[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
It was changed before.
[/ QUOTE ]
And look what happened...
[/ QUOTE ]
Right, my point is that history shows its not hard to change, so I don't buy what Statesman is trying to sell in that statement.
Its simple. A hose on your car's engine spring a leak, do you patch it with a band-aid and forget it ever happend? Or do you replace the hose?
[/ QUOTE ]
But your assuming that this one change will be the only fix ever done for it. Personally, I'd patch the hose with a band-aid long enough for me to actually get a chance to replace the hose. And while it may not certainly be hard to change, it IS hard to change and do it *RIGHT*.
Plus, people are already upset because they "had" to make changes for I4 and I5. If the Dev team went and completly reworked defense, do you honestly think people are going to be happy about having to change their characters again?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think Cireus is referring to the I5 Global Defense changes when he talks about history: none of those changes actually changed the mechanics of defense. In fact, he's probably referring to the damage-typed stacking issues from a good while ago. Those changes *did* change the actual mechanics of defense.
I think Circeus is suggesting - and I'll state it directly - that when the devs see a major problem that gives too much power to the players they will spare no expense in changing things: no one balanced the books on expense in adding travel speed suppresion, stealth defense suppression, damage-type stack exclusions, AoE target restrictions, or unenhanceable regeneration.
Look at that list carefully, and see what that says about the following assertions:
"Its too difficult to change the way core powers function, how defense operates, how defense stacks, how attack powers function, or how enhancements work. Its simply too much work."
The current stacking problems are problems that generally go the other way: now, the issue is that players won't benefit as much as they ought to. In my personal opinion, such problems appear to be considered of much lower priority, because they can be hand-waved away as "well, better more difficult than we wanted, than less."
The question is not a question of how much effort it will take, but rather what the priorities are in allocating resources. It was obviously a very high priority to make sure there wasn't an odd corner case on damage-typed defenses stacking, even though it didn't affect all that many players overall. Look at how many players are going to be affected by all the new corner cases being created by the new ad hoc changes: the number is approaching all defense wielders and buffers.
And the more I think about it, the more corner cases I find. Is it going to be worth it to patch them all with bandaids, relative to changing base mechanics? Or more likely, will some be hand-waved away as insufficently important to fix?
I'll start the ball rolling right now: I already mentioned this in another thread, so I might as well do so here: power pool defenses have 2.5% base defense and protect against melee/ranged. SR passives give 5% defense to melee or ranged, which means most power pool defenses provide identical protection, in a slot-efficiency sense, to both melee and ranged passives. Hover+combat jumping is equal to dodge+agile. Now, that was balanced against the fact that dodge+agile were passives with no end drain, while the power pools were toggles. But now, hover+CJ now provides superior protection to dodge+agile: because hover+CJ now provide AoE defense to smash/lethal, which is most of the AoE damage in the game prior to the levels at which you can take lucky/evasion. Hmm, a blaster with hover has better AoE protection than an SR scrapper prior to level 28 if the SR scrapper doesn't go to power pools. Someone with weave has better AoE protection than an SR scrapper even if the SR takes a power pool defense, unless its also weave. Hmm...weave. Weave offers not bad defense against melee/ranged, and smash/lethal. That means the only attacks weave is *not* good against are elemental, energy, psi, and toxic AoE - actually, to be specific, AoE attacks that have only energy/elemental/toxic/psi damage. If the attack has a component of smash/lethal, weave still works (weave works against fireball, for example). I don't explicitly mind weave being that good (its a consequence of how the devs are approaching the problem), but I might mind the fact that its better protection than any of the SR passives, in slot efficiency and attack coverage.
[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 ]
It's not that easy though, as everything would have to be rebalanced to take into account the new changes.
[/ QUOTE ]
This presumes that it was the intent of the devs for the powers pools and other defenses to *not stack* in the ways they currently are not. If, in fact, it was the intent of the devs that they ought to stack, as it appear to be the case (given the ad hoc changes they are making), then in fact no real rebalancing of defense numbers would be necessary.
[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 ]
IMHO, this is only sweeping the problem under the rug.
[/ QUOTE ]
Precisely. Rather than address the actual problem, there is an "around the outside turn" fix that only has us scratching our heads wondering why even do this?
18 months after the game originally launched and we are still being served this kind of steaming pile nerf-fix-break-fix treatment. When does it end??? How much more can we take before more and more just stop paying to playtest THEIR product?
Why is there an utter lack of internal, comprehensive testing? These supposed fixes go to the Test server...are WE professional playtesters? I once was, and imagine my disgust at CoH.
Reply all you want, fanbois and trolls, with "doom" and "just quit" responses. I've ignored better that have said worse.
- Captain Amazing
This kind of reminds me of the original post about I5 changes to Ice Tankers. Statesman answered peoples concerns about the lessening of Ice Tanker defense with global changes.
Once upon a time, power pool defense stacked with all Ice Armors and other hero's got power pool defense against ranged & melee only.
Now, power pool defenses do not stack with Glacial Armor and other hero's now have the added bonus of Smash/Leathal AoE protection.
Is there just no way that all this can be put back to the point where they all stacked? Surely another fix could be implimented for the original problem that started all of this.
[ QUOTE ]
(ie, you have 10% def to a ranged psi attack).
[/ QUOTE ]I wouldn't be surprised if an announcement comes out informing us that none of these changes adds a defense to Psi attacks. The Devs don't seem to like us having much in the way of defense or resist to Psionics. 
"The one thing that can stop a full team of MasterMinds dead in its tracks... a doorway!" --Frogfather
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(ie, you have 10% def to a ranged psi attack).
[/ QUOTE ]I wouldn't be surprised if an announcement comes out informing us that none of these changes adds a defense to Psi attacks. The Devs don't seem to like us having much in the way of defense or resist to Psionics.
[/ QUOTE ]
Better tell the scrappers, then. SR, the gimped set, has had defense to Psi for a long time.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So...why just S/L damage?
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, seriously? If I'm jumping around being stealthy or weaving or whatever, do I just get lazy when I see an energy/etc attack heading my way?
Guides: Dark Armor and IOs | SS/DA | Crabbing | Fortunata
Would a lot of these problems go away if they just remove the melee/range type? Seriously this is kinda stupid anyway. Do you care if a bullet is fired from 1' away vs 20' feet away?
Does it really make sense that a hero is resistent to fire attacks that are made at range verses a fire attack that is made within melee range? Under the current weird logic, it does. If you are resistant to fire, you should be resistant to fire....
I am sure this was a funky way of translating that folks closer to you should have an easier time to hit you you, but to me I think it is easier to add acc to melee attacks and reduce acc on ranged attacks to represent this difference then trying it to work it into the defense equation.
Most people tend to see it the other way around. Get rid of typed defense. I imagine that it's much easier to dodge a bullet fired from 90 feet away than one fired point-blank range. But if you can dodge said bullet, why should you not be able to dodge an energy beam fired from the same range.
I am not a fan of just reducing it to one type of defense, but if we had to, I would say the melee/ranged defenses make the most sense. The problem with that is that Stone tanks (pre-granite), Ice tanks, and SR scrappers would all have the same feel to them then, with very few differences. I would much rather keep the tanker sets feeling different from SR scrappers.
I view SR as dodging, and the tanker sets as deflection. I view both of these as DEF, however, and believe that they should be part of the same mechanism. If you're nimble, but have armor that can deflect the attack, you're not going to stop trying to dodge just because of the armor.
Resistance is just a whole 'nother pony all together.
But if I had to choose between DEF being just positional or just typed, I'd have to say make DEF positional, and leave RES for the typed defense.
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
I haven't read this entire thread, so please forgive me if I'm just piling on. IMHO, the typed defenses are whacked. In PvP the Lethal powersets are virtually useless. While Smashing is equally well resisted, those sets seem to have built-in advantages to overcome that. Axe Tankers ... useless, AR Blasters ... useless. Only the Scrapper lethal sets can compete. By comparison, Super Strength Tankers are fine, and all the Smashing Blaster attacks have another component such as Energy or Elemental which helps them out.
I'd like to see the whole Resistance scheme changed. I'd like Resistance to become Resistance to all damage regardless of type. Eliminate the Smashing, Lethal, Energy, Negative, Elemental, Toxic, etc. Just change 100% of it all to Lethal and put everyone in the same boat. If you want to leave Psionic separate, I'm flexible on that one, because the Devs have carved out a niche for Psi damage as the exception to many rules, but otherwise, don't gimp people in PvP because of this typed damage thing.
In PvE it's just not fair to hurt the new player who logically assumes that more Defense powers/slots will help him get hit less. Only the savvy veterans know how to 'tweak' the system to get the right results. So the only people the Devs are harming by this are the new people ... that's the growth portion of your fanbase.
Honestly, I'd prefer to see Mele Defense and Ranged Defense, and that's it. Roll AoE/Cone into Ranged. The whole discrepancy of typed Defense and Typed Resistances just messes things up on many levels, and causes frustration to non-veteran players. Eventually, they just give up choosing powers entirely and come to the board and say "what's a good build for me?" That often leads to smug, trite veterans who think its fun to make fun of the new poster by posting exactly the wrong information. This is not a good thing. It's not a healthy community dynamic.
Sure, the attention is rightly on CoV now, just after I5's release and as CoV is in Betatesting phase, but still, the sooner the Typed Defense and Typed Resistances are addressed, the easier it is to fix.
It's not all that hard to re-adjust the numbers. I've advocated changing Super Reflexes since shortly after release, when it became obvious to me that Defense without any Click-Heals, Health-Regen, or Resistances was just a recipe for disaster. With only Tough offering help in the Power Pools (because Aid Self is interruptible), Defense-only sets are suffering enough anyway. The Devs aren't shy about tweaking Regen and Invuln, they should step up to the plate and fix the Defense sets Reflexes and Ice Armor.
[ 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 ]
Well, no, it doesn't make sense for me. I'm a bubble controller. When alone, I never have issues but on teams with large #'s of mobs I can't get total controll over a fair amount of agro gets to me. I'd like my dispersion bubble to help mitigate some of the damage I get directed at me. Trouble is that it's only got about 16% for me in AoE and all typed damage. If I stack Maneuvers I can add another 8% on top, but it's only for smash lethal. 24% isn't wonderful but it is way better than 16% alone.
Smash lethal is the most common type of damage but most mobs do an additional attack that is not smash lethal. A lot of things will ignore the combo. IMO maneuvers still isn't usefull to me or my team, though I did take it and slot it thinking that it would help out significantly, esp on teams where multiple maneuvers run.
Yes it stacks with my bubbles I put on my team mates but I'm still out in the cold. IMO the pool sets should guard against most types of typed damage.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(ie, you have 10% def to a ranged psi attack).
[/ QUOTE ]I wouldn't be surprised if an announcement comes out informing us that none of these changes adds a defense to Psi attacks. The Devs don't seem to like us having much in the way of defense or resist to Psionics.
[/ QUOTE ]
Better tell the scrappers, then. SR, the gimped set, has had defense to Psi for a long time.
[/ QUOTE ]Now why would I tell the SR scrappers something like that? They dont use pool powers for defense from Psi, and the changes Statesman mentioned were all to Pool powers.
My comment was really about how resist and defense to Psi is very rare. I could be wrong, but Blasters, Controllers, Defenders, and Khelds don't have Psi defense or resist and can't get it. Only one Tank type, and one scrapper type have some defense or resist to Psi (although I think there is no resist to psi, only defense).
So, it seems to me that the majority of toons out there don't have resist or defense to Psi. Hence my earlier comment that the Devs don't seem to like us having much in the way of it.
"The one thing that can stop a full team of MasterMinds dead in its tracks... a doorway!" --Frogfather
[ QUOTE ]
My comment was really about how resist and defense to Psi is very rare. I could be wrong, but Blasters, Controllers, Defenders, and Khelds don't have Psi defense or resist and can't get it. Only one Tank type, and one scrapper type have some defense or resist to Psi (although I think there is no resist to psi, only defense).
So, it seems to me that the majority of toons out there don't have resist or defense to Psi. Hence my earlier comment that the Devs don't seem to like us having much in the way of it.
[/ QUOTE ]
All Positional defences (Melee/Range/AOE) work against Psy. This includes all power pool defences, Cloaking Device, SR Defences, both Illusion controller Invis powers, and the Defender buffs Shadowfall and Steamy Mist. All three FF Bubbles also provide Psy defence in some form or another nowadays (the two small bubbles through MELEE and RANGE, Dispersion through both AOE and outright PSY).
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So...why just S/L damage?
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, seriously? If I'm jumping around being stealthy or weaving or whatever, do I just get lazy when I see an energy/etc attack heading my way?
[/ QUOTE ]
Smashing/Lethal because they might as well just add AoE defense if they're going to add defenses to all types.
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 ]
All Positional defences (Melee/Range/AOE) work against Psy. This includes all power pool defences, Cloaking Device, SR Defences, both Illusion controller Invis powers, and the Defender buffs Shadowfall and Steamy Mist. All three FF Bubbles also provide Psy defence in some form or another nowadays (the two small bubbles through MELEE and RANGE, Dispersion through both AOE and outright PSY).
[/ QUOTE ]I take you mean they work against Psionics because Psionics is ranged. I looked up a few pool power defenses like Tough, Weave, Combat jumping, Stealth, Invisibility, Grant Invisibility, and Acrobatics. They didn't say anything in game, nor on the boards about defense to Psionics specifically. But many have a ranged defense, so I figure this must be what you are referring to. In that sense, yes there is a defense to Psionics, but it is not Psionics per se, its a defense to ranged attacks.
"The one thing that can stop a full team of MasterMinds dead in its tracks... a doorway!" --Frogfather
[ QUOTE ]
I added the same to Controller/Illusion/Group Invisibility.
[/ QUOTE ]
Is there a reason why Group Invis is getting the bonus, but not Superior Invis? Or does Superior Invis already have this benefit, and I'm just not aware of it?
Not trying to be b**chy about it, just curious what the "in-game" explanation would be for why ONE illusion based invis WOULD give defense to smashing/lethal, while another WOULDN'T, particular if the one that doesn't give it is called "superior". Statesman? Red Name? Anybody? Buehler?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I added the same to Controller/Illusion/Group Invisibility.
[/ QUOTE ]
Is there a reason why Group Invis is getting the bonus, but not Superior Invis? Or does Superior Invis already have this benefit, and I'm just not aware of it?
Not trying to be b**chy about it, just curious what the "in-game" explanation would be for why ONE illusion based invis WOULD give defense to smashing/lethal, while another WOULDN'T, particular if the one that doesn't give it is called "superior". Statesman? Red Name? Anybody? Buehler?
[/ QUOTE ]
If you're looking for meaningful, in-game explanations for much of how DEF works you're just in for a headache. Much of such DEF issues currently are a hodge-podge of kludge patches to try to make a stacking work for a DEF typing system which is inherently non-intuitive and non-sensical.
In the current system:
"If a Defender surrounds you with a protective bubble then ducking under sword swings capable of penetrating said bubble doesn't add to your survivability in the slightest."
After this patch:
"If a Defender surrounds you with a protective bubble then ducking under sword swings capable of penetrating said bubble may help you survive. But if the sword is made out of fire then dodging doesn't add to your survivability in the slightest."
Thanks, Jack! I'll try to respeculate my character to an older concept of tactics now. Originally, I wanted a character who focused strongly on defensive tactics so he could notice movements of NPC, roving PC who were potentially endangering the group through attracting aggro, and unpredicted arising inclemencies. As a player of a Controller character, I saw this all the time, and as a player of a few types of AT now, I realise that it's the quality of players I'm with that is at issue.
Anyway, tactically, I prefer playing hard-to-hit characters who can use dodging and evasion to gain a good tactical position, in this game simulated by regaining endurance more than anything else.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All Positional defences (Melee/Range/AOE) work against Psy. This includes all power pool defences, Cloaking Device, SR Defences, both Illusion controller Invis powers, and the Defender buffs Shadowfall and Steamy Mist. All three FF Bubbles also provide Psy defence in some form or another nowadays (the two small bubbles through MELEE and RANGE, Dispersion through both AOE and outright PSY).
[/ QUOTE ]I take you mean they work against Psionics because Psionics is ranged. I looked up a few pool power defenses like Tough, Weave, Combat jumping, Stealth, Invisibility, Grant Invisibility, and Acrobatics. They didn't say anything in game, nor on the boards about defense to Psionics specifically. But many have a ranged defense, so I figure this must be what you are referring to. In that sense, yes there is a defense to Psionics, but it is not Psionics per se, its a defense to ranged attacks.
[/ QUOTE ]
All Psionic attacks are ranged. Therefore ranged defense = psionic defense. If there were a psionic melee attack, it would be different, but this is how it stands for 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 ]
[ 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 ]
actually states its NOT
type base defese remove it, period
give enerything positional
there you go
ice tanks get positional defense, ff defenders, positional defense, sr positional defense, defense pools get positional defense, steamy mist...you get the idea.
the when a FF teams witha darky and have a SR and Icer inthe team the FF and shadows stack unto the existing defenes...
not really all that hard, you can add type based defense (these pools), you can add positonal type defense (forcefields now) so why cant you remove Type based, adjust ice tanks to positional and be done with it.
there you go no w +defs always stack cause their is no type based.
why wont that work?
AE # 67087: Journey through the Looking Glass - Save the World
LLX VirtueVerse! - Check out my crazy Toons
This is the size of group that we have balanced AVs for, 6.
-Positron 06/07/06 07:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
All Psionic attacks are ranged. Therefore ranged defense = psionic defense. If there were a psionic melee attack, it would be different, but this is how it stands for now.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you ask me (<sigh> the devs never ask me, not sure why), here's how it should work:
All defense powers are based on ATTACK-TYPE:
Melee, Ranged, AoE, Psychic
Defense has to do with can you avoid being hit. It's related to the way an attack is delivered. Psychic should be an attack type, since you don't actually aim at the guys head. It's more of a mind-to-mind kinda thing. If a power WAS an aim-at-the-head, it would be Ranged. Psychic defense could be things like Magneto's helmet, or a highly focused mind, etc.
All resistance powers are based on DAMAGE-TYPE:
Smashing, Lethal, Toxic, Fire, Cold, Energy, Negative, Psychic, Nictus, Typeless
Resistance has to do with what the attack is "made out of" and what happens when you do get hit. Different resistances make a toon tougher or weaker against different types of substances. Psychic would be an attack type and a damage type.
Each game mechanic (DEF and RES) would be tied to a different aspect of the attack (delivery and payload). All stacking, or lack thereof, would be straightforward and easily understood. All current powers and powerset concepts could EASILY be adjusted to accomodate this (with the possible exception of adding the Psychic DEF component). It would require MINIMAL OR NO changes in the game mechanics (again, with the possible exception of Psychic DEF).
C'mon, States. Tell me it's not the right thing to do. I dare ya!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All Positional defences (Melee/Range/AOE) work against Psy. This includes all power pool defences, Cloaking Device, SR Defences, both Illusion controller Invis powers, and the Defender buffs Shadowfall and Steamy Mist. All three FF Bubbles also provide Psy defence in some form or another nowadays (the two small bubbles through MELEE and RANGE, Dispersion through both AOE and outright PSY).
[/ QUOTE ]I take you mean they work against Psionics because Psionics is ranged. I looked up a few pool power defenses like Tough, Weave, Combat jumping, Stealth, Invisibility, Grant Invisibility, and Acrobatics. They didn't say anything in game, nor on the boards about defense to Psionics specifically. But many have a ranged defense, so I figure this must be what you are referring to. In that sense, yes there is a defense to Psionics, but it is not Psionics per se, its a defense to ranged attacks.
[/ QUOTE ]
All Psionic attacks are ranged. Therefore ranged defense = psionic defense. If there were a psionic melee attack, it would be different, but this is how it stands for now.
[/ QUOTE ]lol, you just repeated what I said!
"The one thing that can stop a full team of MasterMinds dead in its tracks... a doorway!" --Frogfather
Okay, sorry if I missed this in this thread already...
The changes to FF *still* leave SR and positional defense behind the typed defense for one simple reason...
Dispersion has *all* (except toxic) types of defense but only AoE for positional. This creates a gap for the positional defense in that the typed defense people will get the full stacking (up to) 55%, but the positional people will only be able to get up to 33% (22% vs. AoE).
The simple fix to this would be to make Dispersion +Def (Melee, Range, AoE, All types), as the only imbalance this would create would be to give toxic defense to Dispersion (it already has Psy defense).
Taking your suggestions into account, I've added Defense to the Power Pools to EVERY single damage type EXCEPT Psi. In other words, the Pools are no longer limited to Smashing and Lethal.
Frankly, my original idea didn't account for the fact that some pools would have been situationally more useful to certain Tanker and Scrapper builds...This change addresses the inequality.
I dont like how the defense is implemented and even less how it sounds in the power descriptions. That makes it next to impossible for my casually playing friends to build a defensive type of Hero without my constant nurturing of information and it break the immersion for them. Anyone should be able to select their powers with an informed choice without resorting to investing time on the board (not that this is wrong but I still figure we are but a small portion of the CoH population).
The description should include some more meaningful description with numbers. X Power give y% base defense version <positional and/or typed damage>. It is up to the player from there to figure if it is worth to slot a 3% defensive power for Melee/Range versus a 15% to Smash/Lethal. That decision could be based on the enemy they are fighting lately, those that are coming, where they think they are hurting, or based on the other player they are teaming with.
They are trying to façade a simple description of a complex mechanics and that makes peoples thing its not functioning, not functioning properly, not useful, information is hidden or outright dont understand the correlation of the power selected with any perceivable changes after the power is selected.
Descriptions make it sound like the following; therefore make it work like this. And this is not only my opinion but those of friends, family, regular teammates or based on random question I get when I build team and pick-up players. Ill try to put it in words because that is how it should be understandable by any new comers or someone that just never could keep up with the change and how it ultimately works.
How defense is understood and perhaps how it should be based on in-game description.
P = Range, Melee, AoE
T = Smash, Lethal, Fire, Cold, Energy, Neg Energy, Psi, etc
HP = Hit Points
Xx = Use for any amount of percentage
Positional attack <P> of damage Type <T> is delivered:
IF
Heros xx% total positional defenses for <P> protect from this attack then attack is avoided and no further test needed.
ELSE IF
Heros xx% total typed defenses for <T> protect from this attack then attack is avoided and no further test is needed.
ELSE
Reduce HP by damage - any damage resistance xx% for <T>.
So in the above case the Total Typed Defense = from Power Set, Pools Set, +Buffs, -Debuffs, etc. Total Position Defenses is similarly from Power Set, Pools Set, +Buffs, -Debuffs.
Now I have placed positional damage test before the typed one because 1st theres only 3 different positions (Range, Melee, and AoE) and it seem to be on more powers and buffs. (Old way at least). So that should cover most of the AT as well with any type but Tanker & Scrapper with lower possible percentage.
Then mainly the tanker, scrapper (or some other AT post Epic powers) get the test for the Typed defenses as well and get damaged only if the previous 2 tests failed.
Now this is simpler and only requires the proper amount of Positional versus Typed damage percentage to help somewhat balance it out. Increase cap on SR for example to their only Positional defenses to make it balanced with the combined of the Pos+Type of other AT.
Finally, enough with the Maneuver give a different return based on AT. The Pools type said they are the same power available to all AT and therefore should yield the same results to all. Pick a number and make it the same for all so that it does not have to be explained over and over in-game. The jumps are all the same, Stamina recharge the same %, why are defensive/resistance one providing different effect based on AT? It is not consistent with Pools power description and the other powers. It certainly adds to the defensive frustration.
There's two format of defense and they are explained as such in descrition, therefore they should be functioning that way. Don't give me the more complex code issue, by adding more defense type to certain power to adjust the more complex code is already there, just in a different place.