[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
So States always does what he says?.....um where is the explanation?....lol
[/ QUOTE ]
The guy's been at a press conference! Give him time!
[/ QUOTE ]
Like...an extra day? Or 100% more time than he himself said he needed? I'd like my subscription fee to cover double the amount of time I signed up for, just cause I need some more time, you know, didn't get around to things I wanted to do, I'm sure the accountants at NCSoft will understand how it is. *rolls eyes*
No, I'm actually just "breaking balls" here, but it is kind of funny...my first post in this thread was about believing the changes would go through when I see em, and one of the first things that happens afterwards is States not doing one of the two things he said he was going to do in the post I was referring to.
All I'm saying is, if he goes 0 for 2, I'm gonna come in with a big, fat, "I told you so". Fair warning. 
~DJ
PS-Failure to meet a commitment because of a forseeable event (like a press conferance) is the same kind of short-sightedness and lack of regard that the constant nerfing, testing, and "balancing" the Devs force on us demonstrates.
Is there anyone out there who honestly believes it's taken well over a year to figure out the kind of stuff that gets changed in patches? Is there anyone out there who honestly doesn't believe its either evindence of incredibly dim leadership or an ulterior motive? Hey...I was willing to work with you on Issue 2. Then issue 3. Then, hey, what the hell, issue 4 had pvp introduced, so some changes there would be appropriate. But then in issue 5...what the **** is going on?
Back to the conferance, it's not like it snuck up on him or anything, he knew it was coming. Nor did the Devs really sit down and hunker over the whole Hammy situation before they unleashed that unholy mess on us, or any one of a dozen others. There's a parallel there.
Bottom line, if something is important to you, you make it happen. They just don't seem to think this kind of stuff is that important.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
So States always does what he says?.....um where is the explanation?....lol
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh noes, he might be a day or two late! This is worse than the Regen Nerf Wars of '04!
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)
I'd continue to watch this action unfold, but I require bacon, and the Burger King just opened. Check back later.
Mmm bacon.
Grrrrr. You heathens and your Bacon.
Fasting, sigh. Here I am fasting and you have to go talk about food. I can't wait for nightfall.
Fret not, Space Butler! If not bacon, then what about porkchops?
Sorry, having a Simpsons flashback ...
DAD! Those all come from the same animal!"
"Surre Lisa, a wonderful magical animal!"
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[If I'm understanding the numbers correctly, the original debuff effectively reduced incoming damage to 60% of the original value. The change Statesman *thought* was made (-.32/-.1) would have reduced incoming damage to 61.2% of original - a tiny nerf. The *actual* change reduced damage to 63.24% of original - a significant nerf. The proposed checked change reduces net damage to 58.48% of original, a slight buff. If I understand correctly: recharge is not my field of expertise]
[/ QUOTE ]
Essentially, yes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, I forgot to mention that just as its never a good idea to trade a defense for a debuff (all things being equal), its never a good idea to trade one debuff for two, unless you only tank even level villains.
[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 ]
Of course, I forgot to mention that just as its never a good idea to trade a defense for a debuff (all things being equal), its never a good idea to trade one debuff for two, unless you only tank even level villains.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. I think that's why in the end Statesman is taking the approach of making the sum of the two debuffs higher than the original, rather than equivalent. 0.14 + 0.32 = 0.46 as opposed to 0.40. Makes it a little bit stronger vs level and RES. Not much, but a little bit. (note: not saying that's "great math", but I suspect that's his approach)
Still since in teams you almost never fight even level foes, he's probably shooting to help there too.
Now if I could just get Statesman to realize how far behind Ice is on Smash/Lethal, with little to show in return for being that far behind, I'd be much happier.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Here's the thing. You gave an incorrect value for the recharge debuff of Chilling Embrace along with an inaccurate description of how the recharge debuff works. I corrected you. I don't see what the big deal is.
Statesman is an intelligent person, he can read, he has access to data of all powers, and if needed he can ask the people working with powers. I don't think he would have any problems giving us the correct recharge debuff. Which he did.
Many may have noticed that there's recently been a debate on the (non-)stacking of defense powers. A main complaint from the players has been that because of a lack of information we have not until recently fully known how this stacking has worked.
How can we on one hand say that it is unacceptable that we are not given enough information, and on the other hand encourage the devs to give us incorrect information?
That doesn't seem to make much sense.
Misinformation is worse than a lack of information.
A lack of information can be targeted for investigation, misinformation can be much harder to isolate. Misinformation also tends to spread, and once it has done so it can be hard to "get out of the system".
About a year ago it was common that people claimed that recharge worked in a way so that when you used Hasten you just multiplied the recharge times of your powers by a certain number to get the new recharge. Invariably this would lead to incorrect results outside the trivial situation, and there could on occasion be lots of confusion on the issue. People who made this claim were generally corrected, and fortunately that claim does not pop up often today.
When someone makes such a claim today, it is usually corrected.
When such a claim is accompanied by 40 numbers that are based on the faulty model (and thus also faulty), it is pretty much a certainty that people will object.
And that makes me wonder.
If this faulty description of recharge debuffs has been thrown around for a longer time, then why haven't people objected? Why is it still being used?
But maybe people have objected....
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
But you use an incorrect model for recharge debuffs in your calculations. That means that the falloff due to level scaling that you calculate is also incorrect.
On the off chance that the third time really is the charm:
[ QUOTE ]
When fighting higher level mobs, our powers work at a fraction of their original efficiency.
Say that we are fighting a foe of a level that means that our powers are at 50% efficiency.
Apparently Statesman essentially says that CE will have this effect on recharge times:
1+0.5*0.5 = 1.25
The game seems to tell us that CE has this effect on recharge times:
1/(1-0.5*1/3) = 1/(5/6) = 6/5 = 1.2
1.2<1.25
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, so what does this say?
This is how both the proposed models would handle a scaling factor of 0.5.
As you can see, they produce different results.
We generally expect only one result to be correct, hence (at least) one of the models give incorrect results for level scaling.
Care to guess which?
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
Funny, because the way I look at it, we got the real debuff numbers for CE. I see that as a good thing.
And it was of course very silly of me to derail the conversation by actually discussing the topic at hand instead of adding to the close to 20 posts about merging Tankers and Scrappers. Or maybe I should have talked about food...
Silly me...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, I forgot to mention that just as its never a good idea to trade a defense for a debuff (all things being equal), its never a good idea to trade one debuff for two, unless you only tank even level villains.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. I think that's why in the end Statesman is taking the approach of making the sum of the two debuffs higher than the original, rather than equivalent. 0.14 + 0.32 = 0.46 as opposed to 0.40. Makes it a little bit stronger vs level and RES. Not much, but a little bit. (note: not saying that's "great math", but I suspect that's his approach)
Still since in teams you almost never fight even level foes, he's probably shooting to help there too.
Now if I could just get Statesman to realize how far behind Ice is on Smash/Lethal, with little to show in return for being that far behind, I'd be much happier.
[/ QUOTE ]
Its actually weaker against level, having two effects instead of one.
When you have one debuff, and you fight higher levels, there's only one thing to debuff with the purple patch. When you have two, there are two things that can be debuffed fighting higher levels. And since slow and -dmg are roughly multiplicative, the two debuffs are going to combine.
A 40% slow in effect is 60% attack speed, assuming slow works like this: rech time = base time * (1 - slow). -DMG is, I think, figured this way: net dmg = base dmg * (1 - dmgdebuff).
Against +1s, a 0.4 slow (or whatever you want to call it) becomes a 0.36 slow, and attack speed rises to 63% of base.
But a 0.32 slow and a 0.14 dmg debuff (which is 58.48% dmg at even) become a 0.288 slow and a 0.126 -dmg, and attack speed/dmg increases to 62.23% - a bigger jump, and just about tied with the original 0.4 slow.
At +2, you're down to 0.256 slow and 0.112 -dmg, and attack speed/dmg goes to 66.07%, compared to the original 0.4 slow which would now be 0.32 slow, and 68% of base attack speed.
It seems the net effect is to make the buff better at even, tied at +1, and worse at +2 and higher. That might have even been the original intent of the change, although there might be other reasons.
[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 ]
However, its generally been the case that when Statesman or the devs in general state a very specific change like this, it generally happens. I'm more inclined to believe that if a specific announced change doesn't occur in precisely the way described, that's a backend error on their part, or sometimes an additional overlapping change they just forgot to tell us about, and not something especially nefarious. Its still not a Good Thing for the devs to ever announce something specific and not have that specific thing happen precisely as announced without followup, because that's misleading, but I don't think its deliberately so on their part.
[/ QUOTE ]
One can wonder if .10 becoming 0.07 was unintended, or something that the one actually changing the power decided was fair.
There might be plausible explanations for both those eventualities.
Accidentaly typing 0.07 instead of 0.10 seems kinda unlikely, but maybe the "debuff efficiency" of Tankers is 70%?
If that is so, then it is possible that the value that was entered into the power really was 0.10, but that the effective value becomes 0.07.
If the value was intentionally set to 0.07, then it is possible that the one entering the value thought it would be more balanced that way.
And what could be the reasoning behind that?
Well, let's compare two combinations of recharge/damage debuffs.
A recharge debuff of 0.4 means that if you only consider the recharge time, you will be attacked 60% as often as usual, and thus will on average take 60% of the damage.
With a recharge debuff of 1/3 together with a damage debuff of 10%, you would be attacked 66.67% as often as usual (again only considering the recharge), and each hit would do 10% less damage. Again, you'd end up with on average taking 60% of the damage.
They both seem equal.
However, this is only the case when the activation time of a power is small compared to the recharge time. Recharge debuffs only affect the recharge part, so whenever we have a greater than zero activation time, recharge debuffs fail to live up to their "maximum potential".
Take for an example a power with 3 sec activation time, and 7 sec recharge. (pretty much picked out of the air)
Without any debuffs, the "cycle-time" (activation + recharge) of the power is 10 seconds, leading to 0.1 attacks per second.
With a recharge debuff of 0.4, the cycle time is:
t = 3 + 7/(1-0.4) = 14.67 sec
and the number of attacks per second would be:
1/t = 1 / 14.67 = 0.068
We'd take 68% of the original damage.
With a recharge debuff of 1/3, the cycle time is:
t = 3 + 7/(1-1/3) = 13.5 sec
and the number of attacks per second would be:
1/t = 1 / 13.5 = 0.074
Now add the 10% damage debuff:
0.9*0.074 = 0.067
We now take 67% of the original damage, slightly better than the case with pure recharge debuff (97.8% of the damage).
So, a combination of damage/recharge debuffs that give the same effect as a recharge debuff when we only look at the recharge times, will actually perform better when we take activation times into consideration.
How much better will of course depend on the relationship between activation time and recharge...
This could be one possible motivation for having a lower than 10% damage debuff. The difference between 7% and 10% seems too large for this to seem likely though. That would require some pretty odd activation/recharge ratio to even things up...
It also fails to take into consideration that the damage/recharge debuff combo would be more sensitive to scaling, and that damage debuffs are much much more likely to be resisted than recharge debuffs.
OTOH, damage debuffs help against alpha strikes while recharge debuffs do not.
Assuming that you can get the debuff going before you are hit....
So my guess would probably be simple mistake or unforseen scaling...
[ QUOTE ]
That would require some pretty odd activation/recharge ratio to even things up...
[/ QUOTE ] I'm only half following this discussion...er correct that..I've only read the last two posts....so this may be proving the opposite of what I intend...
Perhaps the lower value is due to the fact that mobs don't cycle attacks as quickly as we do. Er rather, mobs don't always use attacks as soon as they are recharged. Mobs seem to switch to melee mode and often stay in melee mode at the expense of having to close with their targets
In essence, there is a lot more activation time for certain mobs than there is for players. AV's seem to spend a fair amount of time running around..probably chasing a defender. Thus, a recharge only debuff would be of much reduced value.
Sorry it took an extra day...
Here's how the -Recharge debuff works (Circeus, I think, has explained this...but I'll reiterate).
New Recharge Time = Old Recharge Time/(1+Recharage Mod)
In the case of Chilling Embrace, the Recharage Mod is -.32. Let's take a hypothetical power with a base Recharge time of 10 seconds. Under the effect of Chilling Embrace, its new recharge time is 10/(1+(-.32)) or 14.71 seconds.
Just for the sake of it, let's take a look at what Chilling Embrace would do overall to such a power. Let's say "Power X" has a Recharge Time of 10 and a Damage of 100. Assume it hits 100% of the time with a Cast time of 2 seconds. Over the next minute it does the following damage:
(60/(10+2))*100 = 500 points of damage
As we've seen, Chilling Embrace would slow that 10 second recharge to a glacial (pardon the pun) 14.71 seconds. But the new Chilling Embrace also debuffs damage by 14%! So instead of 100 damage every blow, the mob would do only 93 points of damage.
(60/(14.71+2))*86 = 308.8 dmg
Not too shabby of a protection - almost like having a 38% Damage Resistance! Remember, though - this is ONLY when the mob is in the effect of Chilling Embrace (roughly melee distance).
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, I forgot to mention that just as its never a good idea to trade a defense for a debuff (all things being equal), its never a good idea to trade one debuff for two, unless you only tank even level villains.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. I think that's why in the end Statesman is taking the approach of making the sum of the two debuffs higher than the original, rather than equivalent. 0.14 + 0.32 = 0.46 as opposed to 0.40. Makes it a little bit stronger vs level and RES. Not much, but a little bit. (note: not saying that's "great math", but I suspect that's his approach)
Still since in teams you almost never fight even level foes, he's probably shooting to help there too.
Now if I could just get Statesman to realize how far behind Ice is on Smash/Lethal, with little to show in return for being that far behind, I'd be much happier.
[/ QUOTE ]
Its actually weaker against level, having two effects instead of one.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're mistaken.
If we assume that the 0.32 recharge and the 0.14 damage can translate into resistance (they can), then:
(scale * 0.32) + (scale * 0.14) = total damage
If we combine like terms:
scale * (0.32 + 0.14) = total damage
This won't hold true if the scales are different, of course, but I don't think they are. Also, the 0.32 -recharge does nothing against alpha-strikes and one-shotting, but otherwise it can translate directly into resistance.
What Circeus was saying about making it "a little bit stronger vs level and RES," I don't think he's saying that there's no scaling involved. Heck, he called me twice for forgetting about it already! 
Anyway, I think you two are thinking TOO hard about this. The simple fact of the matter is that Ices needed a buff, and this is it (hopefully only ONE part of it 
).
Remember that the -Damage does two things that a -Recharge won't:
- It will work on the alpha-strike.
- It helps to prevent one-shotting issues. (This is a big one in my opinion.)
Sure, it would be better to boost our defense instead-- after all, Resistance and Defense overlap and don't stack properly (i.e. not as good a benefit). Who knows why they don't? Maybe Statesman can tell us when he's explaining the numbers.
He's not doing it in Dev's Digest, is he? I hope he gets it done soon-- I'm tentatively scheduled for a Manticore TF on Saturday!
[ QUOTE ]
the new Chilling Embrace also debuffs damage by 14%! So instead of 100 damage every blow, the mob would do only 93 points of damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
What am I missing? Wouldnt minus 14% of 100 be 86 dmg? Not 93?
[ QUOTE ]
But the new Chilling Embrace also debuffs damage by 14%! So instead of 100 damage every blow, the mob would do only 93 points of damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
Er, clarification please? I thought a 14% damage debuff would turn 100 into 86?
And would our equivalent resistance be 46% in this case?
Even the clarifications of these things confuse me!
Also: *cough*Invulnstillunhappytoo*cough*
[ QUOTE ]
Here's the thing. You gave an incorrect value for the recharge debuff of Chilling Embrace along with an inaccurate description of how the recharge debuff works. I corrected you. I don't see what the big deal is.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I gave the value along with the explanation that Statesman gave me. Believe it or not, before he asked me to change the model I was using in my calculations I was actually calculating it what we agree is a more standard fashion.
Get it, I'm not disagreing with you, I'm saying I was posting under the impression of what the devs were telling me was the way they were calculating the value and using it. Because history shows that the best way to get something across to the devs is to chat in the lingo to which they are accustomed or in which you have chatted with them before. You certainly wouldn't walk into a room of English speaking people and start speaking Swahili.
[ QUOTE ]
But you use an incorrect model for recharge debuffs in your calculations. That means that the falloff due to level scaling that you calculate is also incorrect.
[/ QUOTE ]
I absolutely agree. Based on what he's saying now, but at the time he and I were convesing he handed me the 66.67% number and said that the debuff applied directly to that number. So I was going by what I was told by Statesman. It went against how I thought it worked, but generally speaking when a dev is giving me numbers and forumla that he's using to balance I tend to trust them.
The nice thing, well okay not so nice, is that I've been overstating Ice's performance. Its actually doing worse comparatively than I've been demonstating.
[ QUOTE ]
However, this is only the case when the activation time of a power is small compared to the recharge time. Recharge debuffs only affect the recharge part, so whenever we have a greater than zero activation time, recharge debuffs fail to live up to their "maximum potential".
[/ QUOTE ]
That's a good point (one I keep harping myself when it comes to recharge enhancements) so it begs the question: when people test recharge debuffs against villains, do they factor that in when they time recharge differences, or do most testers presume that villain powers have zero activation time? Do villains (really, the game engine code that deals with NPC villain attack speed) even take such considerations into account when they run their attack "cycles?"
Edit: so of course Statesman answers this question immediately following the post I'm reading.
[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 ]
However, this is only the case when the activation time of a power is small compared to the recharge time. Recharge debuffs only affect the recharge part, so whenever we have a greater than zero activation time, recharge debuffs fail to live up to their "maximum potential".
[/ QUOTE ]
That's a good point (one I keep harping myself when it comes to recharge enhancements) so it begs the question: when people test recharge debuffs against villains, do they factor that in when they time recharge differences, or do most testers presume that villain powers have zero activation time? Do villains (really, the game engine code that deals with NPC villain attack speed) even take such considerations into account when they run their attack "cycles?"
[/ QUOTE ]
Recharge for a power does not occur during its activation time. I'm sure it works on villains as well.
This shouldn't be an issue.
Edit FTW! Sorry, my reading comprehension is slipping today. Too much math 
-Azure
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the new Chilling Embrace also debuffs damage by 14%! So instead of 100 damage every blow, the mob would do only 93 points of damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
What am I missing? Wouldnt minus 14% of 100 be 86 dmg? Not 93?
[/ QUOTE ]
I caught that too.
Like I mentioned earlier, I don't have CE on a tank, I have it on my Blaster. But I've seen a big difference in the damage I take just by making sure I get close enough occasionally to trigger the CE effect.
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 ]
I think you're mistaken.
If we assume that the 0.32 recharge and the 0.14 damage can translate into resistance (they can), then:
(scale * 0.32) + (scale * 0.14) = total damage
If we combine like terms:
scale * (0.32 + 0.14) = total damage
This won't hold true if the scales are different, of course, but I don't think they are. Also, the 0.32 -recharge d
[/ QUOTE ]
There's no reason you're allowed to add the -recharge and the -dmg together.
Statesman's numbers are, as is often the case when I'm guessing he's writing quickly off the top of his head, messed up, but he's articulating the equation as:
net damage over time in dpm (damage per minute) = [ 60s / (BaseRecharge * (1 - RechDebuff) + activation) ] * [ BaseDamage * (1 - DamageDebuff) ]
To break it down:
Damage per minute = Attacks per minute * Damage
Attacks per minute = 60s / (recharge + activation)
Debuffed Recharge = BaseRecharge * (1 - RechDebuff)
Debuffed Damage = BaseDamage * (1 - DamageDebuff)
Just start substituting and you're there. This means my numbers (and everyone else's calculated numbers) are a bit off, because as Stargazer pointed out, RechargeDebuff is weaker than you expect, because of activation times. But the principle is still the same: we could calculate an Average Effective Recharge Debuff that -0.32 corresponds to, by averaging over all villain attacks with differing activations and recharges. The principle that two effects are hit harder by the purple patch than one would still apply. The core principle: attacks per minute is being debuffed, and damage is being debuffed, and those multiply together. Anything that simultaneously weakens both terms is going to have a stronger net effect than if only one term was being affected.
[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 ]
Er, clarification please? I thought a 14% damage debuff would turn 100 into 86?
[/ QUOTE ]
Edited post - you're right. Typing in haste made me use the original 7% value.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, this is only the case when the activation time of a power is small compared to the recharge time. Recharge debuffs only affect the recharge part, so whenever we have a greater than zero activation time, recharge debuffs fail to live up to their "maximum potential".
[/ QUOTE ]
That's a good point (one I keep harping myself when it comes to recharge enhancements) so it begs the question: when people test recharge debuffs against villains, do they factor that in when they time recharge differences, or do most testers presume that villain powers have zero activation time? Do villains (really, the game engine code that deals with NPC villain attack speed) even take such considerations into account when they run their attack "cycles?"
[/ QUOTE ]
Recharge for a power does not occur during its activation time. I'm sure it works on villains as well.
This shouldn't be an issue.
[/ QUOTE ]
Its an issue precisely because recharge doesn't occur during activation times, or the way most people phrase this: recharge buffs do not speed up activation. This means recharge buffs/debuffs, unlike damage buff/debuffs, are not directly proportional.
If you speed up recharge by 50%, you do *not* increase the number of attacks per minute by 50%. If activation time was zero, you would. But activation messes up the ratio - to the detriment of recharge.
Watch the impact of slotting damage into a power that does 100 damage, starting from zero enhancements:
100, 133, 167, 200, 233, 267, 300
Each enhancement boosts damage by the same amount: 33.33% of base.
Lets assume that the power recharges in 60 seconds, and has *zero* activation time. Here's the effect of slotting recharge, in attacks per second, also starting from zero enhancements:
1, 1.33, 1.67, 2.00, 2.33, 2.67, 3.00
Ah, but what if the power has 6 seconds of activation time, and 54 seconds of recharge (which means that without any enhancements, it too fires once per minute):
Note: I'm just making the numbers easy to see: 6 sec activation on a 60 second cycle is much like 2 sec activation on a 20 second cycle, but the numbers are easier on the eyes
1, 1.29, 1.57, 1.82, 2.06, 2.29, 2.5
Notice two things: the overall numbers are smaller, and the actual net benefit of each successive enhancement is smaller: the net increase in attacks per minute for each enhancement is about: 0.29, 0.28, 0.25, 0.24, 0.23, 0.21 (its a little jumpy because of round off).
Clearly activation times make a difference, because they add a linear term to the recharge time being buffed/debuffed.
Recharge enhancements, and recharge buff/debuffs, are the only true "diminishing returns" effects in the game, because they don't actually affect the entire activation/recharge cycle.
[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 ]
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 ]
So States always does what he says?.....um where is the explanation?....lol
[/ QUOTE ]
The guy's been at a press conference! Give him time!