Holy crap.
That's really all I can say. And here I thought the devs were being cool by implementing a board-suggested power change(something I though of as being a near impossibility since beta).
Yup, that is ugly.
Above and beyond the negative effect of the CE change on Ice tank survivability (backed up by your numbers) there is something even more insidious about this change: The "adjustment" to CE appears to have been co-opted into a "There, All Fixed!" package by the developer. I do not expect anything further to come our way for quite some time.
Between this ice tank /ignore, the near global ignore on most substantive issues and the horrid Defense typing issues in both CoH and their new darling CoV (CoH 1.5 w/ all the same honesty, trust, and knee jerk changes - Anyone who thinks CoV is going to somehow be different is kidding themselves) it is real easy not to login.
Thanks for the Homework Amigo. No reasonable person would fault you for throwing in the towel. The only people that appear to be listening at this point are already in the foxhole with you.
TTR
I can't say as I'm really suprised. Ice/ has always been overpowered.... right?
Honestly, it never fails to impress me how underhanded the devs can be sometimes. Thanks for putting in the time and effort to come up with some numbers... in all honesty, I haven't run Ice Blocker since the updated for more than about an hour.
50 Tankers: Ice/EM, Stone/WM, Fire/Stone, Dark/Ice, Inv/SS, Inv/Dark, Elec/Elec
50 Brutes: ElecMelee/EA, WM/Elec
Not that there isn't an issue but what are you using for Inv? 14 foes, 10 foes, 1 foe? Just wondering.
I always doubted this change was a good thing, was nice to see the numbers on it. Those of you who say this change was underhanded though, I think you are giving the devs too much credit. Wayyy too much credit.
I wasn't duped. It sounded like a nerf to me. There was no way a tiny damage debuff was worth reducing the slow effect.
My Ice/Axe tanker takes more damage now, as if I wasn't taking damage fast enough before. 
Sigh.
/e tear
I was duped. I thought they were actually listening to tanks and were trying to improve Ice Tanks.
I have been really tired lately on any issue that trys to fight the devs mostly because of the 2 month effort to get them to acknowledge the nerf to Ennervating Field but I am starting to get really angry again.
I am not concerned anymore, I am just pissed off. (thinks about changing name and putting up an avatar of Menchi holding a mini gun)
My question though was that after they intoduced the change didn't you do a spreadsheet analysis that showed that Ice was better off than it was?
I believe these numbers to be correct, however isnt the new CE more advantageous in a shorter battle? I may be off base here but it seems to me that the -recharge wouldnt be a factor until you reach the point where it results in an extra attack being possible. Up until that point the -dmg would be preferable. For extreme examples, if the battle is over in 1 second then -dmg is preferable to extra -recharge. Whereas if the battle takes 10 minutes then the number of extra attacks allowed by the lesser -recharge totally outclass the -dmg aspect.
ie If an attack has a normal recharge of 4 secs, then it's old CE number is 6.668 secs and it's new CE number is 6 secs. After 27 seconds both will have been able to get off 4 attacks, so the new CE with the -dmg would be better. The overlap starts at 60 secs (or 15x the opponent's recharge) where the old CE will have allowed only 9 attacks and the new CE allows 10 attacks (no CE at all would have allowed 15 attacks). At that point the previous -dmg's (of only 7%) are completely cancelled out by the extra attack. So in this example the new CE would seem to be better up until the 60 sec mark and then increasingly inferior after the 60 sec mark (15x the 4 sec recharge).
So for battles that are over quickly the new CE is actually better, but for longer battles it is inferior. Does this make sense, or am I missing something?
[ QUOTE ]
Not that there isn't an issue but what are you using for Inv? 14 foes, 10 foes, 1 foe? Just wondering.
[/ QUOTE ]
There are 16 mobs in the comparison, but the point is more the net loss, not the comparison numbers themselves.
[ QUOTE ]
My question though was that after they intoduced the change didn't you do a spreadsheet analysis that showed that Ice was better off than it was?
[/ QUOTE ]
Here's the thing. Statesman handed me the 66.7% number implying that it would not change. The actualy CE change hit test while I was away, and I didn't get back until I5 hit the live servers (I was posting for a few days from my cruise ship). So I didn't manage to test the change until I got back.
So anything prior to that I was using the 66.7%.
But he had also told me the damage debuff would be 10%.
So I was using those numbers for any analysis before I went away.
When I got back I measured and posted about the Damage Debuff being only 7%. Complained then, and then adjusted my analysis (still using 66.7%).
And then I started to look at the -Recharge. I wanted to be sure I was satisfied that it was 50% and not 66.7% so I tested it vs a ton of different powers inside the arena. And outside running demos and even using my program to count stuff takes time. I was looking for it to be different for PvP than PvE, but PvE testing takes generally longer than PvP testing (I have 3 accounts, and a few computers so PvP testing is fairly easy for me to do).
But until now I never did any sort of complete analysis with it. It was only 3 nights ago I finally felt confident to call it 50% for both PvP and PvE.
Had it been the numbers I had been given originally 66.7% and 10% (which were prior to the actual change) Ice would have been better off.
[ QUOTE ]
So for battles that are over quickly the new CE is actually better, but for longer battles it is inferior. Does this make sense, or am I missing something?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah generally speaking my analysis is more geared toward teaming and longer battles than solo play. I'm hard pressed to find any character I can't solo with, except perhaps my Empath, but only because he has very few attacks (is designed to be team only really).
In very short battles though usually -Damage doesn't matter at all. I mean if the battle is <5s chances are you didn't take very much damage to begin with. So if the net is being alive whether you have your -Damage going or not then its ineffective.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not that there isn't an issue but what are you using for Inv? 14 foes, 10 foes, 1 foe? Just wondering.
[/ QUOTE ]
There are 16 mobs in the comparison, but the point is more the net loss, not the comparison numbers themselves.
[/ QUOTE ]
I saw the numbers and was really worried not seeing any foe numbers. At first I assumed against one then couldn't figure out how an Inv scrapper was doing so well. Sorry. But yeah Ice has been snuck once again.
::States holding damage debuff over Ice tankers head::
Ice tanker looks up "Is that for me. Yes great some help."
.
.
.
Ice tanker found doubled over in pain by a wandering Regenner "Hey man let me help you."
::Ice tanker stand wobbly after Regenner helped him to his feet::
"Whatever happened Pal?" Regenner asks.
"I was reaching for the damage debuff and got groin kicked by States with a nerf to the same power that's makes it worse then it was before the buff." Ice tanker explains.
Regenner nods. "Learn to wear a cup. Oh and always step away from getting "helped" by States."
What size damage debuff would get you closer to where you think they should be? (Just asking would be helpful if we had a number to throw their way when asked.)
Just as a side note. My Ice/EM tanker is actually a tad bit better ... I had 6 slots in Wet Ice before and now get those back for attacks.
Hey since weave does not help much does that reduce the benifit of the fighting pool enough to make it not worth taking or is it still a good idea.
So many questions sorry.
[ QUOTE ]
I always doubted this change was a good thing, was nice to see the numbers on it. Those of you who say this change was underhanded though, I think you are giving the devs too much credit. Wayyy too much credit.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was duped in how it was presented, both privately, and publically. It was promoted, by Statesman, as a positive change that would help us. Its clearly not though.
Well, this wouldn't be the first time that the development team lied to the players. (looks over at the EF nerf)
Once bitten, twice shy.
That or there is a huge lack of communication between Geko and Statesman.
[ QUOTE ]
Hey since weave does not help much does that reduce the benifit of the fighting pool enough to make it not worth taking or is it still a good idea.
[/ QUOTE ]
Weave doesn't just "not help much". It doesn't stack with Ice Armors at all....
[ QUOTE ]
That or there is a huge lack of communication between Geko and Statesman.
[/ QUOTE ]
I sort of feel this to be the case, and I have a friend who stated it quite nicely: what Statesman wants isn't necessarily what Statesman gets.
What can we as players actually do though to rectify the situation? Honestly, if the devs want us to be nerfed what does it take to change their minds? I look at the amount of work done and I am simply flabbergasted that this is still a persisting issue that the devs have not taken care of.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That or there is a huge lack of communication between Geko and Statesman.
[/ QUOTE ]
I sort of feel this to be the case, and I have a friend who stated it quite nicely: what Statesman wants isn't necessarily what Statesman gets.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I want to know just who decided it would be a good idea to nerf the -recharge. I don't feel right saying one developer is a bad egg if it was another developers decision. I want to know what the heck happened when they made the change.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey since weave does not help much does that reduce the benifit of the fighting pool enough to make it not worth taking or is it still a good idea.
[/ QUOTE ]
Weave doesn't just "not help much". It doesn't stack with Ice Armors at all....
[/ QUOTE ]
True but it does help very little. It does work against Psi so that's a little. I know it stinks for all tanks now, even more so for Ice.
One word: Perseverance
Lets face it, no one who creates anything likes negative commentary of any sort about their creation. They will work hard to either ignore the commentary and/or defend their creation. This is just basic human nature stuff: they want the complainers to go away.
So the key is, as in any uphill battle, don't walk away.
Maybe take a break, live to fight another day, but don't walk.
And definitely be pissed and not merely concerned 
[ QUOTE ]
What size damage debuff would get you closer to where you think they should be? (Just asking would be helpful if we had a number to throw their way when asked.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmm... I consider that a double edged question. To be honest, I'm not particularly fond of the damage debuff at all not when players suggested it, not when the change was announced, and not now.
The fact that its resistable bothers me more than anything else. It easily has the potential to be in the range of 0.7% to 1.75% in terms of the game, especially in terms of PvP. In terms of PvE its more often than not going to be 6.3% or less as its lowered due to relative mob level and that's the value vs a +1 mob.
So while I could easily say any higher number would help us more, and that the 10% I was originally told would help more. I would have rather it have been a flat unenhanceable RES vs All (yes All). As that would have achieved, at the very least, a fixed result vs the same damage types (All).
[ QUOTE ]
Just as a side note. My Ice/EM tanker is actually a tad bit better ... I had 6 slots in Wet Ice before and now get those back for attacks.
[/ QUOTE ]
My slots went to 3 to Health (to 6 slot it) and 2 to Hoarfrost (to 6 slot it). I generally say defensive slots go to defensive powers before I say they went to offensive powers.
That said, I'm fairly sure that 90% of Statesman's intent is for Ice to be Scrankers, as he pretty much said to exactly what you did to me: the extra slots mean you can slot for more damage. Which is BS as my core attacks were already 6 slotted by 50, and their slotting hasn't changed.
[ QUOTE ]
Hey since weave does not help much does that reduce the benifit of the fighting pool enough to make it not worth taking or is it still a good idea.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know, I didn't take it in I4 and I don't have it in I5. I still think its a "Salt to Taste" item. I'd rather have Health.
Well to tell the truth my tank is only 13 so I can't have health and my defense powers are as slotted as I can. I had barrage and bonesmasher both single slotted until this change so I moved those slots to my attacks. Generally I agree I would have slotted defenses but I really didn't have any I thought could use them yet. My Icer is young.
I'm really on the fence about the fighting pool. I don't want it, as I don't think any tank should need it but then I want my Icer to be a tank and well your numbers and reports from my two Icer pals has me worried that as you said Icers are better now as scrankers and well I have scrappers don't need to make a half-a$$ed one.
I guess I'll let him sit and think on it. Until I have decided I might as well break 40 with one of my other tanks.
Not suprised here either. That's how they do things. I figured they lowered the -recharge by more than the dmg debuff made up for, but since you hadn't posted the exact number( and I did notice the absence 
) i figured my guess was right and CE was slightly nerfed.
Level 50 is a journey, not a destination.
▲Scrapper Issues List - Going Rogue Edition▲
[ QUOTE ]
That said, I'm fairly sure that 90% of Statesman's intent is for Ice to be Scrankers, as he pretty much said to exactly what you did to me: the extra slots mean you can slot for more damage. Which is BS as my core attacks were already 6 slotted by 50, and their slotting hasn't changed.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am pretty sure thats their general policy with all tankers except Stone.
And then there is the fact that there are no (announced) defensive Primaries in CoV. Thats got to tell you something.
This is a song about a super hero named Tony. Its called Tony's theme.
Jagged Reged: 23/01/04
I've been holding off on posting this. Mostly because I was really hoping for follow up changes from I5, and that I wanted to try to look for a positive way to state this, but I don't feel there is one.
Why even bother to try to dupe the low population that play a powerset that was underpowered comparatively already, that was just handed a larger nerf than almost every other powerset in game? Who knows.
What it boils down to is this: the changes to Chilling Embrace in I5 were a nerf, not a buff. It was a change presented as a positive package, but on closer inspection its a nerf, a very light one, but its the sort of change that you almost wonder why, when looking at it more in depth, and measuring values, and comparing, why the heck the devs even bothered to make it.
NOTE: I'm not going to address the -SPD component for purposes of the rest of the post, it wasn't changed for I5 and behaves the same (near as I can tell)
In I4, Chilling Embrace had a -Recharge component that at its base level was a 66.7% debuff. What this means is that a recharge time of 10 becomes 10 * (1 + 66.7%) = 16.67s. This was a number provided by Statesman to me in private conversation, and one I verified on the live server at the time.
In I5, Chilling Embrace was given the addition of a -Damage debuff that after much testing, I'm fairly convinced has a base of around 7%. A more exact number is difficult to discern because this debuff is resistable by mobs who have RES vs the same damage type with which they are attacking.
However, at the same time the -Recharge debuff was dropped in effectiveness from 66.7% to 50%. I have run a few tests both inside and outside of the Arena (PvP and PvE) that I feel conclude this to be the number without a doubt.
The problem, adding the -Damage debuff, combined with the fact that it is resistable, while at the same time lowering the -Recharge, makes Chilling Embrace actually weaker than it was before.
Just some comparative results to show you the difference (Toxic/Psi not shown), please keep in mind that these numbers get worse when the -Damage component is resisted by mobs, which is quite often in game:
InvulnTank vs Ice Tankers (I5 changes, using I4 CE):
Smash/Lethal: 17.17% (amount of damage InvulnTank takes compared to Ice)
Energy/Negative: 100.17%
Fire: 37.86%
Cold: 218.62%
InvulnTank vs Ice Tankers (I5 changes, using I5 CE):
Smash/Lethal: 16.96% (amount of damage InvulnTank takes compared to Ice)
Energy/Negative: 98.94%
Fire: 37.37%
Cold: 215.83%
Net Losses:
Smash/Lethal: 1.223%
Energy/Negative: 1.228%
Fire: 1.294%
Cold: 1.276%
*****
Granite vs Ice Tankers (I5 Changes, using I4 CE):
Smash/Lethal: 23.48% (amount of damage Granite takes compared to Ice)
Energy/Negative: 23.48%
Fire: 8.33%
Cold: 48.09%
Granite vs Ice Tankers (I5 changes, using I5 CE):
Smash/Lethal: 23.20% (amount of damage Granite takes compared to Ice)
Energy/Negative: 23.20%
Fire: 8.22%
Cold: 47.50%
Net Losses:
Smash/Lethal: 1.193%
Energy/Negative: 1.193%
Fire: 1.321%
Cold: 1.227%
*****
InvulnScrapper vs Ice Tankers (I5 changes, using I4 CE):
Smash/Lethal: 93.42% (amount of damage InvulnScrapper takes compared to Ice)
Energy/Negative: 252.59%
Fire: 92.96%
Cold: 536.86%
InvulnScrapper vs Ice Tankers (I5 changes, using I5 CE):
Smash/Lethal: 92.29% (amount of damage InvulnScrapper takes compared to Ice)
Energy/Negative: 249.53%
Fire: 91.79%
Cold: 530.09%
Net Losses:
Smash/Lethal: 1.209%
Energy/Negative: 1.211%
Fire: 1.259%
Cold: 1.261%
*****
Avg Loss vs InvulnTank: 1.256% (approx)
Avg Loss vs Granite: 1.234% (approx)
Avg Loss vs InvulnScrapper: 1.235% (approx)
Approx Avg Loss: 1.241%
Again, keep in mind that loss increases vs mobs that are resistant (RES) vs the same type of damage they are dealing.