Hot off the presses...
Statesman:
[ 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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
if they fix the sets and
Ice-gets defense
inv- gets resistance with no penalty and minor def
stone-gets resistance, def and psi protection with penalty cost
what does fire tank that will set it apart from the rest considering the average fire tanker never takes tough and stays at 66% S/L resistance.
That would only leave the now nerfed fiery embrace as the only thing that makes up for what the sets lack of defense 
[/ QUOTE ]
If it were up to me I'd still give Wet Ice some across the board RES to help against one-shotting. The Devs comments about addressing AV damage doesn't fill me with any confidence.
This is a song about a super hero named Tony. Its called Tony's theme.
Jagged Reged: 23/01/04
17.71% max for EA?!!?!
Man, Invul is screwed, but ice may as well not exist anymore. EA should trump Invincibility, but they're guarding Invinc like it was a newborn while beating EA into the ground.
I...do...not...[censored]...UNDER...[censored]...STAND!!!!
It's killing season
Time to celebrate
What better way than to
Rid the world of all the walking waste ....
[ QUOTE ]
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 
[/ QUOTE ]
Bridger's a smart dude. He also wrote: "...balancing is a process, rather than an event," which I think many posters would do well to remember.
[ QUOTE ]
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)
[/ QUOTE ]
and
[ QUOTE ]
Hot off the presses...
Statesman:
[ 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 ]
[/ QUOTE ]
So, with 14 even level minions attacking you, and EA hitting all of them, those numbers would be:
51.975% DEF Smash/Lethal
51.975% DEF Energy/Negative
18.975% DEF Fire/Cold/Toxic
So under perfect conditions, you can just barely floor an even con minion. Thats just sad when thats all Ice has going for it. Hell, a Phenominal Luck (50% def) offers more protection than the entire Ice/* line!
Wow, just... wow...
Welcome to the worls of Def. vrs resist. Ice and Sr can be out done by eating an insper. A lvl 1 toon can have the same aspect as a lvl 50 ice/sr by eating a few lucks, now tell me how thats fair? I still think Sr fairs worse then an ice tank but then again ice is a tank and i use that term loosely.
i sincerly hope they look this over. ice tanks deserve a chance to be a tank equal to the other tank powersets. i was already aware of the horrendous difference between ice's overall def and invulns but i guess the devs still need some hard evidence to get them to make ice a balanced power.
[ QUOTE ]
Bridger's a smart dude. He also wrote: "...balancing is a process, rather than an event," which I think many posters would do well to remember.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. I wish we had the level of game related feedback here on a regular basis that Bridger gives on his own on the Euro forums.
The thing is the devs are failing at Bridger's statement that you quoted aren't they? They're taking balance, and attempting to get it all done at once - that's making it an event. Process means gradual, not all at once.
That said, what Statesman really truly needs to sit down and do is not tell us his vision came to him in a moment of clarity while playing his gameboy. He has to actually tell us what he envisions roles to be and how each set is intended to interact. Right now I'd say, that because it got hit hardest of all, Ice Tankers deserve to know where he sees them fitting into the game.
Right now, I can't see what he's seeing. But its clear to me from the numbers that there's something glaringly wrong in how they're doing whatever it is they're trying to do.
And I'd like to know why they don't see that.
I saw State's newest post and I almost want to say there are now only three tanks left. Ice just melted away.
I am changing my sig to support Ice. What is happening to them makes me really not understand what was going through the dev's heads. 0.5 defense is just going to trick all the non-forum dwellers into slotting it and they will be getting nothing at all for those slots.
I posted, but I was speechless. I said:
[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, thank you for clearing up the confusion.
Secondly, 
[/ QUOTE ]
I`m sorry. This entire situation is surreal.
Statesmans vision? He launched the game. Please tell me why the vision wasn`t in place then?
These changes? Do they make sense to anyone? Can anyone explain how the developers, who work on this game full time, could possibly have put out the changes they did to test in the first place?
please, Tankers, stop agreeing we need to be nerfed. We don`t. We were fine, weren`t we?
The only real problems involved herding and PLng, both of which could have been cured in a half a dozen ways without these ludicrous changes.
We`re Tankers. Those who take the set do so because they want to be the "big guy." Those that don`t (and we are in a vast minority), take their AT knowing that Tankers are going to be the big guy. Maybe if everyone flocked to be an invul Tanker cause of how "great " we are, I`d accept there is a problem to address. But that`s hardly the case is it?
There never was a problem in the first place.
All these threads, suggesting that we should be nerfed this way or that are just fueling the devs, encouraging them that this nerf nerf nerf path is correct. Rather than ramping up the challenge around us.
I just wish we`de stuck together and said flat no.
Instead of all these compromises we ourselves are bandying about.
This isn`t the end of the nerfs. It`s the beginning. Wait until CoV really hits. You honestly think that they got the balance right there after seeing the [censored] up they made with balancing the current ATs?
And we`re encouraging them that the next time they dump on us, not only we`ll accept it but we`ll even suggest how to do it for them.
Sorry, people. I mean that. I do not want to flame this community. I`m proud to be a Tanker and I read the threads with interest and a certain pride that, as a group, we`re so articulate.
But after nerf nerf nerf and nerf again, plus all the insults that they have thrown our way (Positron saying how delighted they are with our support for the changes..) why are we helping them?
Who really believes they`ll get it "right" this time? They had it (from a powers point of view) about as right as they`re going to already and they don`t even see it.
There was nothing (overall) wrong with the powersets in the first place!
I posted this in the Dev Corner...just wanted to also post the info here
[ QUOTE ]
Some have asked "have you looked at Circeus' numbers?"
Of course! Circeus does an absolutely terrific job of number crunching. His spreadsheets are great.
Here's my analysis of them.
The Defense given by Invincibility is incorrect in the table. Invincibility has a cap of 14 mobs; no more. The Invincibility Defense max for Tankers (with the Enhancement limitations Circeus placed) around 53% not 107.8%.
That changes the numbers significantly, but Invulnerability still ends up superior overall.
Now that assumes that the Invulnerability Tanker has 14 mobs within the slight range of Invincibility. Let's say that there's only 7 mobs within reach. Now Invincibility's defense boost (according to Circeus' chart) drops down to 26.5%. A quick scan down at the damage comparison shows that Invulnerability is superior only in Smashing, Lethal Damage and Fire damage; Ice bests Invulnerability in the other categories.
Unless an Invulnerability Tanker fires off Invincibility when 12 or more mobs are within range, according to Circeus' chart, Ice Armor will be superior to Invulnerability against Cold, Psionic, Toxic, Energy and Negative.
Also, Frozen Armor and Glacial Armor have a base 16% Def, not 15%.
[/ QUOTE ]
And I'll quote my response to him...
[ 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.
For your 53% to be right, it'd have to be at about 1.75% or half of what people are recording. Is that correct, I'll feel free to update the spreadsheets for certain. Please note that people are recording a base of 2.625% for Scrappers for Invincibility, and that has tremendously more testing to back it up.
The spreadsheet takes the 14 mob cap into account for both EA and for Invincibility. And I hope you're adjusting both when you edit them. I'd be much keener if you just gave me the proper number to plug in.
And it assumes both have 14 mobs in range.
And as you said even if I change that base from 3.5% to 1.75% its still a very bleak output, even con:
Smash/Lethal: 807.54% damage vs Invuln
Energy/Negative: 158.47% damage vs Invuln
Fire: 548.90% damage vs Invuln
Cold: 80.72% damage vs Invuln
These numbers would make us the king of cold, which would be better for when you open a Winter Wonderland, but is otherwise not quite useful in the game mind you.
And what will the new percentages on Permafrost be, I'd like to figure that in too.
Sure dropping it to less than 14 mobs looks better for Ice somewhat, but not by much. Dropping to 10 (1 boss, 2 lts, 7 minions), it ends up looking like this even con:
Smash/Lethal: 432.73% damage vs Invuln
Energy/Negative: 84.92% damage vs Invuln (this looks much better comparitively)
Fire: 217.87% damage vs Invuln
Cold: 32.04% damage vs Invuln
And you're not reading the caveats that I posted, so lets go over them.
Toxic is impossible to tell, so is Psi. Please keep in mind that most Toxic and all Psi attacks are ranged and therefore they will not be in melee range to be affected by Chilling Embrace generally speaking.
I was very clear on this caveat, both on the spreadsheet, and in my posts and PMs. So don't gloss it over because its important. Very important, because its not really besting Invuln at all in either of these cases, it just appears to be.
Taking Chilling Embrace out of the picture, considering that these are ranged attacks, and figuring a smaller base value for Invinc, say 1.25% for ranged attacks, you will find that in fact vs both Psi and Toxic, Ice and Invuln are quite balanced, and its in fact why I generally don't mention either when discussing this.
In fact, for the curious, those numbers put Ice at taking 10% more (or 110%) Toxic damage than Invuln, and Invuln taking 10% more (or 110%) Psi damage than Ice. Which makes them balanced because as I stated earlier I felt 10% was a fair margin of error.
So please feel free to use my spreadsheet, but dont' violate the clauses I put into its use Thanks!!!
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, he skews the numbers on the mobs in Invincibles range to make Ice look better, but I'm assuming all numbers for Ice tankers come from being able to hit 14 mobs with EA...with the new defense of Ice Armor somehow I think agro'ing 14 mobs with EA for about 17% defense will reduce the Ice Tank to a pile of smoldering slush. And let's not even get into the fact that gathering mobs together without getting alpha'ed or whittled down to death before firing EA has ALWAYS been tricky at times...even before I5
The thing that kills Ice, to me, is the number of powers you have to get. With Invulnerability it's just Unyielding Stance and Invincibility. That's it! That's all I've chosen with my Tanks and they are amazingly good at it.
With Ice you need a whole host of powers to survive.
[ QUOTE ]
The thing that kills Ice, to me, is the number of powers you have to get. With Invulnerability it's just Unyielding Stance and Invincibility. That's it! That's all I've chosen with my Tanks and they are amazingly good at it.
With Ice you need a whole host of powers to survive.
[/ QUOTE ]
In Issue 5, you need Unyielding, Invincibility, Temp Inv and 7 villians in melee range 
[ QUOTE ]
With Ice you need a whole host of powers to survive.
[/ QUOTE ]
Both are 7 powers in my spreadsheet, and Invuln using only 4 more slots. And the spreadsheet is initially set to a mob grouping of more than 14 mobs, so both EA and Invincibility would be capped.
Just to be clear.
Or unyeilding, TI, and 2 luck inspirations.
Of course, with 7 enemies in range for EA..you get maybe 8.2% def at the most? (I know im wrong..I suck at math 
but its a rough approx)
Invincibility is what made Invuln so powerful. IMO, Invuln'ers will hate me saying this but Invincibility should be what EA is now in def % and Invincibility % should be in EA
This space is intentionally left blank.
We dont mind. Weve come to hate invincibility in a way. It cost us what we wanted of the set, our reistances.
in regards to those invincs #'s i doublechecked my own test math and i capped def at 7 minions in melee. That is i was getting hit only 1 in 20 times or every 3rd or so set of attacks from the 7. i used even level brawling melee types, operational engineers. I had -10% def UY running before it was dropped to 5% again and 6 slotted def SO+2 in my invince.
so to break that down:
7 even lvl melee attackers vs invince running 6 SO's = total def 45% (-10% for UY) = 55% def total
55%/7 mobs = 7.99 =8% per
8%/2.33=3.4% base. so yep something like 3.5 on base
Am i missing something??
8% x 14 = 112% def way over 50% def!
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, with 7 enemies in range for EA..you get maybe 8.2% def at the most? (I know im wrong..I suck at math but its a rough approx)
Invincibility is what made Invuln so powerful. IMO, Invuln'ers will hate me saying this but Invincibility should be what EA is now in def % and Invincibility % should be in EA
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually Uplink I agree, if Invuln still had it's resists that is exactly what should happen.
Yeah, I'm not convinced he's right either, but we'll see if he responds more.
I find it hard to believe that our testing on Invincie has been off by that much. I've personally been involved in 4 different tests, with admittedly small samples. I've also sent a 5,000ish attack demo to Circeus for him to do his counting magic on.
The result? Every result has been in the 3-4% range, at base. The demo test actually yielded a ~9.2% per mob bonus for a fully slotted (+3 SOs) Invincibility.
Furthermore, all the anecdotal evidence I've seen both here and on the test server tend to hold with the tested values. As someone previously pointed out, if you get 6-7 mobs in melee range with a slotted Invince, you're more or less capping even cons. It's extremely unlikely that people are confusing a net ~25-30% opponent to-hit for a net 5% opponent to-hit, even if they aren't testing scientifically.
I think that either States is mixing something up, or someone put the wrong value in the code by mistake. No blame assigned here; I know that States has a lot on his plate, and that the numbers aren't his speciality. I just don't see how his values could be the correct ones on the current version of I5 on Test.
Suffice it to say that the outlook is even bleaker than I imagined. Even with Invincibility at its apparent ~3.5% base value, Invuln Tankers were hardly tearing up the charts. I'd hoped that the Ice numbers were wrong, and that they'd see improvement. But sadly, it looks like Invincie's just in for another reduction instead.
On the plus side, I'm wondering what the deal is with the raised DEF cap. 2.5% instead of 5%? That'd be pretty sweet, although we'll need like 3 Defenders to reach it consistently.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
if they fix the sets and
Ice-gets defense
inv- gets resistance with no penalty and minor def
stone-gets resistance, def and psi protection with penalty cost
what does fire tank that will set it apart from the rest considering the average fire tanker never takes tough and stays at 66% S/L resistance.
That would only leave the now nerfed fiery embrace as the only thing that makes up for what the sets lack of defense