Defense and Scaling
By
Aaron123,
Posted on: 2006-01-11 16:47 in Archetypes and Powers General Discussion
[ QUOTE ]
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'll tell you what. Why don't you go compare what Invul does and gets to the other sets. When you have soemthing other than pompous posturing to back up your opinion (as I do for my opinion) and you are willing to discuss something without a superior attitute, I'll give you some consideration.
For now, I find myself filing you under the category of troll. For your information, it has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me - lots of people disagree with me and I don't call them names or think less of them. It has to do with how you choose to do it. Whether you choose to accept that or not, I don't really care. Enjoy.
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 ]
Some more good news...
Ice Tankers and SR Scrappers have long lamented that Defense doesn't scale with level. Because mobs higher level than a player possess an inherent to hit bonus, Defense isn't as effective over levels as Resistance.
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.
This change is coming in I7
[/ QUOTE ]
Stalkers everywhere chuckle malevolently. You don't know what you've done, Hero...
(Thanks States!)
[ QUOTE ]
I have not assumed anything...
[/ QUOTE ] Nor have I accused you of assuming anything. It was a general observation triggred by your response.
[ QUOTE ]
The tone of your statement leaves something to be desired...
[/ QUOTE ] Simply because I suggest you aren't interested in what is truly proper? Was the point of your inquiry completely unbiased in motivation? Perhaps you don't really care whether it changes or not, but I dont' think you suggested it because it needs to be increased.
[ QUOTE ]
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?
[/ QUOTE ] None at all. But the game is more than just about the math. It's about an experience. When people insist on reducing everything to a mathmatical comparison...that doesn't factor in all the variables, then I do believe it hurts the game.
Every time a change gets made, people lobby for more improvements to their sets using what ever rationale is available to them. No one wants to have any negatives or penalties or weaknesses...and yet...they refuse to acknowledge how detrimental it would be to the game if they all got their wish.
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't that part of this process?... bringing to light potential problems that the developers might have missed?
[/ QUOTE ] It is. Which is my response to Arcana is not that the debuff should remain untouched, but to first understand the purpose of the debuff and determine what is the best way of dealing with it. A suggestion that seeks to preserve the experience the game creates and not just reduce it to spreadsheets on comparative damage mitigation.
[ QUOTE ]
My only interest is in seeing this change have the effect that is intended
[/ QUOTE ] Agreed, but let's not be too hasty in assuming we know what that full scope of that intended affect is.
[ QUOTE ]
Someone give Arcanaville a cigar!
[/ QUOTE ]
In all the commotion, I forgot to ask: does this mean you're working on adding cigars to the female costume parts, so my SR scrapper can actually enjoy that cigar? She's been kicked, punched, stabbed, jolted, burned, chilled, flung, crushed, tripped, sliced, shot, choked, impaled, chewed on by giant eyeballs, and attacked by more dark tentacles than anyone not appearing in weird Japanese animation, in the service of testing Defense. She's earned that stogie.
[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 ]
Simply because I suggest you aren't interested in what is truly proper? Was the point of your inquiry completely unbiased in motivation? Perhaps you don't really care whether it changes or not, but I dont' think you suggested it because it needs to be increased.
[/ QUOTE ]
I took great care to craft my post in such a way as to present the mathematical proof that this change would expand an existing debuff without clouding it in personal rhetoric or bias.
Tell me, while we are on the topic of bias... why is this issue of such import to you that you feel the need to even assault the proposition that it be looked into or taken into consideration?... doesn't that smack of a greater personal bias than someone who merely says "this change will bring about this alternate effect... is this what you are really looking to achieve?"?
My post was because it essentially was increased by this change and I do not want people to just look at portions of this alteration without considering all of it's ramifications at once... it is the only way to iron out potential issues.
I can point at an experiment and suggest that there is a problem with the setup without having a vested interest in how the experiment turns out... this is no different... do I like the debuff in unyielding?, not really... but that has nothing to do with the intent of my post considering if you read closely I was only suggesting that they alter the stats to maintain it's current effect (i.e. I did not even bother suggesting that the debuff be eliminated entirely)... so how am I biased if I am merely saying that if the only intent is to help defense based sets scale better, then this 1 portion is not in keeping with that intent and can be remedied quite easily.
[ QUOTE ]
None at all. But the game is more than just about the math. It's about an experience. When people insist on reducing everything to a mathmatical comparison...that doesn't factor in all the variables, then I do believe it hurts the game.
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting... because this entire change is about a change in variables and boils down to a mathematical alteration. So in this singular instance I believe it is quite reasonable to set down a mathematical argument for where this change might have an unintended result.
This whole new system is actually a new "mathematical" system... so if you object to mathematics so vehemently, then why aren't you argueing that the suggested change itself is "hurting the game" because of its mathematical nature?
[ QUOTE ]
Every time a change gets made, people lobby for more improvements to their sets using what ever rationale is available to them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lobby is a rather strong word to use when someone says the equivalant of "was this secondary effect an intended result of this change?... and if not, perhaps it should be fixed"... sorry, I'm not buying into your line of reasoning here.
[ QUOTE ]
It is. Which is my response to Arcana is not that the debuff should remain untouched, but to first understand the purpose of the debuff and determine what is the best way of dealing with it. A suggestion that seeks to preserve the experience the game creates and not just reduce it to spreadsheets on comparative damage mitigation.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have no vested interest in any particular mechanism of solution, if one is even deemed necessary. If you believe that an enhancement to resistance is more appropriate as a solution over Arcana's belief that the debuff should be reduced that is entirely reasonable.
If you believed that no change was necessary at all that is reasonable as well... but I do ask that you not impugn my motivations here as I have put some effort into presenting information in a manner that is as unbiased as possible.
[ QUOTE ]
he defense debuff in unyielding is -5% for both tankers and scrappers. It represents a scaling imbalance from tankers to scrappers.
[/ QUOTE ] Be that as it may, it's not anything I'm contesting or concerned with in this thread.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ] That's right...so the penalty was not as pronounced as you faced higher level foes...which was why I originally posed the question that maybe the penalty wasn in fact not scaling up properly prior to this global fix.
Inv's should have been experiencing a higher penalty and were not. I'm not saying that the penalty is or is not justified, but that due to the defensive scaling problems, the penalty because less detrimintal based on its intended effect against +0's.
[ QUOTE ]
...which in many ways is exactly the opposite of what such a balancing debuff ought to do.
[/ QUOTE ] but with this change...it would balance, or come closer to balancing or preserve what ever balance that they intended at against +0's. This strengthens the idea that it may have been intended for balancing.
[ QUOTE ]
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
[/ QUOTE ] I can't say I've come to that conclusion.
[ QUOTE ]
Then I honestly think they either forgot to adjust the debuff when the Global Defense reductions went in
[/ QUOTE ] That's possible, but it is tangential to the question of how the scaling defense change affects it.
Mieux, how many monkeys* actually type out your posts? How long does it take them to finish? I'm guessing 7 monkeys, 30 seconds.
*I know it's monkeys because a human would have followed the logic layed out by Hunter and Arcanaville, who probably should stop responding to your posts.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not here to debate what is balanced or fair,
[/ QUOTE ]
That's all you had to say.
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 ]
why is this issue of such import to you that you feel the need to even assault the proposition that it be looked into or taken into consideration?...
[/ QUOTE ] I didnt assault that proposition. I specifically made a suggestion to address the concern. You are falsely connecting my questioning of your motivation or the basis on which your argue your position with an accusation that I am against consistency. One has nothting to do with the other.
[ QUOTE ]
I can point at an experiment and suggest that there is a problem with the setup without having a vested interest in how the experiment turns out... this is no different...
[/ QUOTE ] There is a fundamental difference. This is art...not science.
[ QUOTE ]
I took great care to craft my post in such a way as to present the mathematical proof that this change would expand an existing debuff without clouding it
[/ QUOTE ] I see that. But look at Arcana's proof where she acknowledges that debuff was having less effect on higher level mobs. Did you address that in your analysis...that the debuff may not have been penalizing properly under the old system?
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting... because this entire change is about a change in variables and boils down to a mathematical alteration.
[/ QUOTE ] That's true. The change is based strictly on a mathmatical comparison...that doesn't make it proper to subject everything else in the game to the same scrutiny.
[ QUOTE ]
This whole new system is actually a new "mathematical" system... so if you object to mathematics so vehemently, then why aren't you argueing that the suggested change itself is "hurting the game" because of its mathematical nature?
[/ QUOTE ] It's not a new mathmatical system. It's simply change to where the accuracy modifier is applied.
[ QUOTE ]
I have no vested interest in any particular mechanism of solution
[/ QUOTE ] And that is what I am trying to inculcate. The method is very important to what makes this game.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Someone give Arcanaville a cigar!
[/ QUOTE ]
In all the commotion, I forgot to ask: does this mean you're working on adding cigars to the female costume parts, so my SR scrapper can actually enjoy that cigar? She's been kicked, punched, stabbed, jolted, burned, chilled, flung, crushed, tripped, sliced, shot, choked, impaled, chewed on by giant eyeballs, and attacked by more dark tentacles than anyone not appearing in weird Japanese animation, in the service of testing Defense. She's earned that stogie.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to second the request, as my attempts to create a female mastermind modeled on Baron Samedi are stymied by this lack.
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)
If anyone has the time I would like to know:
Will this change have any impact on to-hit debuffs such as RI and Hurricane? If so, how will it impact them?
Why Blasters? Empathy Sucks.
So, you want to be Mental?
What the hell? Let's buff defenders.
Tactics are for those who do not have a big enough hammer. Wisdom is knowing how big your hammer is.
[ QUOTE ]
But look at Arcana's proof where she acknowledges that debuff was having less effect on higher level mobs. Did you address that in your analysis...that the debuff may not have been penalizing properly under the old system?
[/ QUOTE ]
Unless I missed something, that is not what Arcanaville said at all.
What was said:
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
The level of the mobs is irrelevant ; what is relevant is the extra slots a higher level character has in order to offset the penalty. Thus the power penalizes lower level characters more than higher level characters.
Why Blasters? Empathy Sucks.
So, you want to be Mental?
What the hell? Let's buff defenders.
Tactics are for those who do not have a big enough hammer. Wisdom is knowing how big your hammer is.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Someone give Arcanaville a cigar!
[/ QUOTE ]
In all the commotion, I forgot to ask: does this mean you're working on adding cigars to the female costume parts, so my SR scrapper can actually enjoy that cigar? She's been kicked, punched, stabbed, jolted, burned, chilled, flung, crushed, tripped, sliced, shot, choked, impaled, chewed on by giant eyeballs, and attacked by more dark tentacles than anyone not appearing in weird Japanese animation, in the service of testing Defense. She's earned that stogie.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to second the request, as my attempts to create a female mastermind modeled on Baron Samedi are stymied by this lack.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sometimes, Kali, a cigar is just a cigar. 
[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 ]
There is a fundamental difference. This is art...not science.
[/ QUOTE ]
Portions of the game are artistic in nature whereas other portions are scientific/quantitative.
This particular change for example is more of a mathematical alteration than an aesthetic one.
Also, isn't there room for mathematical arguments and concerns here as well as arguments founded in the aestetic experience of the game?... the two are more interrelated than you seem to be willing to admit.
I can name two mathematicians off the top of my head who would disagree with you... namely M.C. Escher and Fibonacci who both used mathematics to express art and beauty... this is no different, the mathematics underlying the game helps to express the aestetic of the game... so to ignore it completely would be silly in my opinion.
[ QUOTE ]
That's true. The change is based strictly on a mathmatical comparison...that doesn't make it proper to subject everything else in the game to the same scrutiny.
[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't said we should only consider the mathematical aspects of the game and nothing else. I took the proposed mathematical change and applied it to an existing power to see what the new mathematical effect would be.
This seems completely reasonable from where I am sitting and I am uncertain why you might object.
Should the aesthetic of the game be disregarded for pure mathematical reasoning?... absolutely not... but that does not mean that mathematics has no place here.
[ QUOTE ]
It's not a new mathmatical system. It's simply change to where the accuracy modifier is applied.
[/ QUOTE ]
But it is a new mathematical construct because the order of operations is essentially altered (not precisely... but for all intents and purposes the result is the same).
Addition is accomplished prior to a multiplicative operation which simultaneously expands one extreme while contracting another in this situation.
Furthermore, we have a new consideration as the to-hit floor is demonstrably different for the various villain classes (minions 5%, lieutenants 6.25% and bosses 7.5%)
Is this new system radically different than the old one?... that depends upon perspective... but it is different.
[ QUOTE ]
And that is what I am trying to inculcate. The method is very important to what makes this game.
[/ QUOTE ]
I do not disagree with you here... I do however think you could have gotten the point across in a manner that was easier to digest.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Someone give Arcanaville a cigar!
[/ QUOTE ]
In all the commotion, I forgot to ask: does this mean you're working on adding cigars to the female costume parts, so my SR scrapper can actually enjoy that cigar? She's been kicked, punched, stabbed, jolted, burned, chilled, flung, crushed, tripped, sliced, shot, choked, impaled, chewed on by giant eyeballs, and attacked by more dark tentacles than anyone not appearing in weird Japanese animation, in the service of testing Defense. She's earned that stogie.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to second the request, as my attempts to create a female mastermind modeled on Baron Samedi are stymied by this lack.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sometimes, Kali, a cigar is just a cigar.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, like when Baron Samedi is smoking one.
I would also like to protest the lack of bottles of rum as a costume option, given their utility to both voodoo and pirates.
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)
Before people get too happy for defense based sets, I think one
has to take a look at some of the numbers. First realize
resistance is capped at 75% for most archtypes, this system will
cap defense-based mitigation for everyone at 90%. Now that the
performance of the two is brought in line, I can't expect that to
stay.
Just look at how close to the cap you can get currently. Let's
take an SR scrapper. You can take the passives and toggles (5% +
12.5%), combat jumping (2.5%), Weave (3.25%), and Manuevers
(2.5%). Yeah, yeah, a very specific build, but not considering
the extremes is exactly what got the developers in trouble the
first time. Add that up and you get 25.75% defense. Three slot
each (156%) for 40% defense. That's 80% mitigation to all damage
with no holes, with no outside buffs. Heck, if you could live
without Stamina and throw Hover into the mix, add a few extra
slots to the toggles and keep them at +3, and you are capped
across the board. In fact, because of the incredible increasing
returns of defense when near the cap, it would be worth it to
6-slot despite ED's penalty, and even without Hover you'd be
pushing up near the cap.
Heck a team of 8 defenders just running slotted manuevers (3.125%
base each, 156% slotted, x8) is giving everyone 39% defense or
78% mitigation just from that one power each.
I can't see this going live without another massive rebalance of
all defense-based powers on the order of Issue 5. All you people
getting giddy about this change, sit back and think about it. If
you are into game mechanics and like how this balances defense
with resistance, you'll love it. But if you a defense-based
character fan who hates to get nerfed...
[ 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 ]
I could be wrong, and someone else coulda posted this, but the way I understand the proposed change is that players without any +DEF will not see any difference with this change. They will still get hit just as often as before. It only affects players with +DEF powers.
You speak as though groups of heroes weren't intended to be brokenly powerful. Given that the contribution of a defender increases dramatically with the addition of each new teammate, it is already -easy- to achieve virtual immortality on a team.
Will Maneuvers suddenly become a good power choice? Yeah. Will it be more broken than Accelerate Metabolism, or the two RAs, or the shields of the sonics primary for defenders?
Not really. Remember that super-ness is OK in CoH only so long as it happens when you're on a team. 
~Gabriel
[ QUOTE ]
That's right...so the penalty was not as pronounced as you faced higher level foes...which was why I originally posed the question that maybe the penalty wasn in fact not scaling up properly prior to this global fix.
Inv's should have been experiencing a higher penalty and were not. I'm not saying that the penalty is or is not justified, but that due to the defensive scaling problems, the penalty because less detrimintal based on its intended effect against +0's.
[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't a fix. It is a -change- in game mechanics to make defensive sets more effective vs. higher levels. Defensive scaling wasn't a bug, and it is only a "problem" because the players and developers came to the conclusion that it distorted and/or hurt gameplay.
Your "question" is utterly irrelevant. Nothing was per se broken, there is no reason to think there was ever any intention that the penalty scale for invuln. By far the most logical conclusion is that the effects on invuln of this change were never even considered. (Occam's razor/principle of parsimony) There is no reason to think this change is intended to do anything other than what the developers are saying it is intended to do.
Saying invulns should've been experiencing a higher penalty is an arbitrary claim, without evidence. It's like me saying the artists accidentally used the wrong shade of green for Earth Thorn Caster robes, and the designers really had something else in mind. Maybe someone somewhere someone intended differently, I don't know, but lacking any reason to think so, any such claims should be ignored.
[ QUOTE ]
Before people get too happy for defense based sets, I think one
has to take a look at some of the numbers. First realize
resistance is capped at 75% for most archtypes, this system will
cap defense-based mitigation for everyone at 90%. Now that the
performance of the two is brought in line, I can't expect that to
stay.
[/ QUOTE ]
Invuln with 75% capped resistances and running dull pain (something SR does not have) can buy 84% direct mitigation not counting the 60% heal that dull pain offers, while DP is up. The theoretical maximum mitigation of non-defensive scrappers is not stuck at 75%.
If the *absolute maximum* credible defense an SR scrapper can buy is 80% net mitigation, that's not bad: invuln can theoretically do better.
Of course, invuln cannot achieve 75% resists for any length of time, but then again an SR scrapper running FF, FS, evasion, CJ, maneuvers, and weave all simultaneously is either going to have some END consumption issues, or is going to have serious slot consumption issues.
More to the point: whatever SR will be able to do in I7, it can already do now. The only difference is that it *if* it chooses to expend all that effort to absolutely maximize defense, that defense will work across all levels and ranks in the same way, just like resistance does now.
Do you want to take a guess as to what the maximum damage mitigation is of regen? I'll give you a hint: the number is in the triple digits.
And that theoretical maximum defense build? I've tested it at length. You're better off dropping tough/weave and picking up aid self. One less power selection, significantly more survivability.
[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.)
Well as far as PVP is concerned in game zones your all the same level anyways, and as for the arena, dont they now adjust your level differences to be the same level? or perhaps they should do that to fix the problem. Im not saying exemp a 50 to level 10 to fight his level 10 friend, but when you fight the defense and to hits base effect will be as if you were the same level.
Plasmic's Guide to Sonic/Mental
Plasmic's Guide to Regeneration
Plasmic Fire - 50 Fire/Rad Victory Server
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, not that I want to be flamed or anything (I also agree that SR sets deserve some lovin'), but doesn't this necessarily mean that a person is exposed to the same amount of risk (up to +5 levels) for increasing reward (up to +5 levels)?
Doesn't this contradict the idea of reward scaling with risk?
[/ QUOTE ]
Im gonna have to disagree with you on that one, though yes we will fair better against higher level mobs now, when we do still get hit we will be taking more damage from higher level mobs, hence, more risk. The risk is just less that it was before. Think of it like your inherent resistance to attacks via your hp. Although the concern of our defenses working the same way against green enemies, i see the flaw in this change that way too, almost feels like we have no defense special powers at all then as we still only have the same %defense against lesser enemies.
However, what i said about the less damage taken via natural resistance kinda comes in to play at that point, even at the expense of out defenses. But im not gonna fret over it too much, who fights -level enemies and doesnt expect to beat them anyways.
Plasmic's Guide to Sonic/Mental
Plasmic's Guide to Regeneration
Plasmic Fire - 50 Fire/Rad Victory Server
[ QUOTE ]
This isn't a fix. It is a -change-
[/ QUOTE ] Symantics. This is a fact: The game was designed around the even level encounter. The entire resistance vs defense balancing was based on even level mobs. As such, it broke down i.e. broken against higher level mobs. This has been identified over and over again by the /SR scrapper community which was one of the few sets based strictly on +DEF.
Let's look at Dev's OP
[ QUOTE ]
Because mobs higher level than a player possess an inherent to hit bonus, Defense isn't as effective over levels as Resistance.
[/ QUOTE ] Do you think they intended do design a game where +DEF lost out as you faced higher mobs? No. When the game was released, there was no slider so there was not the urgency to analyze +DEF against higher level cons.
This "change" will allegidly '"fix" the problem that defense didn't scale the way it was suppose to if defensive sets and resistance sets are balanced.
[ QUOTE ]
Saying invulns should've been experiencing a higher penalty is an arbitrary claim
[/ QUOTE ] No it is not. It is obviously an unpalatable claim by people who hate the debuff. You apparently don't understand the mechanics of +DEF.
[ QUOTE ]
Unless I missed something, that is not what Arcanaville said at all.
[/ QUOTE ] I submit that you did.
Against an +0 minion which has a 50% chance to hit, a -5% debuff increases your incoming damage by 10%.
Against a +5 minion, which has a 75% (assume for the sake of argument) , a -5% debuff increases your incoming damage by 6.7%.
You're taking less damage than you should because 5% is a smaller value of your opponents chance to hit you as you go up in level.
If the standard is set at +0 mobs, and things should "scale" properly, then as you scale up, that 10% should be perserved.
[ QUOTE ]
The level of the mobs is irrelevant ; what is relevant is the extra slots a higher level character has in order to offset the penalty. Thus the power penalizes lower level characters more than higher level characters.
[/ QUOTE ] No..this is wrong. You misunderstood the point of the sentence you quoted. Arcana was arguing that the debuff penalty was not intended to be offset by the resistance because at higher levels you can slot resistance and it more than compensates for the debuff. She was talking about whether the debuff was a "balancing debuff."
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Statesman himself explicitly stated that the buff to Evasion (and implicitly lucky) was there to help SR scrappers with *bosses*, who, he said, tend to use AoE attacks more than melee attacks on average, and have higher base tohit.
The problem is that while that is theoretically true: bosses *possess* more AoE attacks on average, the AI in the game tends to cause them to switch to melee attacks when you are in melee range, which is where scrappers tend to be.
Also, its possible that when the evasion boost was put in, the fact that many short ranged AoEs and cones actually count as melee attacks, and not AoE attacks, for the purposes of defense, wasn't fully appreciated or discussed. This was all beaten to death after the Evasion boost: SR scrappers tested this carefully and determined that while Evasion was a nice boost relative to splash damage, it was not so good against anything actually attacking you directly, because AoE defense doesn't come up quite as often then.
[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.)