[ QUOTE ]
Don't feel bad if it's difficult - this gets confusing real quick, which is one real downside to this system - I happen to agree with Arcana. Defense (if specific numbers are not going to be provided for us) should be intuitive. I should know, without doing any math, that turning on hover will help my defense (as long as the tohit floor hasn't been reached). At this point, we don't know that (at least not intuitively).
[/ QUOTE ]
Excellent observation. Why not either A: put some hard numbers in a fairly easy chart form from the Devs to the players. OR B: simplify the system so it is intuitive. I would think that not having to check def against a certain type of dmg in the programming code would just be one less process.
Scatterpack Rad/Rad
~ Earthguard ~
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to insist on a band-aid, then, why not make the band-aid actually match the size of the wound?
In case you missed it the first time :
[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't even catch the similar writeup I did for Tanker armors... 
Tank Armor DEF Stacking
Defender/Controller Power DEF Stacking
[/ QUOTE ]
Great scott... jeez, I feel sorry for tankers I work with. That's a hell of a lot of uninformed choices, there.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In America we've already let the democrats and reublicans set the populace at each other's throats, when THEY are the true enemies of the nation.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure it's any worse than the state of affairs we gots up here! *grins*
[/ QUOTE ]
No kidding. If any of you villians out there want to take over the world, start with Canada. You only have to win the first election, after that you get to decide when the next election is.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't feel bad if it's difficult - this gets confusing real quick, which is one real downside to this system - I happen to agree with Arcana. Defense (if specific numbers are not going to be provided for us) should be intuitive. I should know, without doing any math, that turning on hover will help my defense (as long as the tohit floor hasn't been reached). At this point, we don't know that (at least not intuitively).
[/ QUOTE ]
Excellent observation. Why not either A: put some hard numbers in a fairly easy chart form from the Devs to the players. OR B: simplify the system so it is intuitive. I would think that not having to check def against a certain type of dmg in the programming code would just be one less process.
[/ QUOTE ]
But... but... reducing the number of calculations done by the server would reduce processor use and thus server side lag.
Oh wait... that would be a good thing.
Here's why this won't happen... as much as it should:
There WOULD have to be massive power changes to the sets that are based on typed defense. Thus more free respecs. Oh wait, the code for free respecs is working pretty well... nevermind.
Let's fix this, devs. FIX it, not patch it. Change the power order to SR to make it more fair in the early levels. Dodge before Agile, Evasion before Lucky.
Give Ice Tanker dual positional defense AND typed damage resistance. Reduce Invul's dependance on Invincible and buff their dam-res.
Take another sweep an the blaster secondaries. There's still time to get rid of typed defense in CoV.....
There's still time to make this right.
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
But... but... reducing the number of calculations done by the server would reduce processor use and thus server side lag.
Oh wait... that would be a good thing.
Here's why this won't happen... as much as it should:
There WOULD have to be massive power changes to the sets that are based on typed defense. Thus more free respecs. Oh wait, the code for free respecs is working pretty well... nevermind.
Let's fix this, devs. FIX it, not patch it. Change the power order to SR to make it more fair in the early levels. Dodge before Agile, Evasion before Lucky.
Give Ice Tanker dual positional defense AND typed damage resistance. Reduce Invul's dependance on Invincible and buff their dam-res.
Take another sweep an the blaster secondaries. There's still time to get rid of typed defense in CoV.....
There's still time to make this right.
[/ QUOTE ]
And your assuming that they won't do that. But it can and WILL take time to do. So stop acting like its an easy change that they can just flip a couple of switches and be done with.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But... but... reducing the number of calculations done by the server would reduce processor use and thus server side lag.
Oh wait... that would be a good thing.
Here's why this won't happen... as much as it should:
There WOULD have to be massive power changes to the sets that are based on typed defense. Thus more free respecs. Oh wait, the code for free respecs is working pretty well... nevermind.
Let's fix this, devs. FIX it, not patch it. Change the power order to SR to make it more fair in the early levels. Dodge before Agile, Evasion before Lucky.
Give Ice Tanker dual positional defense AND typed damage resistance. Reduce Invul's dependance on Invincible and buff their dam-res.
Take another sweep an the blaster secondaries. There's still time to get rid of typed defense in CoV.....
There's still time to make this right.
[/ QUOTE ]
And your assuming that they won't do that. But it can and WILL take time to do. So stop acting like its an easy change that they can just flip a couple of switches and be done with.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the concept of changing the numbers on powersets effectively IS flipping a couple switches, or at least changing a few numbers in some code. Free respecs, SR, Ice, and Invuln changes are effectively as well.
It's only fixing blaster secondaries, which would require new animations and new balancing issues, that is anything more than flipping a switch.
[ QUOTE ]
Let's fix this, devs. FIX it, not patch it. Change the power order to SR to make it more fair in the early levels. Dodge before Agile, Evasion before Lucky.
Give Ice Tanker dual positional defense AND typed damage resistance. Reduce Invul's dependance on Invincible and buff their dam-res.
Take another sweep an the blaster secondaries. There's still time to get rid of typed defense in CoV.....
There's still time to make this right.
[/ QUOTE ]
Can I git a AMEN!
<passes around the hat>
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But... but... reducing the number of calculations done by the server would reduce processor use and thus server side lag.
Oh wait... that would be a good thing.
Here's why this won't happen... as much as it should:
There WOULD have to be massive power changes to the sets that are based on typed defense. Thus more free respecs. Oh wait, the code for free respecs is working pretty well... nevermind.
Let's fix this, devs. FIX it, not patch it. Change the power order to SR to make it more fair in the early levels. Dodge before Agile, Evasion before Lucky.
Give Ice Tanker dual positional defense AND typed damage resistance. Reduce Invul's dependance on Invincible and buff their dam-res.
Take another sweep an the blaster secondaries. There's still time to get rid of typed defense in CoV.....
There's still time to make this right.
[/ QUOTE ]
And your assuming that they won't do that. But it can and WILL take time to do. So stop acting like its an easy change that they can just flip a couple of switches and be done with.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the concept of changing the numbers on powersets effectively IS flipping a couple switches, or at least changing a few numbers in some code. Free respecs, SR, Ice, and Invuln changes are effectively as well.
It's only fixing blaster secondaries, which would require new animations and new balancing issues, that is anything more than flipping a switch.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not that easy though, as everything would have to be rebalanced to take into account the new changes.
[ QUOTE ]
As for changing the way defense works...eek. That's not really an option. There's simply too many things that would break...It's just not do-able.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that it would be a flag day, but moving defense out from being a modifier to a mob's attack percentage to being a separate 'roll' to avoid an attack, to my mind, makes for a more elegant mechanic that would be easier to balance against resistance... but you've probably got enough patches and special-case code slapped onto the existing algorithms that ripping it out and putting in a complete replacement would be more work than just slapping down another special-case exception for the next problem would be... but eventually, the accumulation of patches will exceed the effort it would have taken to replace it all, so it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis -- and the bean counters always win.
"But in our enthusiasm, we could not resist a radical overhaul of the system, in which all of its major weaknesses have been exposed, analyzed, and replaced with new weaknesses."
-- Bruce Leverett, Register Allocation in Optimizing Compilers
[ QUOTE ]
Stealth, Grant Invisibility, Invisibility,Combat Flight, Weave, Maneuvers, Vengeance, and Combat Jumping will grant a Defense bonus to Smashing and Lethal Attacks in addition to Melee and Ranged attacks.
I added the same to Controller/Illusion/Group Invisibility.
The result of this is that ALL defense builds will benefit from Pool powers. Previously, Ice Tankers suffered somewhat because the Pool defenses did not stack with their defense powers. This is now rectified.
[/ QUOTE ]
States, any chance we could have something like this...
You have Positional Defense, Type Defense, Resistance, and Healing.
Your attack first checks against the Positional Defense to see if the opportunity to hit the target exists. If it hits, you go to the next step, otherwise it shows a miss.
The next step would be to see if the type of the attack can hurt the target. Obviously Fire Def is useless against Ice Damage. Otherwise, it works much like Positional Defense. In the case of multi type attacks, the best Defense is what is used. No adding/stacking of different Type Defenses (ie: no stacking of fire/smash def. It's either or per attack). Resolve the hit or miss as above.
This step would take the damage of the attack and run it against the target's Type Resistance to determine how much damage they take.
The final step would be to compare the damage received vs the target's HP to see if the target lives or dies. It would also account for the Healing rate as Healing ticks happen every so often and damage sometimes coincides with it (See Hami's AOE blast while in a healing bubble).
This system has the benefit of allowing granular control of the various versions of personal and team defenses. It lets you make things like SR scrappers who are extremely hard to hit yet take full damage when they are. It also lets you make things like resistance based tanks (Fire & Stone) who have high resistance but are easy to hit. Blasters would be low to nothing across the board in terms of PosDef, TypeDef & Resistance.
This gives you extremely fine control over every aspect of Defense. It also stops TypeDef from stepping on the toes of Resistance. Type Defense basically is 100% Resistance vs that type of damage *IF* the attack "misses" due to Type Def.
In summary:
Positional Defense should determine whether or not the attack CONNECTS / HITS the target. (avoidance of damage)
Type Defense should determine whether or not the attack DAMAGES the target. (deflection of damage)
Resistance should determine how much of the attack's damage is received.
Only Resistance is doing its job. The two forms of Defense are NOT.
Virtue: multiple characters.
CoH/V: Woot! Maybe Fun is to be had once again.
Ack! RUN! Regen is glowing mean & green!
If it reduces you, it's a nerf.
If it buffs the mobs, it's challenge.
They are not the same.
[ QUOTE ]
It's not that easy though, as everything would have to be rebalanced to take into account the new changes.
[/ QUOTE ]
REBALANCED?
Rebalanced for what? Dispersion and Manuevers stacking? Ice tankers actually getting some benefit from power pools? Fortitude doing [censored] for a SR scrapper?
That's how the people with the spreadsheets and big whiteboard thought they worked! Statesman himself talked about a Force Fielder running around Croatoa with a 'high defense' build involving Manuevers, although, given that he liked the old Repulsion Bubble, I do have my doubts about him even playing an FFer. They suggested Weave for Ice Tankers. They thought Fortitude was BASE defense, which has been thoroughly disproved by the playerbase.
What are they going to rebalanced?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So...why just S/L damage?
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly.
[/ QUOTE ]
Same question.
[/ QUOTE ]
Because Smashing and Lethal are the most common types of damage in the game? Just sayin...
[ QUOTE ]
And your assuming that they won't do that. But it can and WILL take time to do. So stop acting like its an easy change that they can just flip a couple of switches and be done with.
[/ QUOTE ]
Back down, LiquidX. I've already stated I know full well the work involved and the time consumed.
Yes, I'm making the assumption based on past action by the dev team.
And, no, overall rebalancing would not be hard... ToHit buffs negate defense regardless if it being typed or postitional, so nuking typed defense would make no difference in the arena.
What other balancing do you see needing to be done if typed defense is turned into positional?
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, I believe Statesman is saying that all power pool defenses, in parallel with providing melee/ranged defense, will also be providing smash/lethal defense.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep. That's what it meant.
As for changing the way defense works...eek. That's not really an option. There's simply too many things that would break...It's just not do-able.
As for why only S/L? Because in these powers, that simply made sense - and because of the prevalence of S/L damage throughout the game.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, S/L is the most prevalent damage type in game. But specifically for tanks, most of us already have very very solid defense to S/L damage, either in defense or resistance. We could really benifit from the ability to branch out into power pool choices and pick up a bit of extra defense to help protect us from what our primaries don't. As it is, it's a minor boon to most tanks and just a much better boost to the non-tanker ATs.
Psi defense may not make sense, but defense against any type of physical damage definitely does. Just as easy to dodge a fireball as a bullet.
But hey, thanks for looking into this and at least making it work at all 
Formerly "Back Alley Brawler"
S/L are important but if you really want to make it work the same for everybody then that isn't enough. If a power currently gives protection to melee, ranged, and AoE then it needs to give protection against smashing, lethal, fire, cold, etc. All of the damage types. Otherwise it is not working the same.
If it gives a bonus to a ranged fire attack for people that already have ranged protection then it needs to give it to people that already have fire protection.
Scorus
[ QUOTE ]
S/L are important but if you really want to make it work the same for everybody then that isn't enough. If a power currently gives protection to melee, ranged, and AoE then it needs to give protection against smashing, lethal, fire, cold, etc. All of the damage types. Otherwise it is not working the same.
If it gives a bonus to a ranged fire attack for people that already have ranged protection then it needs to give it to people that already have fire protection.
Scorus
[/ QUOTE ]
/signed
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 ]
Things are getting more and more complicated instead of the other way around....
[/ QUOTE ]
My thoughts exactly. What ever happened to uninformed decisions?
Currently roleplaying, badgehunting, and laughing at the PvPers of CoX. lol, PvP.
Truedusk - Human Rogue
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Things are getting more and more complicated instead of the other way around....
[/ QUOTE ]
My thoughts exactly. What ever happened to uninformed decisions?
[/ QUOTE ]
Wellll, Statesman did say that all the power descriptions would be changed. I'm guessing soon on that.
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
It's not that easy though, as everything would have to be rebalanced to take into account the new changes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, a quick glance through the Hero Planner yielded a total of 34 powers that give +DEF (not counting Def/Cont sets or Tank/Scrap sets twice). Only 8 of them had +DEF that was damage-typed (I may have missed some):
Tough Hide
Deflection Shield
Insulation Shield
Wet Ice
Glacial Armor
Rock Armor
Crystal Armor
Mineral Armor
They could all be switched to positional DEF with little balancing needed. The only problem, really, is how to differentiate Ice Armor and Stone Armor from Super Reflexes. So for those 5 powers, change them into a combination of different positional +DEF and damage-typed +RES, possibly a side-effect or two. Is that "everything needing rebalancing"? Doesn't seem too monumental to me.
[ QUOTE ]
Tough Hide
Deflection Shield
Insulation Shield
Wet Ice
Glacial Armor
Rock Armor
Crystal Armor
Mineral Armor
[/ QUOTE ]
Just 8 powers... out of ALL the powers in CoH..... just EIGHT are Typed Defense?
Thanks Codeslinger.
8 powers. More powers were changed, ATs fundmentally on some levels, with I-5 than a paltry 8 powers. Hell, Ice Armor would WELCOME damage resistance.
Let's say power A now offers base 12.5% Typed Defense to smashing/lethal.
We can change it to 12.5% melee and leave it as that. What's the problem? Well, any melee fire punches can now be defended against, and that goes against what was planned for the power. Why? Isn't my ice sheath deflecting the blow? If the fist can't get to me, why should the flames?
Goes against your plan? So what? I never planned on my invulnerable tank depending on Defense. I never planned on my SR scrapper getting hit by everyone in the Arena.
If you don't want power A to offer defense(lowercase d) of any kind to fire and energy, then change it to damage resistance and type it.
If you think that power B SHOULD provide defense(lowercase d) to energy and negative energy, but nothing else, same thing, make it dam-res and leave it at that.
If, however, you're ok with power A providing Defense to melee, then let it. And make power B provide Defense to ranged.
If that completely goes against your view of the powerset, turn it into dam-res.
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not that easy though, as everything would have to be rebalanced to take into account the new changes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, a quick glance through the Hero Planner yielded a total of 34 powers that give +DEF (not counting Def/Cont sets or Tank/Scrap sets twice). Only 8 of them had +DEF that was damage-typed (I may have missed some):
They could all be switched to positional DEF with little balancing needed. The only problem, really, is how to differentiate Ice Armor and Stone Armor from Super Reflexes. So for those 5 powers, change them into a combination of different positional +DEF and damage-typed +RES, possibly a side-effect or two. Is that "everything needing rebalancing"? Doesn't seem too monumental to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
You missed a lot of DMG DEF Type powers (Hero Planner is not up-to-date with the status of Fortitude, for example). Check this list: I count 16 not counting duplication in the Epic sets.
Tanker & Scrapper
Invulnerability: Invincibility (SMASH/LETHAL/FIRE/COLD/ENERGY/NEG)
Invulnerability: Tough Hide (SMASH/LETHAL/FIRE/COLD/ENERGY/NEG)
Ice Armor: Frozen Armor (SMASH/LETHAL)
Ice Armor: Wet Ice (SMASH/LETHAL/FIRE/COLD/ENERGY/NEG)
Ice Armor: Glacial Armor (ENERGY/NEG)
Ice Armor: Energy Absorption (SMASH/LETHAL/FIRE/COLD/ENERGY/NEG)
Stone Armor: Rock Armor (SMASH/LETHAL)
Stone Armor: Crystal Armor (ENERGY/NEG)
Stone Armor: Mineral Armor (PSY)
Stone Armor: Granite Armor (SMASH/LETHAL/FIRE/COLD/ENERGY/NEG)
Defender
Empathy: Fortitude(SMASH/LETHAL/FIRE/COLD/ENERGY/NEG/PSY)
Force Field: Personal Force Field (????)
Force Field: Deflection Bubble (MELEE/SMASH/LETHAL)
Force Field: Insulation Bubble (RANGE/FIRE/COLD/ENERGY/NEG)
Force Field: Dispersion Bubble (AOE/PSY/SMASH/LETHAL/FIRE/COLD/ENERGY/NEG)
Controller
Controller Epic: Cold Mastery: Frozen Armor (SMASH/LETHAL)
Controller Epic: Psionic Mastery: Indomitable Will (PSY)
Controller Epic: Stone Mastery: Rock Armor (SMASH/LETHAL)
Blaster
Blaster Epic : Cold Mastery: Frozen Armor (SMASH/LETHAL)
Blaster Epic : Force Mastery: Personal Force Field(???)
Ok, so up to 16. Still doable. And still should be done.
Be well, people of CoH.
But are the defense bonuses still SURPRESSED when attacking which really makes them, well, useless defense bonues unless on is just standing around minding their own business and is just a bit too close to some flaming behemouth mob.
CoH exists because there's a little hero in all of us.
Ridolfo 50 DM DA.
& far too many alts
[ QUOTE ]
But are the defense bonuses still SURPRESSED when attacking which really makes them, well, useless defense bonues unless on is just standing around minding their own business and is just a bit too close to some flaming behemouth mob.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yea, well, the whole suppression issue is stupid no matter how we look at it.
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
They could all be switched to positional DEF with little balancing needed. The only problem, really, is how to differentiate Ice Armor and Stone Armor from Super Reflexes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Simple, add some more resistances.
'Far as I'm concerned, all tankers should be resistance-based. But that's just me. *grins*
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly what I proposed prior to Statesman saying that changes to the defense system would be too hard and break too many things.
Read his post as, no way, man, we're using typed defense in CoV as well, we're not going back now. Too many power changes.
[/ QUOTE ]
But a change like this would not be a change to the defense system. It would only be a change to powers. For example, a power that provided +DEF for smash/lethal would be changed to provide +DEF for melee, or maybe +RES for smash/lethal, or a combination of both. They've already shown they can make changes like this. It's what they did in the "Band-aid Fix".
The thing that wouldn't change (the unchangable part I think Statesman was referring to) was how the total DEF vs. a particular attack would be calculated. Damage-typed DEF would still be maintained, and still be looked at for each attack, but it would always be zero, and so discarded for the presumably higher positional DEF. The process of character maintenance (keeping track of what powers are affecting your DEF for various types) and the process for calculating to hit would be the same. It would be made inefficient (though no less efficient than things are now), as it would be designed for a more complicated set of data. But it could still work as is. The inefficiencies could be worked out over time, or even left in.
[ QUOTE ]
Yea... fark a bunch of logic. Fix things for now with a bandaid. It's just a flesh wound after all.
(But your arm's off! No it isn't.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Have at you!