[ QUOTE ]
OK...here's what Chilling Embrace ONCE did...
-0.4 to Recharge
We changed it to...
-.32 to Recharge
-.07 to Damage (thought it was .1, to be honest)
Needless to say, Circeus is right - it's a mild nerf! Eek.
We checked a change in so that Chillling Embrace will NOW be:
-.32 to Recharge
-.14 to Damage
I'll post tomorrow explaining these numbers...
[/ QUOTE ]
Groovy. I'm looking forward to both the explanation and Circeus' analysis of what the numbers mean to ice tanker survivability.
Thank you for the clarifying post.
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 ]
OK...here's what Chilling Embrace ONCE did...
-0.4 to Recharge
We changed it to...
-.32 to Recharge
-.07 to Damage (thought it was .1, to be honest)
Needless to say, Circeus is right - it's a mild nerf! Eek.
We checked a change in so that Chillling Embrace will NOW be:
-.32 to Recharge
-.14 to Damage
I'll post tomorrow explaining these numbers...
[/ QUOTE ]
Cool, based on our prior conversation I'm fairly certain how those numbers are used. Not gonna plug them anywhere until I read over your explanantion 
Back when we were talking you gave me the following falloff for the debuffs as follows (quote from you via PM):
[ QUOTE ]
The falloff for the effect of Chilling Embrace's Recharge and Damage Debuff works like this: the effect (after Enhancements) is multiplied according to this table
0 1.0
+1 .9
+2 .8
+3 .65
+4 .48
[/ QUOTE ]
I take it this is still the case, right?
Edits follow:
Oh and if everyone doesn't want to wait for Statesman's explanation, here's how the -Recharge components of the numbers likely work:
OriginalRecharge / (1 + RechargeDebuff) = NewRecharge
So if we have a power where OriginalRecharge is 10s...
When CE used to have "-0.4 to Recharge":
10s / (1 + -0.4) = 16.67s
(the same as saying 66.7% slower)
Using the new "-.32 to Recharge":
10s / (1 + -0.32) = 14.7s
(the same as saying 47% slower)
*****
What I'd also like to know is exactly how RES (Damage Resistance) works in terms of resisting the -Damage debuff. Is it direct, meaking that 10% RES lowers it as follows:
0.14 * (1 - 10%) = 0.126
Or is it more complicated than that?
Wow! I don't even play Ice and I gotta take my hat off for States here. Keep the dialogue and the fixes coming.
And well done, Circeus.
[ QUOTE ]
So, while Recharge = Base_Recharge*(1 + "recharge debuff") gives the correct answer for one special case, it is not how the game appears to handle recharge debuffs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now step back, and read the title of the thread. We're only talking about one power here and one particular debuff the power offers. Nowhere did I say "this is how Recharge debuffs work for the entire game". I was keeping it context of a specific conversation I had with Statesman, so that when he hopped here (because I asked him to) he'd be able to jump right in and grasp what I was saying right away. Which he did.
[ QUOTE ]
And level scaling does not seem to fall within that special case.
[/ QUOTE ]
Debuffs are affected by level in a different manner and falloff rate than other powers, and it may be quite possible that different debuffs fall off at different rates, though certain debuffs may use the same falloff rate as well.
I was given a specific debuff falloff rate (as you can see from my other post) by Statesman to use in my calculations. So its handled.
The way I look at your posts on this thread are simple: at least you didn't derail the conversation to the point where I wasn't able to get my point across to Statesman.
[ QUOTE ]
Thus - just for some extreme cases - a scrapper might not be able to tank as well as a true tanker, but there were very few actual situations that existed where the difference between that scrapper and that tank was discernable. A distinction without a difference, as it were.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now it's neccesary to split hairs about the term "tanking". Once Tanker Taunt was fixed so that Tankers did not have to depend on Provoke, no Scrapper could compare to the aggro holding capability of a Tanker. Not even an Invulnerability Scrapper. My Inv Scrapper was the first character I took into the 40s, and I can say with confidence that in a big battle relying on Invincibility alone for aggro control was pathetic compared to anything a Tanker with Taunt could achieve.
90% DR was decently broken all around, let alone for Scrappers. With the 75% DR cap for Scrappers and the changes to Taunt, no Scrapper could hold a candle to a Tanker for keeping mobs on themselves over their teammates.
But I'll grant that, back when Tankers needed Provoke and Scrappers could hit 90% DR, you could easily plug a properly built Invul Scrapper in for a Tanker and get about the same aggro control with more damage.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
I am really curious to see how he addresses resistances to the damage debuff. The same issue comes up for defenders constantly, so I am pretty much waiting on the edge of my seat.
[ QUOTE ]
Also, be clear that you're talking about Invuln scrappers here. Regen never could tank on the level of a tanker - it could handle infinite damage below a certain threshold, but invuln and stone tankers could handle much more than that due to capped resists, more hit points, and even moderate health regen (higher for stone than invuln). Dark Armor could cap smash/lethal, but couldn't tank at all without defender support or extensive inspiration use (I did tank Shadowhunter pre-stacking through the use of lucks and disciplines, with DE + Tough). Super Reflexes couldn't attack while using Elude until issue 2, and pre-issue 1, defensive values were half what they were until issue 5.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you are talking invulnerable scrappers back then, its accurate we are talking about spines scrappers. Spine/Invulnerable scrappers in a herding sense were better than any Invulnerable tanker out there. They could handle a high enough level to gain a better exp per min ratio. This of course is situational, but with different mob types everything is situational. To this day, my regen can tank malaise better than my fire tank, but not as well as a stone tank. Back then when the resists for scrappers were higher, the difference in HP was offset by the better dmg scrappers did. Now, a year or so later, the roles are more defined in their capabilities.
If you throw inspirations in the mix, anything is possible. In I3, I herded +3 Shadowhunter faster with my spines regen (using lucks only) than my fire tank. In I4, my tank was slightly faster, and in I5, my regen cant do it at all and my non burn fire/fire can.
This proves you are right about a scrapper playing the role of a Tanker to a degree, but i think back in I2, scrappers were very very close in comparison to where there was little difference, and Invulnerable being the only one who did surpass the Tanker AT...Your original statement was never ever ever, when in fact Invulnerable scrappers were.
Yeah, my ice/em was my favorite toon on COH, ever.
Now he's pretty much ruined...which sucks, cause I keep looking for ways to play him, but he just can't keep up. I'm not high enough for pvp, and I just don't see any way for him to slog through the next 20 levels at this level of effectiveness.
I don't know who told States that endurance was my big problem anyway, but I was majorly disappointed in the I5 changes to this set, especially in light of what should have been a long-expected buff. Instead, in this case and in EAs case, we got a stealth-nerf. 
Once again, proof that empirical data collected through in game testing and concise, polite posts are the best way to bring these things to a devs attention.
Good job.
Formerly "Back Alley Brawler"
[ QUOTE ]
Why did it need the -Recharge changed?
Was it that overpowered with the damage debuff?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, States said it was basically a 7% damage debuff, which is not insignificant. Now it's being upped to 14%. That's a pretty nice damage decrease!!! My own feelings is that the original recharge rate, combined with a debuff that large, might verge on being unbalancing. Remember, the debuff applies to the villains and reduces their damage regardless of their target. Someone turning their attention away from the tank and firing on the blaster or defender will still be debuffed, so in a way, it has one advantage over just adding resistances to the tank in that everyone on the team would benefit.
Arc ID#30821, A Clean Break
The only problem with defeating the Tsoo is that an hour later, you want to defeat them again!
"Life is just better boosted!" -- LadyMage
"I'm a big believer in Personal Force Field on a blaster. ... It's your happy place." -- Fulmens
[ QUOTE ]
Once again, proof that empirical data collected through in game testing and concise, polite posts are the best way to bring these things to a devs attention.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was concise and polite? I must be slacking
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...So why are we bringing this up again? JUST UP OUR DEFENSE ALREADY, DAMNIT!
[/ QUOTE ]
Because the RES thing is resistable, so it doesn't always even out, even if the math says it does, which I'm not sure it does.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but the -Recharge on I4 CE had the same problem, so I think the I4 and I5 CEs would've worked out in the end.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So anyway, they're roughly the same, and your measly 1.3%-difference numbers support this (I should've just looked at those numbers first, eh). But since the damage debuff works instantly (whereas the recharge debuff won't work on the alpha-strike), we can count that as a miniscule buff.
[/ QUOTE ]
The 1.3%ish number comes out of the fact that its only 33% + 7% if the mobs are +0. And I calculate for mobs in the +0 to +4 range. Also keep in mind that most mobs have, at the very least, resistance to Smash/Lethal which means in geneneral its not really 40%... well... ever.
[/ QUOTE ]
But if you talk about level scaling, then your argument won't be about whether CE was mini-nerfed in I5, but about whether the other Tankers do better than Ice against higher-level mobs-- and we already know the answer to that.
But that's all moot now-- Statesman's upping the damage debuff to 14%! Yay! Frankly speaking, this is still only a modest boost-- other damage debuff powers get like 20-30%, don't they? I hope Statesman can give us a higher number.
[ QUOTE ]
If you are talking invulnerable scrappers back then, its accurate we are talking about spines scrappers. Spine/Invulnerable scrappers in a herding sense were better than any Invulnerable tanker out there. They could handle a high enough level to gain a better exp per min ratio. This of course is situational, but with different mob types everything is situational. To this day, my regen can tank malaise better than my fire tank, but not as well as a stone tank. Back then when the resists for scrappers were higher, the difference in HP was offset by the better dmg scrappers did. Now, a year or so later, the roles are more defined in their capabilities.
[/ QUOTE ]
Er, the only thing Spines had going for it was a PBAoE damage toggle on top of Invincibility, in a herding sense. A tanker still had better survivability.
Also, nice cherrypicking of AVs with regard to Malaise. "My scrapper, who doesn't care about what type of damage is incoming could survive meleeing with a psionic AV, who completely pwned my fire tanker - who has no psi resistance. Further said AV is notoriously weak."
[ QUOTE ]
If you throw inspirations in the mix, anything is possible. In I3, I herded +3 Shadowhunter faster with my spines regen (using lucks only) than my fire tank. In I4, my tank was slightly faster, and in I5, my regen cant do it at all and my non burn fire/fire can.
[/ QUOTE ]
Blaze taunted in issue 3. If you were having an easier time gathering wolves with your spines scrapper than your fire tanker, you were perhaps doing something wrong with your fire tanker.
[ QUOTE ]
This proves you are right about a scrapper playing the role of a Tanker to a degree, but i think back in I2, scrappers were very very close in comparison to where there was little difference, and Invulnerable being the only one who did surpass the Tanker AT...Your original statement was never ever ever, when in fact Invulnerable scrappers were.
[/ QUOTE ]
Invulnerable scrappers were never ever ever ever as durable as invulnerable tankers, and you know this full well. For many situations, they were durable enough. Even before issue 3, all tanker attacks had inherent taunt, making aggro control superior to anything scrappers could manage, although not as good as it is now.
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 ]
Yeah, but the -Recharge on I4 CE had the same problem, so I think the I4 and I5 CEs would've worked out in the end.
[/ QUOTE ]
No -Recharge is affected by level difference, but its not resisted (except by +Recharge). -Damage is both affected by level difference and it is resisted. This is how things have always worked.
[ QUOTE ]
But if you talk about level scaling, then your argument won't be about whether CE was mini-nerfed in I5, but about whether the other Tankers do better than Ice against higher-level mobs-- and we already know the answer to that.
[/ QUOTE ]
Baby steps. Its an uphill battle, you take what you can when you can.
[ QUOTE ]
But that's all moot now-- Statesman's upping the damage debuff to 14%! Yay! Frankly speaking, this is still only a modest boost-- other damage debuff powers get like 20-30%, don't they? I hope Statesman can give us a higher number.
[/ QUOTE ]
Other damage debuff powers belong to controllers and defenders though, to me it seems reasonable they'll be better at it. Doubling the debuff will work out very well. Essentially we'll be getting twice the benefit vs +0s and what we're getting right now on live vs +4 opponents (which I really don't fight very much personally) at its base effectiveness. The way its resisted still has me concerned, as since most things are generally have some form of RES and often to their own damage types, the power will be generally resisted in some manner.
And no, it won't stop us from being sub-par.
[ QUOTE ]
But that's all moot now-- Statesman's upping the damage debuff to 14%! Yay! Frankly speaking, this is still only a modest boost-- other damage debuff powers get like 20-30%, don't they? I hope Statesman can give us a higher number.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually that's pretty sweet. It's about half the potency of Darkest Night or Enervating Field only you dont have to worry about someone killing your anchor or about the anchor wandering off because you are the anchor. Since you're also the tanker, and will presumably also have most if not all of the mobs in your melee range, it's going to be affecting the greatest number of enemies possible. And remember it's a debuff so it works for your teammates as well, not just yourself.
I like it. With the debuff doubled it's a nice power, more like a Defender power than a Tanker power, and a neat unique ability for Ice. Maybe my brains not quite working right at the moment (I have been at work all day) but the only other Tanker AoE debuff power that comes to mind is the pathetic slow in Mudpots.
WELL DONE CIRCEUS!!!!!!
I'm only dissappointed that it took a paying player's time to find this out. One would hope that Devs would fully test out all the contextual ramifications of Changing (nerfing) a power, guess thats too much to ask.
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, my ice/em was my favorite toon on COH, ever.
Now he's pretty much ruined...which sucks, cause I keep looking for ways to play him, but he just can't keep up. I'm not high enough for pvp, and I just don't see any way for him to slog through the next 20 levels at this level of effectiveness.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't want to derail this thread, but I guess I jsut don't agree with you on this point, Ice tanks asre still good tanks, if played skillfully. no they cant blunder through a mish the way a stone tank can, but ice tanks are still great imho
[ QUOTE ]
Once again, proof that empirical data collected through in game testing and concise, polite posts are the best way to bring these things to a devs attention.
Good job.
[/ QUOTE ]
Polite posts, common sense, and thousands of emails have got us no where. The "only if Statesman says you're having fun or not having fun" way seems to prevail. Which is like having someone tell me I REALLY like eating spicy food no matter how much I'm crying, spitting it out, and simply saying "I do not like Spicey food!" Of course none of this could possibly mean I REALLY DO NOT LIKE spicey food.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The falloff for the effect of Chilling Embrace's Recharge and Damage Debuff works like this: the effect (after Enhancements) is multiplied according to this table
0 1.0
+1 .9
+2 .8
+3 .65
+4 .48
[/ QUOTE ]
I take it this is still the case, right?
[/ QUOTE ]
I hope it is: its the purple patch in action:
[ QUOTE ]
Foes your level have not changed. You have a 75% chance to hit and your powers are 100% effective.
Foes 1 level above you - No Change. You have a 68% chance to hit and your powers are 90% effective.
Foes 2 levels above you - No Change. You have a 61% chance to hit and your powers are 80% effective.
Foes 3 levels above you - You have a 55% chance to hit and your powers are 65% effective.
Foes 4 levels above you - You have a 48% chance to hit and your powers are 48% effective.
Foes 5 levels above you - You have a 41% chance to hit and your powers are 30% effective.
Foes 6 levels above you - You have a 34% chance to hit and your powers are 15% effective.
Foes 7 levels above you - You have a 25% chance to hit and your powers are 8% effective.
Foes 8 levels above you - You have an 11% chance to hit and your powers are 5% effective.
Foes 9 levels above you - You have a 6% chance to hit and your powers are 4% effective.
Foes 10 levels above you - You have a 5% chance to hit and your powers are 3% effective.
Foes 11 levels above you - You have a 5% chance to hit and your powers are 2% effective.
Foes 12+ levels above you - You have a 5% chance to hit and your powers are 1% effective.
[/ QUOTE ]
If it wasn't, I'd be confused.
[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.)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once again, proof that empirical data collected through in game testing and concise, polite posts are the best way to bring these things to a devs attention.
Good job.
[/ QUOTE ]
Polite posts, common sense, and thousands of emails have got us no where. The "only if Statesman says you're having fun or not having fun" way seems to prevail. Which is like having someone tell me I REALLY like eating spicy food no matter how much I'm crying, spitting it out, and simply saying "I do not like Spicey food!" Of course none of this could possibly mean I REALLY DO NOT LIKE spicey food.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you don't like spicy food you're no friend of mine.
Wait, who are you? 
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 ]
Also, be clear that you're talking about Invuln scrappers here. Regen never could tank on the level of a tanker - it could handle infinite damage below a certain threshold, but invuln and stone tankers could handle much more than that due to capped resists, more hit points, and even moderate health regen (higher for stone than invuln).
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, specifically I was thinking about spines/invuln (which had a nice damage aura to stack on top of the invincibility taunt aura) as a great herder, and DM/invuln (which has a nice set of tools including some -acc and a self heal to compensate for the lower health of scrappers to tanks) as a good stand-there-and-take-it scrapper (not that it couldn't herd as well). Potentially, the net damage-taking capability of DM/invuln (when scrappers had 90% resists) was as good as any invuln/* tank, given siphon life. When invincibility was high, both DM/invuln and invuln/* could potentially floor villains (which means the power was equal regardless of numbers), both capped out the same on resists (equal), and invuln/* had 40% more health against DM's periodic self-heal (tough call).
[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.)
[ QUOTE ]
If it wasn't, I'd be confused.
[/ QUOTE ]
It pays to double check just the same.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once again, proof that empirical data collected through in game testing and concise, polite posts are the best way to bring these things to a devs attention.
Good job.
[/ QUOTE ]
Polite posts, common sense, and thousands of emails have got us no where. The "only if Statesman says you're having fun or not having fun" way seems to prevail. Which is like having someone tell me I REALLY like eating spicy food no matter how much I'm crying, spitting it out, and simply saying "I do not like Spicey food!" Of course none of this could possibly mean I REALLY DO NOT LIKE spicey food.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nobody likes boring food. If your eyes are watering, its burning your tongue, and you're ejecting it from your mouth at high speed, that just means you're having a more active eating experience. You get the same amount of calories, but at a significantly higher entertainment level.
[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.)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once again, proof that empirical data collected through in game testing and concise, polite posts are the best way to bring these things to a devs attention.
Good job.
[/ QUOTE ]
Polite posts, common sense, and thousands of emails have got us no where. The "only if Statesman says you're having fun or not having fun" way seems to prevail. Which is like having someone tell me I REALLY like eating spicy food no matter how much I'm crying, spitting it out, and simply saying "I do not like Spicey food!" Of course none of this could possibly mean I REALLY DO NOT LIKE spicey food.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nobody likes boring food. If your eyes are watering, its burning your tongue, and you're ejecting it from your mouth at high speed, that just means you're having a more active eating experience. You get the same amount of calories, but at a significantly higher entertainment level.
[/ QUOTE ]
Eating while possessed, Linda Blair style, also satisfies these requirements. I'm sure we can all agree that this is an excellent dining experience. Think ambiance...
[ QUOTE ]
I think, back in the good ol' days, scrappers could tank sufficiently efficiently, that the only thing that could bring some of them down was the purple patch, and the purple patch is exponential in effect. The problem was that sometimes, the difference in efficiency between a really well-built scrapper and a really well-built tank went so high up the scale, that in effect the difference between the two was lower than the difference in difficulty between notches in the purple patch. In effect (and with made up numbers) it was entirely possible to have a scrapper and a tanker such that both could tank +8s, but neither could tank +9s - something like that.
[/ QUOTE ]
Scrappers tanking well enough was post-Purple Patch, and largely because of it - tanker defenses were valuable when you were fighting +8s, for example. The complaints largely came about in issue 2, precipitated by a few discontents in issue 1. The other thing that made a big difference was adding 10 more levels, and making it possible for scrappers to slot defenses and attacks rather thoroughly, and removing some of the sense of mediocrity scrappers had pre-issue 1.
[ QUOTE ]
Thus - just for some extreme cases - a scrapper might not be able to tank as well as a true tanker, but there were very few actual situations that existed where the difference between that scrapper and that tank was discernable. A distinction without a difference, as it were.
[/ QUOTE ]
Also, be clear that you're talking about Invuln scrappers here. Regen never could tank on the level of a tanker - it could handle infinite damage below a certain threshold, but invuln and stone tankers could handle much more than that due to capped resists, more hit points, and even moderate health regen (higher for stone than invuln). Dark Armor could cap smash/lethal, but couldn't tank at all without defender support or extensive inspiration use (I did tank Shadowhunter pre-stacking through the use of lucks and disciplines, with DE + Tough). Super Reflexes couldn't attack while using Elude until issue 2, and pre-issue 1, defensive values were half what they were until issue 5.
[ QUOTE ]
Mind you, I'm all for precision in language, especially when discussing more sensitive topics. Technically, scrappers as a group could never tank with the same efficiency as tankers as a group. However, there were many cases where scrappers could survive the tanking role to the same degree as tankers for all game situations ever encountered or were likely to be encountered. Those are subtly different statements, which probably helps perpetuates this argument.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, which is why I said, "A completely reasonable argument could be made that they could tank well enough, and that I'll grant you."
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)