Defense and Scaling
By
Aaron123,
Posted on: 2006-01-11 16:47 in Archetypes and Powers General Discussion
[ QUOTE ]
If this change goes into effect without altering the unyielding defense debuff we will get the following result.
[/ QUOTE ]
The effect of this change is to scale defense's effects upward relative to level changes. One unfortunate side effect is that it will magnify the unyielding debuff as well, except of course unyielding's defense is negative.
Another effect briefly mentioned is that defense debuffs ironically become stronger (but this is unavoidable: if defense becomes stronger, then in effect taking that defense away *has* to have an overall higher impact). They might need to be numerically toned down to return them to their original net incremental effect.
Parry becomes much stronger.
The disparity between invincibility for tankers and invincibility for scrappers becomes more pronounced.
Defense buffing increases in value relative to resistance buffing (but that doesn't mean defense buffing is necessarily *better*).
Insights and lucks become significantly stronger in net effect on average.
There are lots of little things that I think will take a lot of time to fully appreciate their consequences. But the unyielding debuff, which is an issue in WanderingCat's scrapper thread, probably increases signficantly in importance. I originally suggested that it be scaled down to 3.75%, the same scaling factor as resistances. However, this change will magnify that debuff's effect, so it might need to be further reduced to -2.5% The net overall result, though, will be that the debuff will have the same approximate effect at lower levels, but will be weaker overall at higher levels with TH and invincibility (potentially) stacking on top of it, creating a net overall defensive buff on invuln.
Its not a big one, so I don't think it matters so much relative to the issue of not penalizing lower level invulns too much.
Its entirely possible that this change will come with a basket of small tweaks to powers, though. Consider that they already admitted that lucky/evasion are probably going to be dialed back down to melee/ranged defense values in SR.
[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 ]
they get -50 points for making yet *another* fundamental alternation to their game engine without warning.
[/ QUOTE ]
Technically, this thread is the warning, since none of this is coming until I7.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I picked up on the talk about it quite some time ago (I was discussing it in another thread when Statesman posted) so I'm guessing some people knew it was coming.
[ QUOTE ]
I originally suggested that it be scaled down to 3.75%...
[/ QUOTE ] Isn't the whole point to provide them with a penalty? Is the penalty supposed to be offset by the resistance in the power? Then why create something only to cancel the benefit and eat up CPU cycles in the process?
Maybe the point is to create an effect of an unyielding foe, meaning you're getting hit because you're not moving. Then the resistance is there to create the effect without actually creating a true penalty for using the power. So reducing the debuff would reduce the effect. It would then seem a better choice to increase the resistance in the power. This allows you to retain this "unyielding" aspect of the power, but without an egregious penalty. The only remaining issue is where you set the base resistance considering slotting.
[ QUOTE ]
Its entirely possible that this change will come with a basket of small tweaks to powers, though. Consider that they already admitted that lucky/evasion are probably going to be dialed back down to melee/ranged defense values in SR.
[/ QUOTE ]
I suspect you are correct here... I just wanted bring to light an issue or two that needs to be ironed out before this change really does benefit everyone in terms of the scaling issue.
The issue with the defense debuff in unyielding is not an insurmountable one by any means, it just needs to be mentioned so that it does not slip through the cracks.
What this scaling change effectively accomplishes is an exaggeration of certain effects over what we currently see... it is an unavoidable part of changing from an additive system to a multiplicative one.
With a small adjustment to the debuff in unyielding the minor problem I bring to the table here can be completely solved. I just don't want it to be forgotten, or left without consideration.
[ QUOTE ]
hey I just realized something...with buffing defence they nerfed accuracy!
[/ QUOTE ]
Only when going up against greens, if that. Do players get a to hit bonus when they attack a higher level foe? If not, then no, there's no difference.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A while ago, peoople have requested something be done. Well, we've done a bunch of work and done this. Defense powers will now work equally well against critters, regardless of their rank or level. For instance, your defense powers will work equally well against a Boss or any critter up to 5 levels higher than you, as it does for an equal level minion. This change has no effect on a player who does not have any Defense.
[/ QUOTE ]
The devs get 20 points for listening to the playerbase, 10 points for giving a boost to SR Scrappers, and 10 points for the same to Ice Tanks.
...however, they get -50 points for making yet *another* fundamental alternation to their game engine without warning.
[/ QUOTE ]
Without warning? What is this thread, swiss cheese?
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)
The point is that with a multiplicative scaling effect in place, the defense debuff is also scaled such that it is more powerful than current levels.
I am just saying it should be looked into, the type of solution that may or may not be instituted is less important to me than the fact that it is at least "solved".
[ QUOTE ]
For instance, your defense powers will work equally well against a Boss or any critter up to 5 levels higher than you, as it does for an equal level minion.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm so excited! My Tier 1 henchmen on my Robot/Force Field Mastermind always died extremely easily. Casting force fields on them only marginally improves their survivability, since they are -2 to even-con enemies anyway. Considering I usually fight at +2 or +3, even enemy minions would two-shot them and mostly ignore their shields.
This will be a pretty MASSIVE buff to this particular Mastermind build. I'm glad it's being done -- my Ice Tanker thanks you -- but I'm concerned about the effect on a Bots/FF Mastermind. I rarely lose a henchman as it is... though the Tier 1s die easily, smart tactics can prevent their engagement in favor of the Assbot. I suspect that, with this change, "rarely" will become "almost never". Considering that my duo partner when hunting level 40 CoT in Nerva called playing with my MM "riding the gravy train of XP" the other night, I'm slightly worried...
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not too pleased about the idea of them buffing the bosses accuracy in a way that will decrease for the defense set, but the other majority of sets will only be getting hit by bossess more often now.
Just what we need, more hits without the defense to withstand it.
Bummer
[/ QUOTE ]
Huh!?!? This change nerf's bosses in regards to +DEF. The change has no effect otherwise. If you have no +DEF, you will be hit (or not) just as often just as often as you are now.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I originally suggested that it be scaled down to 3.75%...
[/ QUOTE ] Isn't the whole point to provide them with a penalty? Is the penalty supposed to be offset by the resistance in the power? Then why create something only to cancel the benefit and eat up CPU cycles in the process?
Maybe the point is to create an effect of an unyielding foe, meaning you're getting hit because you're not moving. Then the resistance is there to create the effect without actually creating a true penalty for using the power. So reducing the debuff would reduce the effect. It would then seem a better choice to increase the resistance in the power. This allows you to retain this "unyielding" aspect of the power, but without an egregious penalty. The only remaining issue is where you set the base resistance considering slotting.
[/ QUOTE ]
The penalty was placed against issue 3 numbers. The numbers have taken two significant hits since then. If the penalty was balanced when it was implemented, how on Earth is it balanced now?
I tend to think that a penalty that causes you to take more damage with your defense active than shut off certainly qualifies as an "egregious penalty."
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)
Great explaination, thanks _Castle_
[ QUOTE ]
So when will you be announcing that all +DEF powers have been cut in half?
We've only reduced one power, since it was a kluge fix to the problem that is no longer necessary. Essentially, Super Reflexes power sets Defense will be the same in effectiveness at Melee, Ranged and AoE ranges. Currently, SR has a bonus vs AoE attacks that was added to help them against tougher opponents with higher Base To Hit values.
[/ QUOTE ]
Was this really why SR got it's area attack bonus? I thought it was because most other defense enhancing powers don't work against area attacks, and thus the base defense needs to be higher.
Finally, how does Smoke / Smoke Grenade / Blinding Arrow work with this? Are those accuracy debuffs or to-hit debuffs?
[ QUOTE ]
Sheesh, some people. You'd think the world was ending because some didn't give you ten dollars for nothing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then the world IS coming to an end, as nobody has given me a $10 for nothing.
THE END IS NIGH!
Though admittedly, I'd settle for.... TWO DOLLARS ...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For instance, your defense powers will work equally well against a Boss or any critter up to 5 levels higher than you, as it does for an equal level minion.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm so excited! My Tier 1 henchmen on my Robot/Force Field Mastermind always died extremely easily. Casting force fields on them only marginally improves their survivability, since they are -2 to even-con enemies anyway. Considering I usually fight at +2 or +3, even enemy minions would two-shot them and mostly ignore their shields.
This will be a pretty MASSIVE buff to this particular Mastermind build. I'm glad it's being done -- my Ice Tanker thanks you -- but I'm concerned about the effect on a Bots/FF Mastermind. I rarely lose a henchman as it is... though the Tier 1s die easily, smart tactics can prevent their engagement in favor of the Assbot. I suspect that, with this change, "rarely" will become "almost never". Considering that my duo partner when hunting level 40 CoT in Nerva called playing with my MM "riding the gravy train of XP" the other night, I'm slightly worried...
[/ QUOTE ]
I've got a level 40 Robotic/Traps MM. I already "almost never" lose a Battle Drone. I generaly only lose 1 Battle Drone if I let my attention lapse and Drone decides to solo a Boss via Melee combat.
And to counter the XP gravy train comment, try taking on a +0 Succubus with your Bots. That almost never lose a Bot becomes almost always loses all but one Bot. (Especially when they have Air Thorn Casters and they Gale my Seeker Drones away so I can't debuff the Succubus which proceeds to turn my Bot into junk and my Caltops and Acid Mortar proceed to target me their Creator and Master!.. ahem. Can you tell I really don't Succubi?)
[ QUOTE ]
The point is that with a multiplicative scaling effect in place, the defense debuff is also scaled such that it is more powerful than current levels.
I am just saying it should be looked into, the type of solution that may or may not be instituted is less important to me than the fact that it is at least "solved".
[/ QUOTE ]The other perspective is that it wasn't giving the debuff that it should have against higher level foes???
So wait... Hell froze over and NO ONE told me!!? GOSH!!!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I originally suggested that it be scaled down to 3.75%...
[/ QUOTE ] Isn't the whole point to provide them with a penalty? Is the penalty supposed to be offset by the resistance in the power?
[/ QUOTE ]
The penalty is to offset a version of the power we no longer have. The power was halved in effect on all resistances except Lethal/Smash, which was quartered, yet conventional knowledge says the debuff was left alone.
In light of other changes to the game, I continue to question whether the penalty is appropriate at all. There are other penalties present in the set. For example, I do not believe that any consideration is given to the fact that, to get the most Ene/Ele resist that Invincibility as a set can provide (which is substantially less than that provided by Dark Armor in one power) requires the acquisition of three powers. That represents a cost.
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
[ QUOTE ]
The other perspective is that it wasn't giving the debuff that it should have against higher level foes???
[/ QUOTE ]
Is this honestly your opinion?... or are you just playing devils advocate?
I cannot tell you whether or not the intent of the developers was originally to scale the debuff of unyielding to meet higher level foes... however I have a strong suspicion that is not the case.
Considering we are not really discussing something we can have "proof" for or against, I still think it is an important issue to bring to the table and not just let it get swept under the rug(I love mixed metaphors lol), don't you agree?
Let the developers take a look and say to themselves "wonderful... we finally get that debuff to scale like we always wanted it to"... or to say "this is definately not what we intended to occur with this change in how defense works... we'll have to adjust this to get the proper effect"
[ QUOTE ]
I tend to think that a penalty that causes you to take more damage with your defense active than shut off certainly qualifies as an "egregious penalty."
[/ QUOTE ] You are combining two separate arguments.
1) Is it egregroius to have any power work the way Unyielding does?
2) Is the consequence of being easier to hit offset enough by the resistance in Unyielding?
I am not offering any commentary on #1. The devs have created a power that causes Inv to get hit more as an apsect of their status protection. Obviously many Inv's don't like that in principle
I am saying that if the the point of the debuff is to simulate what it means to be unyielding...then the choice should be to increase the resistance rather than reducing the debuff....assuming the devs want them to cancel out in the first place.
Maybe they don't. Maybe the price Inv has to pay for its status protection is substantively more damage. Until recently, Inv tested out far better than half the scrappers set. With this change it may move back into first place.
I'm not here to debate what is balanced or fair, but suggest a solution that preserves an experience the devs may have been attempting to engender.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point is that with a multiplicative scaling effect in place, the defense debuff is also scaled such that it is more powerful than current levels.
I am just saying it should be looked into, the type of solution that may or may not be instituted is less important to me than the fact that it is at least "solved".
[/ QUOTE ]The other perspective is that it wasn't giving the debuff that it should have against higher level foes???
[/ QUOTE ]
See my comments above.
You seem to have it in for the set. Any particular reason?
Edit: Nevermind, by the time I posted this your above post appeared. Nonetheless, I think you are missing the point that there is a broader context involved in the problem many of us have with the debuff on Unyielding. That is, compared to what other sets get in terms of numerical resists (or other mitigation) combined with a fully mobile mez resist armor (q.v. Focused Fighting, Integration) the magntiude of the resists in Unyielding (and the set as a whole) do not appear to require a penalty. And at the very least, the power is something like 40% of its original power (bear in mind also that perma-Unstoppable was available when the penalty was added) but the penalty is beleived unchanged.
The discussion of the changes to def buffs/debuffs only makes this discussion more relevant.
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
[ QUOTE ]
Is this honestly your opinion?... or are you just playing devils advocate?
[/ QUOTE ] I find it funny that people always assume they aren't getting enough of a benefit but never concede they might not be getting enough of a penalty.
[ QUOTE ]
Let the developers take a look and say to themselves "wonderful... we finally get that debuff to scale like we always wanted it to"... or to say "this is definately not what we intended to occur with this change in how defense works... we'll have to adjust this to get the proper effect
[/ QUOTE ] Of course. But what if they determined that TH and Invinc were actually reducing the penalty more than it should, would accept them increasing its effect? Or is your objective only to change it if it benefits you? The reason I ask is you present the question as though you are really concerned that the "proper" effect is in place.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this honestly your opinion?... or are you just playing devils advocate?
[/ QUOTE ] I find it funny that people always assume they aren't getting enough of a benefit but never concede they might not be getting enough of a penalty.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but you really are being a pompous [censored] on this topic. We're (or at least I am) explaining to you that analysis has been done on the matter, and that, in our opinions, it does not bear out the penalty.
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
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I originally suggested that it be scaled down to 3.75%...
[/ QUOTE ] Isn't the whole point to provide them with a penalty? Is the penalty supposed to be offset by the resistance in the power? Then why create something only to cancel the benefit and eat up CPU cycles in the process?
[/ QUOTE ]
The defense debuff in unyielding is -5% for both tankers and scrappers, even though the resistances in unyielding are higher for tankers than for scrappers. It represents a scaling imbalance from tankers to scrappers. Why do it at all? Well, as has often been thrust at me, defense != resistance, so while the net effect of -DEF + +RES might be to cancel out on average, that doesn't necessarily mean the net effect is truely zero. Moreover:
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the point is to create an effect of an unyielding foe, meaning you're getting hit because you're not moving. Then the resistance is there to create the effect without actually creating a true penalty for using the power. So reducing the debuff would reduce the effect. It would then seem a better choice to increase the resistance in the power. This allows you to retain this "unyielding" aspect of the power, but without an egregious penalty. The only remaining issue is where you set the base resistance considering slotting.
[/ QUOTE ]
Originally, unyielding rooted (cf: unyielding stance). Then it was swapped for the defense debuff. Originally, the penalty was set too high, and it was lowered because the increased damage was seen as too high. Its clear that the debuff isn't meant to make you unilaterally "hittable" but rather "just hittable enough" to roughly, on someone's score card, penalize you in a similar fashion to being rooted. I don't think the -DEF debuff is explicitly meant to cancel out the resistances exactly, although the place where the devs "feel" the unyielding debuff roughly balances the original root might be somewhere around there for *unslotted* UNY.
Part of the problem is that the resistances in UNY are slottable, while the defense debuff is constant, so in effect its actually a penalty on lower level invulns more so than higher level invulns - which in many ways is exactly the opposite of what such a balancing debuff ought to do.
In any case, completely separate from the defense change being discussed, people have long suggested that the UNY debuff be scaled in the same manner as the resistances do in the invuln set from tankers to scrappers. The defense change only *highlights* the imbalance, by magnifying it.
Putting my design hat on, I believe that the -DEF in UNY is not there to balance the +RES in UNY. Its actually there to balance the +DEF in invincibility. Why? Because originally, I believe that the root in UNY was there to balance the DEF in invincibility: being unable to move was the price you pay to have a power that gives you massive scalable defense when surrounded. The devs mental picture of invuln was an immovable object surrounded by foes with invincibility keeping the numbers in check.
But it didn't work out that way. First people simply took teleport. And invincibility was about 10x too strong. People who didn't take teleport and didn't herd Crey's Folly empty were severely penalized relative to power gamers that almost exclusively took teleport. The root was replaced with a -DEF debuff because that was the logical thing to balance invincibility if the root was being taken away. But not everyone took invincibility, and in any case the -DEF was pretty strong for lower level invulns who couldn't possibly *have* invincibility.
Then I honestly think they either forgot to adjust the debuff when the Global Defense reductions went in, or alternatively they decided, as often happens, to apply *every* penalty instead of just one to (in this case) invuln scrappers: lower resistance caps, lower resistances, but in effect *higher* UNY penalty, AND a fixed invincibility, all at once.
Regardless, its probably unnecessary for invuln scrappers to have a proportionately higher penalty.
[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 ]
The penalty is to offset a version of the power we no longer have.
[/ QUOTE ] Or perhaps the penalty is to retain an aspect of the power you no longer have. The one in which you were rooted and couldn't move. Being unable to move would suggest that you would be much easier to hit. The power is called "Unyielding"..not "Status Protection."
[ QUOTE ]
There are other penalties present in the set. *** ...requires the acquisition of three powers. That represents a cost
[/ QUOTE ] Having to choose powers is a "penalty." It is an opporunity cost. Choosing any power represents opportunity costs and are not penalties.
Tell you what, why don't we just remove the debuff and give you capped resistances... Anything else we need to fix? I know...the idea that some power might have a penalty associated with it is completely un-American. And God knows we can't trust the devs to use penalties to achieve any artistic conception.
[ QUOTE ]
I find it funny that people always assume they aren't getting enough of a benefit but never concede they might not be getting enough of a penalty.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have not assumed anything... in fact the only thing I have done is noticed that this change expands an existing debuff and I desire to know if that is intended, or an oversight.... see the difference?
[ QUOTE ]
Of course. But what if they determined that TH and Invinc were actually reducing the penalty more than it should, would accept them increasing its effect? Or is your objective only to change it if it benefits you? The reason I ask is you present the question as though you are really concerned that the "proper" effect is in place.
[/ QUOTE ]
The tone of your statement leaves something to be desired... I have not come here with an objective to benefit myself... I have brought up a legitimate issue that so far as I am aware no one else really considered here.
Exactly why does it bother you that I might bring to light an actual mathematical effect to see if this particular effect is really warrented?
Isn't that part of this process?... bringing to light potential problems that the developers might have missed?... you know, like what happened with the proposed changes to stealth.
My only interest is in seeing this change have the effect that is intended, if that means the current debuff stays then so be it, but it is certainly reasonable to discuss the secondary effects this system will bring to the game.
[ QUOTE ]
Have you guys really play tested this?
It's been running internally for all tests since October.
[/ QUOTE ] lol...obviously that was a rhetorical question and really based on the initial concern that a +5 would hit with the same frequency as +0, which my discourse with Arcana set aside.
I was going to remove it from my post as it comes across as an indictment, but figured you guys wouldn't take it at face value. It wasn't meant as a real question....but I guess it provided the opportunity to assuage any fears.