnerability occurs at level 18 while Energy Absorption occurs at level 26. This order leaves Ice Primary lagging for 8 levels to get a similar defense.
2> +0.5% buff per mob from Energy Absorption. That means that means that the base value verses 10 mobs is 5% ( I know that it could theoretically hit 14 mobs for 7% but on live it is sometimes hard to even get 5 mobs ). This compares to the base value of Frozen Armour and Galacial Armour of 16%. That makes Energy Absorption at a base comparison rougly 1/3 as good. This is a power that has the limiter that it fluctuates to a low of 0.5% base if there is only one mob to draw upon ( which happens in many fights particullarly when fighting AVs and bosses ). It also carries the value of the defense for 45s which is less time then the recharge of 60s ( to get the maximum defense that is used for consideration of 6 defense SOs then you would need to 15s without the benefit of Energy Absoprtion ). The last limiter is that Energy Absorption takes time to work because you need to get in melee range and then activate the power. If you have gone to the trouble of getting close to activate Energy Absorption rather than choose to attack, should you not get a better reward for risk then something that is 1/3 as good as your basic toggle defenses? Compared to the value being used for Weave, a pool power, of 4 to 4.5% base defense which is a constant toggle, Energy Absorption does not offer very much and has a higher risk to use.
Sorry again for the extra post but it took me a while to get caught up on the information and implications of the developer posts from the last 48 hours.
[ QUOTE ]
17.71% Max Defence from Energy Absorbtion (not what I had earlier).
[/ QUOTE ]
Once again, I must ask, what good does this power do, when I can pop a purple (luck), and get 25% def? How often am I going to have 14 mob around me to get the 17.71%? What am I going to do when fighting bosses? I get 1% def buff from this supposed-to-be class defining power?
Junior Gosok
Level 36 Ice/Ice Tanker on Champion
[ QUOTE ]
Wet Ice
0.5% base
1.265% Defence from Wet Ice with +++ SO's.
17.71% Max Defence from Energy Absorbtion (not what I had earlier).
[/ QUOTE ]
My problem with this sort of logic is that you continuously say that you're making balance changes in order to discourage/prevent herding. However, with these sorts of arguements it's like you're encourgaing people to herd in order to increase their defenses. You don't want people to herd, but your explanations/numbers for this power, as well as Invince, can only be achieved if someone has in fact herded to get that many mobs around you.
It's like saying: "If you herd enough mobs, see how great this power is! We don't want to let you herd though, but boy would this power be great for it!"
What kind of sense does that make?
Also, concerning the addition of Toxic Resist to Permafrost. Does Hoarfrost still contain it's Tocix resist? Together, wouldn't that effectively make it's Toxic resist, enahnced with 6 even level SOs each, 88%? If a person slots Hoarfrost for healing or recharge, that'd still give a 64% Resist to Toxic... Does it seem right to have it's other Defenses/Resist, except for Cold, so low in comparison?
Me:
[ QUOTE ]
What of Toxic Damage Resistance on a slow charging click power that is usually slotted heavily for healing and recharge? (Any word on the mythic toxic defense?)
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I completely missed the announcement of adding toxic resistance to permafrost.
Statesman:
[ QUOTE ]
We're also adding resistance to Toxic in Permafrost to bring it into line with Invulnerability's Resist Elements.
[/ QUOTE ]
__________________________________________________
Helms:
[ QUOTE ]
I can post another video for laughs....
[/ QUOTE ]
I hope the devs go test ice armor in pvp. It is painful to watch that video you posted. (thanks for showing us by the way)
The Dark Blade
"I've felt your mouse on me before, you perv...." - Troy Hickman
Paragon Wiki
Since Icicles is so end heavy and not much damage why don't you put a -accuracy to the effects, so maybe it would be worth the end cost? It would also help our now low defense when we are tanking.
[ QUOTE ]
I completely concur that the Wet Ice Def buff is so slender that it's pointless to slot Def Enhancements...but people already have done so.
Here's what we'll do: Wet Ice will no longer accept Def Enhancements. We'll increase the base def somewhat. Def Enhancements that are currently slotted will continue to have an effect, but players won't be able to slot new Def Enhancements into it.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is a bad idea, "grandfathering" always creates the illusion of haves and have nots. Make the change and suck it up.
[ 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 ]
Are you saying the formula is wrong or the math is wrong? With the given forumla from Jack, then he is right at that precent. BUT if you're saying his formula is messed up, then everyone else is right. I'm asking because given the math Jack gave it's right, but when you look at everyone else's equations, they are not the exact same as his, of course producing different results.
Jack:
7.5 * (1 + (6 * .2)) * 1.15
7.5 * (1 + (1.2)) * 1.15
7.5 * (2.2) * 1.15
16.5 * 1.15
18.975
Circeus:
7.5 * (1 + (6 * .2 * 1.15))
7.5 * (1 + (1.2 * 1.15))
7.5 * (1 + 1.38)
7.5 * 2.38
17.85
Which is the right formula/math that is currently being tested/used?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I completely concur that the Wet Ice Def buff is so slender that it's pointless to slot Def Enhancements...but people already have done so.
Here's what we'll do: Wet Ice will no longer accept Def Enhancements. We'll increase the base def somewhat. Def Enhancements that are currently slotted will continue to have an effect, but players won't be able to slot new Def Enhancements into it.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is a bad idea, "grandfathering" always creates the illusion of haves and have nots. Make the change and suck it up.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with the Dev Team solution for this. It defies logic:
Why can't I put a Def. Enhancer in my Defensive Power?
This is what I'd be asking myself as a newbie Ice Tanker as soon as I got the power. No convoluted mathematic rationalization would satisfy me, alas.
I'd suggest a complete redesign of this power rather than forcing functional illogic into it.
Cal2
[ QUOTE ]
Which is the right formula/math that is currently being tested/used?
[/ QUOTE ]
Circeus:
7.5 * (1 + (6 * .2 * 1.15))
7.5 * (1 + (1.2 * 1.15))
7.5 * (1 + 1.38)
7.5 * 2.38
17.85
Statesmen wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
Just got out of a meeting with Geko...
I completely concur that the Wet Ice Def buff is so slender that it's pointless to slot Def Enhancements...but people already have done so.
Here's what we'll do: Wet Ice will no longer accept Def Enhancements. We'll increase the base def somewhat. Def Enhancements that are currently slotted will continue to have an effect, but players won't be able to slot new Def Enhancements into it.
We're also adding resistance to Toxic in Permafrost to bring it into line with Invulnerability's Resist Elements.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thats a good start. Any word about adding the resist all except psi part i posted about??
Oh and kuddos on the chilling embrace damage debuff, that was good of yall to nothice the feed back and ideas being put out there.
[ QUOTE ]
Let me start off by saying, I have an Ice/Ice Tank, and he's fun. I have no real problems with him on Live or Test. Now that that is over with...
No offense to anyone...but now I know why the Devs would rather Not give out numbers. This forum has turned into a [censored] math debate. Are we playing a game, or taking a [censored] test? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having fun, but to debate over +/- 1% is re-damned-diculous. If you were to show me, in-game, that you Always fell to a group of 5 +1 Carnie Minions, then I could see your point. If you could prove that you Always fell to a pair of +0 Banished Pantheon Bosses, I could see your point. If you can prove to me that you Always fall to a group of 10 +4 Malta Lieutenants, then good, you should be able to do that. To argue over a single percentile of a chance of being hit is just asinine. I don't play City of Heroes to practice differential equasions, I play to kick villainous [censored].
As for Chilling Embrace, (possible) cool beans.
Cyclone Jack
[/ QUOTE ]
The reason I was pointing out the math error is plain and simple. It is not because that 1.1% resist would make a big difference (and yes it was in reference to Invulnerable's Resists, not defense). It was pointed out because if the changes made to Ice Armor are being made based off of faulty numbers, because of the faulty math, then it is possible that the changes are too drastic.
Example of how the math error would make ice tanks look stronger than they are on live (which they are strong on live):
Live:
Frozen Armor and Glacial Armor 25%
6 slotted with +3s is 59.5%
6 slotted with Jack's math is 63.25
Wet Ice 9% Smash/Lethal 12.5% Fire/Nrg/Neg/Cold
6 slotted with +3s is 21.42% S/L 29.75% F/E/N/C
6 slotted with Jack's math is 22.77% and 31.625%
Energy Absorbtion is 18.75% each opponent hit, 5 hits max
6 slotted with +3s is 44.625% each... 223.125% with 5 hits
6 slotted with Jack's math is 47.4375% each... 237.1875% with 5 hits
Total Sum of defense would be:
FA + GA + WI base = 34% to S/L 37.5% to Energy/Neg 12.5% to Fire/Cold
6 slotted with +3s = 80.92% to S/L 89.25% to E/N 29.75% to F/C
6 slotted with Jack's math = 86.02% to S/L 94.875% to E/N 31.625% to F/C
FA + GA + WI + EA with 5 hits = 127.75% S/L 131.25% E/N 106.25% F/C
6 slotted with +3s = 302.855% S/L 312.375% E/N 252.875% F/C
6 slotted with Jack's math = 323.2075% S/L 332.0625% E/N 268.8125% F/C
Now yes that is a lot of math, and will probably scare off a lot of people, but if it helps to make sure these changes are at the right level then good. I will do math all day if it helps to make sure changes are done at the appropriate level (it really has nothing to do with being a math major working on a teaching certificate...really).
Also, with numbers this high it really doesn't make any difference when tanking same levels up to +4s even. But when you start talking about the new changes (16% for FA/GA, unknown % for WI, 0.5% for EA and can hit 14 guys) then 1% can make a difference.
FA + EA hitting 14 guys = 23% base
6 slotted +3s = 54.74%
6 slotted with Jack's math = 58.19%
So wow, only 3.45% difference, but when you are tanking an Archvillain (that has 75% acc at same level) it starts to be a bigger difference. Dropping the AV's acc to 20.26% (with +3s and 14 minions around) is not as safe as dropping it to 16.81% (Jack's math with 14 minions around).
Don't berate others for wanting (or even liking) to do the math. I am not a min/maxer by nature, but I like to know what my powers are doing so I know if it is even worth adding the slots. See personally on my Ice tank I will be trying out 6 end drains on EA and use it to keep the villains at low end, thus dropping the number of incoming attacks...had we not known EA gave 0.5% base I would continue to just do the normal 5-6 defense in EA. But as you said, I play to kick villainous [censored], so what if I do it with my fists or my Math Fu.
Let me start off by saying, I have an Ice/Ice Tank, and he's fun. I have no real problems with him on Live or Test. Now that that is over with...
No offense to anyone...but now I know why the Devs would rather Not give out numbers. This forum has turned into a [censored] math debate. Are we playing a game, or taking a [censored] test? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having fun, but to debate over +/- 1% is re-damned-diculous. If you were to show me, in-game, that you Always fell to a group of 5 +1 Carnie Minions, then I could see your point. If you could prove that you Always fell to a pair of +0 Banished Pantheon Bosses, I could see your point. If you can prove to me that you Always fall to a group of 10 +4 Malta Lieutenants, then good, you should be able to do that. To argue over a single percentile of a chance of being hit is just asinine. I don't play City of Heroes to practice differential equasions, I play to kick villainous [censored].
As for Chilling Embrace, (possible) cool beans.
Cyclone Jack
-= idspispopd =-
[size=1]Arc ID: 3155 - Project Prometheus (Seeking Feedback, now with less invalidation)[/size]