Just, wow.
I have backed up Statesman's decisions in this issue because I agree with what the end result should be but damn.
There comes a point when you have to wonder if they are letting monkeys make the decisions.
[ QUOTE ]
Just, wow.
I have backed up Statesman's decisions in this issue because I agree with what the end result should be but damn.
There comes a point when you have to wonder if they are letting monkeys make the decisions.
[/ QUOTE ]
Heh... well I support the theory of the decisions, but not their implementation. Overall all I showed is that they still don't get the #1 rule of game balance: "all things being equal, they should be."
Unreal. Even cold, that is baffling.
(Thanks again for your work Circeus. I wish they would hire you.)
The Dark Blade
"I've felt your mouse on me before, you perv...." - Troy Hickman
Paragon Wiki
[ QUOTE ]
Unreal. Even cold, that is baffling.
(Thanks again for your work Circeus. I wish they would hire you.)
[/ QUOTE ]
They couldn't afford me. Few people in the gaming industry make 6 figures.
It's pretty gruesome. Even when you remove the resist elements from scrappers--cause I'm sure scrappers won't bother with such a piddly percentage--it's still gruesome. Scrappers will be killing so much faster than you, too, so they won't have to stand the heat as long.
It's particularly frustrating since many Invulnerables were hoping to see Resist elements/energies at about 60%. In which case Ice would fall staggeringly far behind.
It just seems like defense by itself isn't enough. Can't they give Wet Ice a small amount of global resists? I can't believe it would be the end of the CoH world...
Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor...
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, even vs Cold protection.
[/ QUOTE ]
My Invulnerability testing showed me that 90% resistance to smashing and lethal was not as safe as the defense Invincibility supplied with just 7 in melee range and 30% resistance to Smashing and Lethal (also had 12 at range - all even level Banished Pantheon minons using only smashing, lethal) .
Therefore, Ice resistance at 90% is not very good protection without defense to supplement.
Edit: hey, just ask Fire Tankers who only had resistances until they got Burn to mitigate. Or, Invulnerable (Tankers/Scrappers) who could not believe the difference in survivability when they got Invincibility.
Resistance alone doesn't cut it as a Tanker. It helps to max resist, but it is not enough.
[ QUOTE ]
For those looking to see the differences, I posted them here.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks, Circeus, this is great information.
The only thing that's making my jaw hit the floor, though, is that people are actually surprised by these results.
Ice was the worst Tanker set to start with. And it got nerfed hard. So yeah, even though Invulnerability also got nerfed hard it should come as no surprise that Ice is still worse.
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks, Circeus, this is great information.
The only thing that's making my jaw hit the floor, though, is that people are actually surprised by these results.
Ice was the worst Tanker set to start with. And it got nerfed hard. So yeah, even though Invulnerability also got nerfed hard it should come as no surprise that Ice is still worse.
It shows both Invuln Scrappers and Invuln Tankers, both of which have Ice Tankers beat hands down. Yes, even vs Cold protection.
[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't surprise me at all. I was just waiting for all the numbers to come in and settle out to be able to do the analysis. What surprises me is that Statesman really doesn't seem to get how off kilter things are. The margin for I5 between Ice and either Invuln is now wider than it was in I4. That's just plain sad.
Yeah, didn't mean you. :-)
Internal balance amongst the Tanker sets is farther out of whack than ever in Issue 5. This is just one example of how bad it really is.
At least with Issue 4 three of the Tanker sets were reasonably well balanced (Ice being the red-headed step-child). In Issue 5 I'd be hard pressed to compare any two Tanker sets and call them reasonably well balanced.
-Starts Petition to move Invulns DEF to Ice-
-Starts Petition to have Invulns RES returned-
Carry on.
[ QUOTE ]
-Starts Petition to move Invulns DEF to Ice-
-Starts Petition to have Invulns RES returned-
Carry on.
[/ QUOTE ]
/Signed
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
[ QUOTE ]
-Starts Petition to move Invulns DEF to Ice-
-Starts Petition to have Invulns RES returned-
Carry on.
[/ QUOTE ]
The reason Ice protection is less at 90% resistance is because there is not any defense to supplement it. So, If Invuln became 90% resist to all except psionic and no defense, we would not be able to Tank without a Defender. Right now, with the right number of minions around us, we can still Tank against fire/cold/energy and negative energy because of defense. Replace that defense with 90% resistance and our Tanking ability goes down! Look at the Ice Tankers Ice protection 
This is just me but I prefer the spreadsheet showing the DEF and RES to the numbers you posted in the thread showing the damage.
There is a long post in the defender forum that is going on how FF is royally screwed in I5. To support that theory the poster is including figures on how many more hits both the FF defender and the teammates are taking when running the same missions live and I5. It shows similar increases in hits and damage that, on paper, make your jaw drop.
Basically, everyone looks and says "How can an increase of 300% (or whatever) in damage be balanced?" The problem is that the entire purpose of I5 was to make it harder and cut DEF so we all take a beating. So all the poster was proving was that when you reduce the DEF that FF has, you get hit more often and take more damage. I think everyone already knew that would happen.
Now your test isn't about live vs test but the numbers are trying to show a similar conclusion. Taking more damage doesn't mean you are going to faceplant constantly or become totally useless. As you take damage you adjust accordingly and keep going, unless it's just way too much. But showing an increase in damage taken doesn't always lead to the conclusion that you will suffer 300% more since that damage is over a period of time most likely.
I just find more value in the charts that show the base numbers and the numbers adjusted for #mobs in melee. I mean, I didn't have to read much more beyond the Inv 100% def bonus vs the 48% Ice def bonus. I look at the RES numbers and say to myself "ok I expected that but I'm sure the def side will correct the differentce", which of course didn't happen at all. To me, that tells the tale right there. If Ice is supposed to be more about DEF than RES, shouldn't at LEAST be the best at DEF than the other tanker sets?
As a side note, I found the term "hits" to be misleading. It looks like you're really talking damage in those columns but I see that and think it means # of hits taken. It would be nice to have both values - looks like # of hits or # of misses isn't on the spreadsheet.
Hope you don't mind my nitpicking. You should feel good about doing the work to put this together.
Buffy, your right. We wouldnt tank as well at 90% resistances as we would at 30% resistances+Crowd of Minions.
However, as has been pointed out, you can tank nearly ANYTHING with ANY build, espc with some purple candy, or for Invuln, a minion swarm.
The question is 'what do you want to play, today', and for my own part, I signed up to play Really-Tough-Guy, not Minonrancher.
Ah. I see. But, I think I had rather be pretty tough and avoid getting hit, since getting hit causes brain damage 
And broken teeth 
(toothless grin)
OK, the recovery potential of Resistance is much greater than that of Defense it seems to me. I find that the unreliability of Defense--it's randomness--is a real problem. You can get hit three times in succession and drop like a rock. Or never get hit at all and look like a god.
Resists allow for recovery time. You can pop healing flames (fire tanks), a green inspiration or two. With Def... Well, sometimes you can, sometimes you can't. With Res you can almost always depend on having time for you or a teammate to help out.
I remember doing pretty well in the old days with Permal Unstoppable when Invinciblility dropped and all I had was capped resists.
However, the changes are about PvP and the Devs don't want capped resists for any tank but Stone (who can't really do much with them).
Anyway, turning back to Ice tankers since this is what the thread is about...
How about some Resistance in Wet Ice instead of defense? I'm sure a small amount--like UNY--would flip the equation mightily for Ice tanks.
[ QUOTE ]
How about some Resistance in Wet Ice instead of defense? I'm sure a small amount--like UNY--would flip the equation mightily for Ice tanks.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good idea, I would rather see it in Permafrost though.
The spreadsheet is an attempt to demonstrate to Statesman that he is so far from achieving balance its not even remotely funny, it is in fact sad. Very sad.
Let me quote something from Bridger the "CuppaJo" of the European forums. He's actually a bit more talkative in general than devs are here I find, but you get an idea of what the devs are shooting to do:
[ QUOTE ]
It's not possible to make Defense as effective as Resistance in all situations, no. The trick is to make Defense more effective than Resistance in enough situations to balance the two out.
If Defense is more effective against large numbers of Minions and Resistance is more effective against Bosses and AVs, I'd say that actually favours Defense when you consider how much time you spend, over the course of a hero's career, fighting Minions as opposed to Bosses and AVs.
[/ QUOTE ]
(edit: added bolding above for effect)
That's very important, because that's basically the basis for comparison of the spreadsheet that's presented. And I agree with him its basically impossible to get the numbers to 100% line up, but they should be reasonably close. And they're not.
Keep this in mind, its damage taken for both. You can presume they both get healed, recover health, whatever. Those are an X factor when thrown against damage take, so its damage taken that matters in the end. Because no matter how much healing/recovery sits behind a character, they are going down faster if they are taking more damage.
And when it comes to comparing Tankers to each other, then need to be reasonably equally survivable. Damage taken when figured in relation to each other is a means of determining reasonable equality under normal circumstances - which is exactly the same thing Bridger says.
In other words you figure those numbers should be within a margin of error from each other of 10% (e.g., 90% - 110%) rather than the 900% we're seeing for S/L as an example. And that margin of error should hold for increasing mob difficulties (increased levels) - which only widen's the margin right now.
I think you're talking about "Eff # of hits" and "Total hits" that's probably badly labled, because it should be "Eff # of attacks" and "Total Attacks" - because that's what they really are. But its defintely not damage, that's calculated later on. So I agree, hits is misleading, but I only updated the numbers not the column headers
I felt bad about my post so I tried to run some numbers myself. I'm not sure I have the numbers right but using the spreadsheet I think this is how Ice stacks to Inv when you use the "Effective" totals (foes + enhancers).
As an Ice tanker you get:
44% of the Inv def for S/L
44% of the Inv def for Energy
44% of the Inv def for Negative
13% of the Inv def for Cold
13% of the Inv def for Fire
0% of the Inv res for S/L
0% of the Inv res for Energy
0% of the Inv res for Negative
88% of the Inv res for Fire
72% of the Inv res for Toxic
The good news?
As an Inv tanker you only get:
40% of the Ice res for Cold
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
No need to, you're correct.
[ QUOTE ]
... In other words you figure those numbers should be within a margin of error from each other of 10% (e.g., 90% - 110%) rather than the 900% we're seeing for S/L as an example.
[/ QUOTE ]
900% isn't jaw dropping at all...
[ QUOTE ]
-Starts Petition to move Invulns DEF to Ice-
-Starts Petition to have Invulns RES returned-
Carry on.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh heck yes. Ice is the Tanker defense set. Give Ice some of the defense we have (hell, even all of it if needed!) And give invuln our resistance back! Ice should lord over Invuln with +def, Invuln should be high resistance with just a little bit of +def.
Ok. Here is where Ice stands in Issue 5 - thanks to Circeus:
Frozen Armor: 15% DEF Smash/Lethal, 30% RES Cold, 10% RES Fire
Wet Ice: negligible DEF, 30% RES Cold
Glacial Armor: 15% DEF Energy/Negative, 30% RES Cold
Energy Absorption: negligible DEF
Permafrost: 20% RES Cold, 10% RES Fire
Hoarfrost: 20% RES Toxic
Max slotted for DEF/RES as appropriate that leaves us at:
33% DEF Smash/Lethal
33% DEF Energy/Negative
134% RES Cold (90% RES Cold w/out Permafrost)
32% RES Fire (10% RES Fire w/out Permafrost)
20% RES Toxic (44% if somebody actually slotted it)
Wet Ice should be at least 10% defense to all but psi - they can lower the cold resist to 10 or 15% to compensate. Why? Because a Super Reflexes Scrapper starts with 12.5% melee defense with Focused Fighting and 12.5% ranged defense with Focused Senses to all types of damage. Ice Tankers get 15% to smashing and lethal damage melee, ranged and AoE.
Energy Absorption should be 2% per mob (4.4 X 14 mobs = 61.6)
Edit: I hate that 14 cap on both EA and Invinc. It just wreaks of herding. I wish the max cap was 6 and the defense raised to compensate
For those looking to see the differences, I posted them here.
It shows both Invuln Scrappers and Invuln Tankers, both of which have Ice Tankers beat hands down. Yes, even vs Cold protection.