Defense and Scaling
By
Aaron123,
Posted on: 2006-01-11 16:47 in Archetypes and Powers General Discussion
[ 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 ]
You don't seem to understand.
Risk DOES scale with reward. Higher level foes still hit more often, and do more damage.
The problem is, without this change, for Defense-based builds, risk rises FASTER than reward. This is not true for any other kind of "armor". Defense is, in most of our opinions (and clearly the Devs agree) broken. It is actually penalized twice under the current way things work; once because the enemy hits more often, and again because it works less well because the enemy hits more often. Everyone else only suffers the first of those two.
What this does is make the risk/reward scale the same for defense as it is for DR and healing as armors. (Edit: approximately the same, and it looks close enough for most purposes.)
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 ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
With both Dull Pain and Unstoppable up, Invulerability is
godlike. That hardly represents the vast majority of
Invulnerability's lifetime. Against smash/lethal it is always
good (if you take Tough), but against the elements it falls flat.
Go fight COT or Rikti or Carnival or many Praetorians, Longbow,
Arachnos, Wailers, etc, etc. The days when just about
everything was smash/lethal are long gone.
We are talking about for SR 80% mitigation against _all_ forms of
damage: from bosses, archvillains, psi, whatever. I wonder how
much you play Invulnerability? I can tell you, its power against
Smash/Lethal is *not* representative. You go against family and
bank guards and you feel godly, its why in COV in the 30s you
take Council missions and avoid COT like the plague. Even council
has a moderate amount of non smash/lethal. With Invulnerability
and Tough (65% or so smash/lethal resists) plus Dull Pain, we are
looking at about the 80% SR will be getting against _everything_.
Look at it this way, Invulnerability with Unstoppable and Dull
Pain by your own numbers is 84% (I'll take your word for it). SR
about that at all times under this new system with this build. Do
you play Invulnerability? Do you know just how godlike you feel
when Unstoppable is up? And how unrepresentative it is of your
mitigation in the rest of the play? I respect your posts greatly
Arcanaville, but I can't believe you'd defend that level of
mitigation against everything.
Remember also that SR has passive resists, can take Tough, Aid
Self, Siphon Life. Its mitigation is not solely in its defense
either. Of course, if this system goes live, you don't really
need any other form of mitigation. 80% on a scrapper? That's way
overpowered in today's world.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't say the build was painless. But look what Granite
tankers will put up with if the payoff is good enough. As for
slots, since ED, slots are much less of a problem. 4 slotting
each of those powers (1 endrx except passives plus 3 defbuf) plus 1
slot for Practiced Brawler (to make it perma) is 25 slots to defense. That
is perfectly reasonable, you have 67 slots to go around at 50.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes currently it can get 40% defense. But that tradeoff isn't
worth it when you are fighting mobs with 75%, 85%, or more
basic tohit. Its the system of increasing returns. Both defense
and resistance are worth a lot more when you near the cap. If you
can make a big tradeoff to go from say 30% to 40% mitigation, in
whatever form, your not going to do it. But if the you can
instead go from 80% to 90%, that's worth a heck of a lot more.
That's the situation you are looking at here. Buying all these
powers and slotting them to go from 30%ish to 40%ish defense in the
current system is just not worth it, but it will be worth it in
the new system.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll be frank, regen sucks at mitigating damage. Its good in the
situation in which there is no threat. Go jump into an
eight-player pack of mobs and see how long it lasts. I do it all
the time with my invulnerable scrapper (depending on villain group),
so many circumstances when its fantastic (tanker keeps standing around
between fights, a squishy is about to back into and aggro another spawn, a pet
aggroes one, no tanker on the team, etc.) Regen has next to no
mitigation against heavy incoming damage like alpha strikes.
Basically you hit Dull Pain first or risk dying straightaway on
the alpha. You drop to near death, hit reconstruction and Aid
Self if you have it, then start hitting those inspirations and
hope they last longer than the mobs. If you Instant Healing,
Tough, and Resilience, and the spawn isn't too tough, you are ok,
but for the vast majority of real world spawns, it can't hold a
candle to how much punishment the invulnerable player can take.
Triple digit mitigation? You mean per second? That's nice, except
its nothing compared to spawns that can alpha for 2000+ damage.
Invulnerability can survive and tank those spawns, regen is out
of luck. Regen has a lot going for it, fantastic right from its
early levels when facing easy stuff like soloing in missions, but
its mitigation in situations when you actually need it? Hardly
anything.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't really matter. If Aid Self replacing say manuevers
gives even more mitigation (and it might even under the new
system), that's even more broken. I harp back to your own
numbers: 84% for Invuln with both Dull Pain and Unstoppable
(capped resists) running. Its more because Invulnerability
gets defense from Invincibility/Tough Hide, but SR gets its
passive resists. If SR is approaching Invulnerability's Unstoppable
numbers in its normal mitigation, numbers with which I can jump
into a pack with an AV and be in no danger whatsoever on
my scrapper (provided its not psi), that is a problem. No
that's more than a problem. That's just broken. Well, not that
I wouldn't like scrapper to defense to return to those levels,
but alas, that sort of thing is long gone. Normal mitigation
in the ballpark of someone running Elude/Unstoppable, which
are just plain awesome? No way, not in today's world, too good.
Mieux, this is not a criticism by any means as I have great respect for those in fields not entrenched in computation, but I am going to take a wild guess that you are neither a scientist, nor a mathematician.
The reason I am making this guess is that you keep asserting how unimportant mathematical considerations are when it comes to a "simulation"... and how the aestetic takes precident in all cases (if this were really true then the computational limitations would never even come into play as why would the development staff ever sacrafice the game aestetic for pure mathematical practicality?... needless to say the game would never actually run if the mathematics was ignored in preference for the aestetic under all conditions)
This entire game is a mathematical simulation, every character has stats, those stats can be enhanced via mathematical formulae, we all have a numerical value for our hp.
As such it is completely viable to do a mathematical comparison to lead us in a direction of a "potential" aestetic problem... a way to shine a light on something that may be an issue.
Is it a guarantee?... absolutely not, but neither I, nor Arcana have asserted any of this as being definative.
Do you not believe this is even something that should be looked into?... and if not, why should it be ignored without checking to see if it is a problem before hand?
I have no means to test the aestetic of this suggested change, neither does Arcana, nor do you... all we have to go on at the moment is numbers, and the numbers seem to indicate that the penalty in a particular power is going to be expanded when it does not necessarily have to be... it can instead be balanced in such a way as to keep the penalty on the order of what it is currently (i.e. not 50% greater under certain conditions)
Is it necessary to do this adjustment?... I have no idea... but that does not mean we should ignore the possibility that it might cause an issue altogether.
Frankly your logic escapes me here... I am asking that it be looked into as a potential problem... and your response is not to bother looking at it at all because all I have come here with is mathematical evidence.
That mathematical evidence should be enough to warrent some measure of consideration... maybe it has already been considered in the testing, I really have no idea. I am having a difficult time understanding where you are comming from here.
It is akin to hearing a strange noise comming from your car engine, you decided that it is best to have it looked at by a mechanic... then someone tells you "so long as the car runs fine don't worry about that noise, there is no reason to even have it looked at"... but the point is that if it does not sound fine, it may cause a problem in the future that can be avoided merely by having it checked out before it becomes a real issue... the noise may be absolutely nothing, but on the off chance that it is not, wouldn't it be wise to even mention it to an expert (which in this case is the development staff)?
[ QUOTE ]
But there is a fundamental difference based on recommending changes based on inaccurate models and simulations versus using the math to achieve an artistic vision. Posters seem to insist their modeling is 100% accurate in representing the truth about how sets compare.
[/ QUOTE ]
My recommendation at this point is for it to be looked at... to be considered... if that is an unreasonable expectation then I am afraid we are just going to have to dissagree.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think so. The to-hit floor is still 5% for everyone. The coding should look to see if you have a value below 5% and if you do, simply raise it to that level. It should not then apply the +Acc for the same reason it doesn't apply our +Acc to our 95% ceiling. If we can be floored at 5% with our own +Acc enhancments, then so can mobs.
[/ QUOTE ]
From my understanding the to-hit code looks something like this :
(1+Acc)*(Base To-Hit + Total To-Hit Bonus - Total Opponent Defense)
In this case the check for a min is done only on the second set of parenthesis where as the check for a max is done on the whole thing.
If I am correct then the Acc multiplier is applied after the computer checks for a minimum, in which case once the to-hit floor is hit you multiply by the accuracy thereby increasing the "floor".
Since the max is checked after all of this it is never greater than 95%.
If I am incorrect about this assumed model then feel free to correct me... but I am fairly sure this is accurate.
[ QUOTE ]
On a general level, it's unfortunate that the point has to be made at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your point really did not have to be made... I appreciate that you did... but it certainly was not required by anyone here.
Just to clairify though... the same way you felt compelled to make your point... so too did I feel compelled to point out a potential problem... the difference here being that you saw fit to tell me my point was essentially unnecessary, while I encourage you to bring your ideas here for open discussion and debate.
And when this happens, defense sets will overshadow resistance sets. An SR scrapper will make a better tank than an Invulnerability tanker. Defense inspirations will become even more effective, and resistance inspirations proportionately even more useless.
Unless resistance levels will get a buff to match...
... but I wouldn't count on it.
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
"Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."
- Thomas Jefferson
The short answer is that I've in fact played SR, invuln, regen, and DA to significant levels now. I'm very familiar with how they play. The main reason why DA is not in my SR I5 comparisons (listed in my sig) is due to not having direct experience with DA at that time. That's been sufficiently rectified to allow me to extend that into a four-way I6 comparison.
I can play the "this build outperforms that build" game; its part of what I do when I analyze the various sets. But I won't do it as part of a "who should get nerfed" discussion. I'll simply say that the performance you suggest SR can achieve by wrapping SR in a ton of power pools can be exceeded by invuln and regen builds that take comparably insane power pool selections. The absolute best mitigation build I can construct right now is not an SR build. In fact, the absolute best SR build I can make isn't in the top three (I wouldn't want to play any of them, btw).
[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 ]
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%)
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think so. The to-hit floor is still 5% for everyone. The coding should look to see if you have a value below 5% and if you do, simply raise it to that level. It should not then apply the +Acc for the same reason it doesn't apply our +Acc to our 95% ceiling. If we can be floored at 5% with our own +Acc enhancments, then so can mobs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Geko's explicit description and subsequent other red name additions to the description of how tohit is calculated all but state that (tohit + tohitbuffs - tohitdebuffs - defense +defensedebuffs) is floor/ceiling checked once, and then accuracy is factored in, and then the entire thing is floor/ceiling checked again. Unless they made significant changes to how floors and ceilings are calculated, the pseudo-effective floor for higher ranked things is going up: its an automatic consequence of attempting to satisfy the design constraint "defense should work just as effectively against higher ranked and higher level foes" by setting mitigation average constant, which is exactly, precisely what the devs have effectively stated they are doing.
You should keep in mind that the absolute tohit floor has *never* been 5%. The intermediate terms have 5% floors, but in every case where accuracy has come into play, the effective floor - according to the current dev-acknowledged formula - has always been higher.
We ignore that because we assume that foes don't have accuracy enhancements, only tohit buffs, but back when I5 was on test I proved that was not the case: certain mobs *right now* have heightened accuracy (in the sense of the formula) and not tohit buffs - and this was basically all but confirmed by a red name to me.
However, having said all of that, its possible that Geko is wrong, at least about the tohit calculator checking for floors and ceilings twice. If it did, then in the arena anyone that was packing 6 dmg/acc HOs should have never seen a tohit on a perma-elude or MoG scrapper less than 20% - because that would be the limit when defense floors to 5%, then the +300% accuracy boost increased that number to 20%. But that is *not* what was happening. The intermediate floor might not be functioning correctly, and if that is the case, then in fact the global floor is really still 5% - but it would almost certainly be a bug that the devs would fix, because tohit would then not be working as they specifically described to us.
[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.)
To answer some of your questions...
yes, this applies to all Defense powers, not just SR and Ice Armor (and of course, it affects CoH and CoV). It is a change to ToHit/Accuracy math for critters, not to individual powers. Also, the way the math works, this will also give a slight bonus to ToHit debuffs (but it is very slight and only in some situations). This does not affect PvP, and it does not work in the inverse EvP (that is, critter will not be harder to hit).
I appreciate that you have corroborated my explanation of the to-hit system as I was fairly confidant in my assertion, but always try to remain somewhat reserved considering I do not actually have the code sitting in front of me.
I will say one thing though... if they are checking for floors and ceilings twice then they are wasting processing power as they really only need to check for a floor when it comes to the "to-hit" factor as this is the only region where we can skew into the negative... and they only need to check for a ceiling after accuracy is taken into account.
You end up with the exact same result, but with two less checks on every to-hit calculation... unless of course I have missed something, but I do not believe I have in this case.
[ QUOTE ]
The reason I am making this guess is that you keep asserting how unimportant mathematical considerations are when it comes to a "simulation"...
[/ QUOTE ] A total and complete mischaratization of my point.
[ QUOTE ]
and how the aestetic takes precident in all cases
[/ QUOTE ] Another gross and inaccurate characterization of my position.
[ QUOTE ]
This entire game is a mathematical simulation
[/ QUOTE ] The entire game is not a mathmatical simulation. There is no programmed math involved in how we communicate or team or strategize...so the game transcends pure math. It is not a simulation any more than a card game is a simulation. It is the game. The "simulation" occurs when people try and break down balance into equations designed to capture some aspect of the game. You are attempting to simulate what actually happens in the game. The game itself is not trying to simulate anything as there is not such things as super heroes. Please don't tell me this is trying to simulate comic books.
[ QUOTE ]
As such it is completely viable to do a mathematical comparison to lead us in a direction of a "potential" aestetic problem... a way to shine a light on something that may be an issue.
[/ QUOTE ] There is a fundamental premise on which such an asssertion rests, that being that the aesthetic is based on a mathmatical truth. I have already acknowledged that this is true for the game in many ways based on the psychological importance of perceptual equality in the game. The devs wanted the sets to play/ be perceived as balanced, so they needed to work out a mathmatical model to preserve that balance.
[ QUOTE ]
Do you not believe this is even something that should be looked into?...
[/ QUOTE ] Now you are being obtuse. I already stated that this is not the issue. I thought we covered this.
[ QUOTE ]
neither does Arcana
[/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure what Acrana has to do with this discussion. I am not contesting anything she's said, quite the contrary, I am using her own acknowledgement of a mathmatical fact as the counter argument to your suggestion that the debuff is greater than it should be.
[ QUOTE ]
but that does not mean we should ignore the possibility that it might cause an issue altogether.
[/ QUOTE ] Once again, this is not the issue before us.
[ QUOTE ]
and your response is not to bother looking at it at all because all I have come here with is mathematical evidence.
[/ QUOTE ] First, this is now the third time in this very thread you are falsely maintaing that I am opposed to some examination. It has become tiresome. Second, your mathmatical assessment was fundamentally lacking. In my response to another poster I showed, mathmatically, how the debuff is not being applied consistently with our current setup; the penalty is lessened simply because defense does not scale. You haven't even acknowleged it...and it's pure math.
[ QUOTE ]
I am having a difficult time understanding where you are comming from here.
[/ QUOTE ] Then I suggest you reexamine what it means to have defense scale based on its interaction with +0 mobs. Admittedly, it's not a basic concept, but you proport to be a man of science, so I assume you will understand it.
[ QUOTE ]
If I am incorrect about this assumed model then feel free to correct me... but I am fairly sure this is accurate
[/ QUOTE ] What we are talking about is applying a conditional or case statement to the result of an equation:
If X > 95%, X=95%
If X < 5%, X = 5%.
Simplicity and consistency requires that all modifiers are computed prior to this check. I'm not 100% sure this is what they do, but it would be consistent with what I've experienced.
[ QUOTE ]
I am having a difficult time understanding where you are comming from here.
[/ QUOTE ] I am coming from two positions:
1) The math: the 10% incoming DPS increase against even level minions was not preserved due to defense not scaling. Now that the defense scales, the model on which the debuff was created...even level minions, will now be preserved if it is left unchanged. This position acknowledges your concern and argues that the debuff was never appropriately working to begin with...in the same way +DEF wasn't ever appropriately scaling.
2) The art: The debuff may have been a way to simulate the old "root" aspect of Unyielding Stance. As such, once an preserve that aspect by increasing the resistance instead of loweing the -DEF debuff.
You haven't seem to acknowledge either one of those positions.
[ QUOTE ]
its an automatic consequence of attempting to satisfy the design constraint "defense should work just as effectively against higher ranked and higher level foes" by setting mitigation average constant
[/ QUOTE ] I don't see that.
[ QUOTE ]
is floor/ceiling checked once
[/ QUOTE ] For what? is it checked to make sure the value is non-negative or to set it at 5/95?
[ QUOTE ]
You should keep in mind that the absolute tohit floor has *never* been 5%.
[/ QUOTE ] That's because of the streak breaker, not because the floor isn't 5%, IIRC.
[ QUOTE ]
I proved that was not the case: certain mobs *right now* have heightened accuracy
[/ QUOTE ] Then those mobs could be used to determine the floors right now.
[ QUOTE ]
its possible that Geko is wrong
[/ QUOTE ] It's more likely we have misinterpreted what was said.
[ QUOTE ]
then in the arena anyone that was packing 6 dmg/acc HOs should have never seen a tohit on a perma-elude or MoG scrapper less than 20%
[/ QUOTE ] Which is why I said based on my experience and the posts of other people, Elude was flooring people at 5% who had 6 Acc/Dmg HO's.
We'll have to see if Geko can clear this up for us.
[ QUOTE ]
This position acknowledges your concern and argues that the debuff was never appropriately working to begin with...in the same way +DEF wasn't ever appropriately scaling.
[/ QUOTE ]
I understand this... in which case since we both have no idea if the debuff was working as intended originally... then it is incumbent upon us to put forth the proposition that it should be examined.
If it was working as intended originally then it stands to reason it would not be working as intended if this system is instituted without any adjustment made to the debuff.
If it was not working as intended originally then this might very well "fix" the debuff to act in accordance with the developers design plans.
I am not even going to get into the details of the "game as a mathematical simulation" with you here as this is all a matter of perspective... I am looking at the game in terms of it's programmed components... you are looking at the social aspect that it permits you to engage in.
To me the social aspect is no more a part of the game itself than a conversation you might have with a friend as you are playing a video game on a ps2, gamecube, or xbox... the conversation is fun, but in my opinion it takes place while you are playing the game... it is not actually part of the game structure itself. I guess you are just going to have to accept that we see things differently here and I am not going to be convinced by your arguments in this area.
[ QUOTE ]
2) The art: The debuff may have been a way to simulate the old "root" aspect of Unyielding Stance. As such, once an preserve that aspect by increasing the resistance instead of loweing the -DEF debuff.
[/ QUOTE ]
How exactly would the "art" be disturbed by a concerted effort to maintain the current aesthetic in it's current form as opposed to seeing it expanded?
I would argue that the scaling of the defbuff actually alters the aesthetic.
TWO geko posts!? And posts about powers at that?
Someone pinch me! I must be dreaming. 
[ QUOTE ]
I appreciate that you have corroborated my explanation of the to-hit system as I was fairly confidant in my assertion, but always try to remain somewhat reserved considering I do not actually have the code sitting in front of me.
I will say one thing though... if they are checking for floors and ceilings twice then they are wasting processing power as they really only need to check for a floor when it comes to the "to-hit" factor as this is the only region where we can skew into the negative... and they only need to check for a ceiling after accuracy is taken into account.
You end up with the exact same result, but with two less checks on every to-hit calculation... unless of course I have missed something, but I do not believe I have in this case.
[/ QUOTE ]
So long as no such thing as negative accuracy ever comes into the game, or true accuracy (not tohit) debuffs, then you're basically right. However, you should never code that way: a good optimizing compiler is likely to detect the double boundary check and optimize it away anyway, so its better to code the algorithm cleanly. Otherwise, its a hidden landmine on anyone altering the code one day to introduce tohit changes.
[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 ]
its possible that Geko is wrong
[/ QUOTE ]
It's more likely we have misinterpreted what was said.
[/ QUOTE ]
Although that is always your assumption, in this case extremely unlikely, since he didn't post verbage, but Excel-like formulas showing the MIN/MAX representation of collaring boundaries.
[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 ]
This does not affect PvP, and it does not work in the inverse EvP (that is, critter will not be harder to hit).
[/ QUOTE ]
So buildup and other extreme acc bonuses are still an untouched issue on PvP?
i saved a bunch of money on my defense insurance by switching to StatesCo 
im loving this new defense scaling thing, definately helps me compare a lot better to res powersets.
since they've been working on it since october, i believe they'll get the balance issues with defense right on 
our Devs rock, thank you!
[ QUOTE ]
you are looking at the social aspect that it permits you to engage in.
[/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure how you've come away with this perspective, but it is not accurate. I look at the game as an experience...like a song or a novel or a movie. It requires someone to be able to translate or rather manipulate programming to achieve that vision...but the vision comes first...not the model. The model is attempting to render the vision, the vision is not the model.
[ QUOTE ]
To me the social aspect is no more a part of the game
[/ QUOTE ] The social aspect is an integral part of the game, it's part of the immersions of being a super hero and teaming with other super heroes. The super hero world is a social one. The way we team with players, the types of people each toon appeals to. The social aspect isn't limted to just conversation. The devs have spent consideral effort and resources creating emotes as an example.
[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that the scaling of the defbuff actually alters the aesthetic.
[/ QUOTE ] Well of course. But this point is whether they had achieved what they originally wanted. George Lucas went back and added all kinds of special effects in his remake of Star Wars. The movie is altered as a result, but in GL's mind, this is what it was supposed to look like. GL was orginally limited by technology.
Why the devs implemented +Rank the way they did is unknown. But it would seem they had the tech. Perhaps in this circumstance they did not have the understanding...or they weighted the math differently. There were many posts from States arguing that +DEF was better than +Res. In some ways he's right. In some ways he's not. The idea that X+DEF=Y+RES is by no means an absolute truth in this game.
But if the game is modeled on the +0 mob, then one can argue from a stronger position that the debuff was not scaling properly and this change will see that it does.
Thanks for the answers, Castle.
One thing that was asked but not addressed is the difference between fighting enemies +5 and +6 levels above your character. Will the defensive adjustment for a +6 under the new system be equivalent to a +1 under our current system (scaling up from there with +7 relating to current +2, etc.), or will there be a six-level difference in +defense effectiveness between +5 enemies and +6?
Thanks,
GP
[ 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 think you've got it wrong here. The way I understand it, nothing is going to change for non-defense sets. Whatever's attacking you will have the same net chance they always did, assuming you have absolutely nothing buffing your defense.
Take Castle's example, keeping in mind that to get back to the same net AV to-hit chance they're giving them a base of 50% plus a 50% accuracy bonus:
Old way versus resistance PCs: flat 75% - 0% defense = 75%
New way versus resistance PCs: (50% - 0% defense) * (1 + 0.5) = 75%
No change.
Actually, everyone will benefit from the better effectiveness of purple inspirations!
Does this mean you'll be changing your signature then?
[ QUOTE ]
Does this mean you'll be changing your signature then?
[/ QUOTE ]
No, because mob accuracy has actually been buffed. It's mob base toHit that was nerfed. 
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 ]
I look at the game as an experience...like a song or a novel or a movie. It requires someone to be able to translate or rather manipulate programming to achieve that vision...but the vision comes first...not the model. The model is attempting to render the vision, the vision is not the model.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but you are presenting your case as if you have an inside track on what that "vision" is... we have no evidence to support your assertion that it was always intended for the defense debuff to scale in this manner... all we know is that the development team intends to make defense based sets scale better.
These two issues are different and potentialy unrelated, isn't it possible that this was an unintended result of this particular change?, and if that is the case isn't it important to even mention it?
What is basically boils down to is this, you are convinced that the "vision" includes a debuff that scales with level and versus enemy types... as such even suggesting that it might have been an oversight seems implausible to you.
I am functioning under the assumption that this change might not have even been considered with the unyielding debuff in mind, in which case I thought it wise to bring the issue up here.
My assumption here is no more or less valid than your own, I understand where you are comming from, but your assertion that this is how it is supposed to be is just your personal interpretation without any direct evidence to support it.
As such while your rational is sound, your premises may well be false, in which case your whole argument falls apart.
All it takes is for the development team to say "oh... we did not think about this particular effect while designing this system" and suddenly your objection crumbles.
That does not mean that suddenly upon closer inspection they will deem it necessary to change anything, but it does mean that it was an important effect for them to take into consideration... and frankly I am not the only one who thinks so... my concerns are shared by a number of others who have already listed their opinions here.
[ QUOTE ]
The social aspect is an integral part of the game, it's part of the immersions of being a super hero and teaming with other super heroes. The super hero world is a social one.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are getting into a whole different argument here than really is necessary... the reason for this is that you are pretty much asserting that if for some reason someone out there who chooses to play this game solo for a while, suddenly they are not playing the game because they have cut out the teaming aspect.
This is why I hold the opinion that the game itself is not dependant upon this social aspect, and that the social aspect is a seperate but altogether important part of setting up a gaming community.
One can foster amicable relationships at work, form friendships and a solid social framework.... but that social aspect is not actually part of their job in most cases, it is a seperate layer that is associated to, but not inexorably intertwined with their career. It is the same sort of thing here, the "game" is the story and combat simulation... the teaming part is a way to effect that combat simulation in a way that you cannot do on your own... the conversation and social aspect is icing on the cake that really makes things enjoyable on a different level.
We are talking about game mechanics here, not some other ephemeral quality of social interaction, so any objection to discussing game mechanics in the light of mathematics is really rather silly.
Is role playing a part of the game atmosphere?... absolutely... can it be fun?... sure... is it part of the game mechanics?... nope
[ QUOTE ]
Well of course. But this point is whether they had achieved what they originally wanted.
[/ QUOTE ]
We are in agreement here Mieux... but this issue has never been discussed before by the development team.
I have no idea if they originally intended the debuff to be enhanced over current levels but just went with the best they could do at the time.
The point here is that you do not know their original intent either, so lets just agree that it is something fo find out, alright?
I am not looking to bully any change through here, I am looking to understand if this is intended, and if so, why it might be intended. Will I be extactic about the result if I am informed it is meant to be this way?... no I will not... but I am mature enough to accept that reality without complaint until such a time as I can actually test the effect for myself and see how it plays. Only then can I truly reference the aesthetic, right now the change is not even on test, our only access to it is theoretical.
The entire argument here hinges upon the original intent of the development team... we don't know what that was, so I can hold my opinion in abeyance here for a while, until I have more information.
FYI, you need to update your signature now. ;-}
"The majority of players don't read the boards. If they're having a bad game experience, they'll just blame the game for it and quit. " - CodeGuyJ
I would like to raise a couple issues in the light of this new changes made to mob toHit values.
1. Mob toHit bonus values with respect to rank were toned down in the wake of I5. Even level bosses used to have a BTH of 75%, now it is 65%. IIRC this change was made to help out defense sets. Given current I6 BTH values of 50%, 57.5%, 65% and 75% BTH for even level minions, LTs, bosses and AVs, the new accuracy bonuses will be 0%, 15%, 30% and 50%. Are there any plans to bump these bonuses back to 0%, 25%, 50% and 80%, corresponding to I4 BTH values of 50%, 62.5%, 75% and 90%? After all, the buff to SR/Evasion is going to be reversed.
2. Statesman mentioned that this new change is going make defense scale up to +5 levels. Why is this limitation in place, i.e. why only 5 levels? What are the values for +6 and beyond? OTOH, what happens to mobs 1 or 2 levels below?
3. The current Chance-to-Hit (CtH) equation is: <font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>cap{ cap[BTH + sum(toHit) - sum(def)] * (acc) }</pre><hr />...and it will remain as is for I7. Only the BTH and acc values are being changed for mobs. As has been pointed out by others, this proposed change is only going bring defense in parity with resistance in the absense of toHit buffs. While that is the majority of the cases in PvE (notable exceptions: Rularuu eyeballs), the same cannot be said for PvP. Have the devs ever considered making defense multiplicative, such as in the follow CtH equation?<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>cap{ [BTH + sum(toHit)] * cap[1 - (2 * sum(def)] * (acc) }</pre><hr />If the answers is yes but it has been decided that the current CtH equation is preferred, what would be the reasoning behind said decision?
[ QUOTE ]
Portions of the game are artistic in nature whereas other portions are scientific/quantitative.
[/ QUOTE ] Yes, but the scientific/quantitative is a tool used to create the gaming experience, it is not an end in and of itself.
[ QUOTE ]
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
[/ QUOTE ] I think you are again talking about two fundamentally different things. CoH is not a celebration of the power of math. The math is mandated by the medium of the game. CoH's vision is not some endeaver to show what math can do for the beauty of math. You don't build a bridge because you are a mathmatician, you use math to build a bridge because you want to cross a river.
I'm not saying that there isn't any mathmatical genius used or necessary in making CoH what it is, but I'm not subscribing to the notion that the devs are doing things simply because they mathmatically inspired. Required is probably more accurated...required in a restrictive sense.
[ QUOTE ]
This particular change for example is more of a mathematical alteration than an aesthetic one.
[/ QUOTE ] That's true, but the underlying purpose of one based on psychology: the sets should feel balanced. The devs created a mathmatical model that would allow players to experience variety and balance at the same time. This is an artistic vision. The believe that balance and variety are necessary elements. Contrast this with AD&D which was not as strongly based on comparative balance, but on a role based philosophy (though perhaps the weapons might have been number crunched). The math model in CoH is not 100% accurate nor 100% predictive. Posters seem to ignore that fact when they post their own math.
[ QUOTE ]
the two are more interrelated than you seem to be willing to admit.
[/ QUOTE ] Quite the contrary. The math provides a useful and necessary tool in creating the aesthetic. But there is a fundamental difference based on recommending changes based on inaccurate models and simulations versus using the math to achieve an artistic vision. Posters seem to insist their modeling is 100% accurate in representing the truth about how sets compare.
[ 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).
[/ QUOTE ] They simply broke off how they added the accuracy. Yes, the order of operations is changed, but the construct isn't new at all. We already use +Acc, we already use +To Hit...we already new that putting the Acc where they put it would allow +DEF to work better.
It's actually surprising this change wasn't made sooner as it was suggested soon after Stargazer showed us how accuracy was really calculated. I guess what is still in question is whether this really balances +DEF. Since the devs have been pay testing it since October, I assume it balances well enough that they are happy.
[ QUOTE ]
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%)
[/ QUOTE ] I don't think so. The to-hit floor is still 5% for everyone. The coding should look to see if you have a value below 5% and if you do, simply raise it to that level. It should not then apply the +Acc for the same reason it doesn't apply our +Acc to our 95% ceiling. If we can be floored at 5% with our own +Acc enhancments, then so can mobs.
[ QUOTE ]
I do however think you could have gotten the point across in a manner that was easier to digest.
[/ QUOTE ] On a general level, it's unfortunate that the point has to be made at all.