[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are correct sir. It tells me alot. It tells me that I am dropping CoH like a bad habit if I continue to play at all.
i'm suprised no one has brought up the "there should be one melee class" idea again. 
Level 50 is a journey, not a destination.
▲Scrapper Issues List - Going Rogue Edition▲
[ QUOTE ]
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.
<snip>
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, given that Recharge = Base_Recharge/(1 + bonus), it seems like it currently has a debuff of about 33%.
In the examples used above, the results will be the same, but that's not generally so.
Also, it seems that if the debuff had been 10% (Which I believe is the number Statesman first gave), the "effective damage mitigation" of CE would have been the same in I4 and I5.
But then we have to consider that damage debuffs are much more commonly resisted than recharge debuffs.
OTOH, recharge debuffs only reach their "maximum potential" if all activation times are zero...
I'll doublecheck the numbers today and post something in this thread (hopefully today).
[ QUOTE ]
i'm suprised no one has brought up the "there should be one melee class" idea again.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's a longstanding idea, and I think it should be looked at again in light of I5 balancing and CoV.
I don't expect Tankers as a concept to survive much after the CoV release with its two offensive-oriented melee classes and its highly notable lack of a defensive melee class.
Oh, there might still be a Tanker AT, but it will look a lot more like the Scrapper/Brute/Stalker than it does now. I don't think that predicting an exodus towards the Brute AT for long-suffering brick players is a risky bet. 
[ QUOTE ]
You are correct sir. It tells me alot. It tells me that I am dropping CoH like a bad habit if I continue to play at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
Amen. Agreed 100%.
[ QUOTE ]
i'm suprised no one has brought up the "there should be one melee class" idea again.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's a dumb idea anyway.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
[ QUOTE ]
Poster: KaliMagdalene
[ QUOTE ]
i'm suprised no one has brought up the "there should be one melee class" idea again.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's a dumb idea anyway.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then it is something Jack is planning then. 
(Virtue/Champion) Neil Fracas: Inv/SS
(Virtue) Gideon Fontaine: MA/SR (Sc), Generic Hero 114: Ice/Cold, Marcus Tyler AR/En, Project F: Spines/DA (S)
(Champion) Jenna Sidal BS/SD, Generic Hero 114: En/En (Bl), Loganne Claws/WP (Sc)
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, given that Recharge = Base_Recharge/(1 + bonus), it seems like it currently has a debuff of about 33%.
In the examples used above, the results will be the same, but that's not generally so.
[/ QUOTE ]
The 66.7% number from Statesman came with an explanation of how that number would be applied. Which would be: Base * (1+X) or in this case Base * (1 + 66.7%).
Based on my testing, the current number that fits that equation is 50%. I provide the number this way more so that he understands it than the general public, but I did also provide the number with an explanation of how it is applied.
I do agree from the standpoint of where you and I generally talk that a 66.7% debuff is 40% slower and a 50% debuff is 33.33% slower than base.
[ QUOTE ]
Then it is something Jack is planning then.
[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt it. The devs come up with some really good ideas, and some ideas I really hate, but aren't always dumb. Compared to things I've seen players come up with -
* Controllers need to do scrapper-level damage
* Scrapper primaries should be nine variations on brawl
* Give Defiance to scrappers
Stuff like that.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
[ QUOTE ]
I'll doublecheck the numbers today and post something in this thread (hopefully today).
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks!
While you're at it I don't suppose you'll throw the bone of the -Damage and -Recharge on Granite Armor would you?
Some Devs like to say something is sugar coated, when it's really nothing but Equal on it. For example, making Regen Scrapper's IH a click power instead of a toggle and saying "this will save a lot of the endurance issues regens have with running IH as a toggle". In reality, I never had an end issue with IH running. So this nerf to Ice Tanks doesn't surprise me. Fight the powers that be Ice people, cause next they'll start making you melt or something and their excuse will be it's global warming.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, given that Recharge = Base_Recharge/(1 + bonus), it seems like it currently has a debuff of about 33%.
In the examples used above, the results will be the same, but that's not generally so.
[/ QUOTE ]
The 66.7% number from Statesman came with an explanation of how that number would be applied. Which would be: Base * (1+X) or in this case Base * (1 + 66.7%).
Based on my testing, the current number that fits that equation is 50%. I provide the number this way more so that he understands it than the general public, but I did also provide the number with an explanation of how it is applied.
I do agree from the standpoint of where you and I generally talk that a 66.7% debuff is 40% slower and a 50% debuff is 33.33% slower than base.
[/ QUOTE ]
The thing is that while they give the same results "in a vacuum", they are different when other recharge buffs/debuffs enter the picture.
CE:
1+0.5 = 1.5
1/(1-1/3) = 1/(2/3) = 3/2 = 1.5
1.5==1.5
now consider 2 applications of a debuff of CE's magnitude.
1+2*0.5 = 2
1/(1 - 2/3) = 1/(1/3) = 3
2!=3
They should also react differently when we consider scaling due to level difference...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll doublecheck the numbers today and post something in this thread (hopefully today).
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks!
While you're at it I don't suppose you'll throw the bone of the -Damage and -Recharge on Granite Armor would you?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd much rather have him give us an answer to the defense stacking issues we're been talking about for days now.
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 ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're raising hell over about a 16% recharge decline when most of us had our DEF dropped in HALF or More?? My SuperiorInvis only offers 1/4 of the protection it used to in Combat. My Entire concept has to be reworked from the ground up now. I won't even mention how badly Inv and FF builds got REAL nerfed. ...And here's Statesman goin "gee, I'll look at this" ... WTH! ... Where's the concern for the real issues? Why aren't those being put to bed first?
[ QUOTE ]
They should also react differently when we consider scaling due to level difference...
[/ QUOTE ]
Stargazer, okay I get that. Thanks. But listen closely, this is not a thread about direct comparisons to other sets its a thread to show that the numbers got worse not better with the change. And to do that I'm trying to keep the numbers in terms in which the devs talk about them, not us.
Statesman called the debuff 66.7%, and I could verify that based on what he told me that's an accurate way to represent the number. The 50% number I'm giving plugs into the equation he gave me to demonstrate how things work in I5, this way he and I are on the same page in discussing this.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I can't present things your way, and get my point across to the devs if they're speaking a different language.
And since we're talking about the debuffs from a single power there are no other debuffs to overlap them, so what you're saying, while techinically correct, doesn't matter for purposes of this conversation, and I'd ask that you not muddle this thread with it.
And for the record, my analysis is a comparison done over the +0 through +4 range for mobs. So it does take level into account.
[ QUOTE ]
You're raising hell over about a 16% recharge decline when most of us had our DEF dropped in HALF or More?? My SuperiorInvis only offers 1/4 of the protection it used to in Combat. My Entire concept has to be reworked from the ground up now. I won't even mention how badly Inv and FF builds got REAL nerfed. ...And here's Statesman goin "gee, I'll look at this" ... WTH! ... Where's the concern for the real issues? Why aren't those being put to bed first?
[/ QUOTE ]
To be blunt, Ice Armor was nerfed quite possibly worse than every single other powerset out there bar none, even Invuln. Its powers were gutted by a much higher percentage then most when you take Energy Absorption into the picture.
So yeah, I'll fight for a measely little bit of scrap leftover if I have to, because when all you've got to eat is crumbs, every crumb is a meal.
If I remember correctly, people kept throwing around how you increase enemies' recharge times by 25%. That means that the "debuff" the way you're using it has always been 50% as according to others. There hasn't really been a "lowering" in this case.
But really, doesn't everyone ALREADY know that Ices were "duped?" Our armors can't floor an even-con mob, for Pete's sake! We used to be able to floor up to +3s-- WITHOUT EA! The resistance-based guys are still capping against +3s, ladies and gentlemen! And come on, did ANYONE think that a 7% damage debuff was a meaningful addition to our powers? We should've been getting twice that, at least!
Right now, I say we fight for where we're REALLY getting hit-- our DEFENSE. This 25/33/whatever % delayed resistance in CE that we're getting, it's negligible compared to our defense. There's no reason why we can't have 20% base Frozen/Glacial and 5-10% unenhanceable Wet Ice!
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
I've thought about it a lot and I have decided that ultimately, we can't do anything. We can test, post, data crunch, argue, use logic, and be as passionate as we want, and the devs are just going to do whatever it is they want to do anyway.
I have better things to do with my time than be their datamine source. Screw the Test server, screw collecting data, screw trying to be helpful to them. It's not worth it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'm suprised no one has brought up the "there should be one melee class" idea again.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's a dumb idea anyway.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's really not. Having a Tanker class to begin with was a bad idea. A whole section of heroes that can be beaten quickly, but they can't defeat enemies quickly either? That's guaranteed to be disappointing, and that's the way it has worked out. Over and over we've had people say they made a Tank because of the powersets, and then got upset because it wasn't fun. Even Statesman has said he regrets forming the archetyes so heavily around the classic MMO classes. The result was that they have had to raise the damage that Tanks do, but to offset that they've had to lower the ability to take damage. The whole thing isn't working out.
Before the devs lowered the defense caps on Scrappers, Scrappers were able to *make* tanks using power pools. They were actually better than tanks because they could tank *and* defeat enemies in a reasonable amount of time. If the game had shipped without a Tanker At, everyone who really loves the tanker playerstyle could have done that and been better of.
I think that getting rid of Tanks now would be much harder than if they'd just shipped that way originally, but it's still worth considering. Change all Tanks to scrappers. Open up all the powersets to both sides, so an Axe/Regen character would become possible. Raise the Scrapper defense caps so that the former tankers could still tank if the wanted to sacrifice a few more powers to tanking.
It'd be painful, but it would be worth considering. It' probably too late in the game to do it, but it's worth discussing at least.
[ QUOTE ]
If I remember correctly, people kept throwing around how you increase enemies' recharge times by 25%. That means that the "debuff" the way you're using it has always been 50% as according to others. There hasn't really been a "lowering" in this case.
[/ QUOTE ]
In my case 50% means the recharge time increases 50%. So I'm not sure what you're saying here, but it seems what I'm saying is different.
As for the rest... well I agree we do underperform, greatly.
I don't think the devs really nailed down the defensive sets. They're insanely complicated compared to resistance-based sets.
Before I5 went live, Statesman ran a bubbler through Croatoa on Test using a "defensive" build that had 6-slotted dispersion bubble plus maneuvers and combat jumping. But ... ummm ... pool defense don't stack with dispersion unless they cover something DB doesn't. At the time, that'd be toxic, psy, and untyped. Three damage types that don't show up much in the game, especially in the level-range for Croatoa.
I feel for you guys. But something tells me that the devs are going to have to revisit defense for I6 to fix up the type / axis mess, and to make defense meaningful in PvP. I think it was supposed to be ice's debuffs and FF's knockback 'n' repel that put those sets up on par with their brethren, but it never really seemed to happen.
But here's hoping it will.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I remember correctly, people kept throwing around how you increase enemies' recharge times by 25%. That means that the "debuff" the way you're using it has always been 50% as according to others. There hasn't really been a "lowering" in this case.
[/ QUOTE ]
In my case 50% means the recharge time increases 50%. So I'm not sure what you're saying here, but it seems what I'm saying is different.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, so there's some misunderstanding going on there.
But in that case, people have always said that the debuff was 25%-- heck, you yourself referenced this number this once! If we have a 50% debuff now, that's STILL a buff from before (albeit not as good as 66.7%).
If you were to ask me, I would even venture to say that the 50% debuff was added in I5. I certainly didn't notice a significant change when Trolls were Brawling me in I3 (2-second Brawl -> 2.5-second Brawl), but I DEFINITELY noticed a change when Patrol Guards were Brawling me in I5 (2-second Brawl -> 4-second Brawl).
[ QUOTE ]
No, it's really not. Having a Tanker class to begin with was a bad idea. A whole section of heroes that can be beaten quickly, but they can't defeat enemies quickly either? That's guaranteed to be disappointing, and that's the way it has worked out. Over and over we've had people say they made a Tank because of the powersets, and then got upset because it wasn't fun. Even Statesman has said he regrets forming the archetyes so heavily around the classic MMO classes. The result was that they have had to raise the damage that Tanks do, but to offset that they've had to lower the ability to take damage. The whole thing isn't working out.
[/ QUOTE ]
Having a tanker in a superhero MMO isn't a great idea, no, but saying that "thus, both melee ATs should be one melee AT" is not really an improvement.
It could be argued that tankers should have been bricks, with offense primary/defense secondary, and given melee powersets with the slow recharging heavy hitting attacks that people have wanted for tankers for a long time (and to some extent, already have). However, that doesn't really leave room for characters like Spider-Man, Nightcrawler, Beast, Wolverine, Batman, and the like - melee characters who are not bricks, and who are thematically quite different..
[ QUOTE ]
Before the devs lowered the defense caps on Scrappers, Scrappers were able to *make* tanks using power pools. They were actually better than tanks because they could tank *and* defeat enemies in a reasonable amount of time.
[/ QUOTE ]
God, tankers with mature offense never had trouble defeating enemies in a reasonable amount of time. Ever. Ever. Ever. I'm so tired of that canard. Yes, you had 70% base scrapper damage, but you also had some hard-hitting attacks in most of the secondaries. If you had trouble defeating enemies in a reasonable amount of time, you were neglecting your attacks and blaming game mechanics.
And, scrappers could not tank as well as tankers. Never. Ever. Ever. Ever. That was never true, is not true, and never will be true. A completely reasonable argument could be made that they could tank well enough, and that I'll grant you.
[ QUOTE ]
I think that getting rid of Tanks now would be much harder than if they'd just shipped that way originally, but it's still worth considering. Change all Tanks to scrappers. Open up all the powersets to both sides, so an Axe/Regen character would become possible. Raise the Scrapper defense caps so that the former tankers could still tank if the wanted to sacrifice a few more powers to tanking.
It'd be painful, but it would be worth considering. It' probably too late in the game to do it, but it's worth discussing at least.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you're going to get rid of tankers, make them into bricks or something. Don't bother to turn them into scrappers.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it looks like the Devs have decided that defensive primary powersets are a mistake. Let's face it - the point of playing such a set is to become more-or-less invulnerable. But that causes balance problems for the Devs. How do you challenge a mostly invulnerable character? The Dev solution in CoV is simply to not allow such a character in the first place - which I must admit is likely the right choice. But in CoH, the Devs seem to be stuck with this white elephant since they don't really have the option to remove the Tanker AT entirely. This doesn't bode well for the future.
Liberty
Mister Mass - 50 Inv/SS/NRG Mut Tank [1236]
Doc Willpower - 50 Grav/FF/Psi Mag Controller
Baron Wonder - 50 SS/Elec/Mu Mag Brute
Sound Bight - 50 Son/Son/Mu Tech Corrupter