Defense and Scaling
By
Aaron123,
Posted on: 2006-01-11 16:47 in Archetypes and Powers General Discussion
(reusing this space to reply to the above post)
[ QUOTE ]
They did *lower* the defenses across the board, while decreasing accuracy. Now that they are fixing Defense so that it scales better/correctly, I dodn't see that any defense/accuracy numbers (across the board) need to be revisited.
[/ QUOTE ]
Mobs get a toHit bonus depending on both their rank and level with respect to the player. The rank bonus was changed in I5 and IIRC the explanation was to help out defense (in the strict sense, i.e. not including resistance) based sets. I am curious if they have plans to reversed that change.
My personal opinion is that the current boss and AV difficulty is appropriate and I am not advocating an acc buff to them.
Just to be clear, I am not asking for such acc buff. In fact I am actually looking for a clear denial of such plan from a dev.
[ QUOTE ]
+5 should be at the top level of effectiveness. The calculation they are doing does not actually preclude about +5 per se, but there isn't a reason to really go beyond it either.
[/ QUOTE ]While I don't principally disagree with the idea that +5 should be the highest level we can effectively take on, I believe this limit should be set universally for both defense and resistance.
Then of course we still don't know how exactly it is going to work for +6 and above.
[ QUOTE ]
This is a fairly elegant fix, IMO.
[/ QUOTE ]Not disagreeing here. However, there is always room for clarification and improvement.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
It also significantly reduces my damage mitigation and offensive output at times, which others can attest to. I factor it out of my calculations because its a constant factor for all ATs, and because I'm embarrassed to tell you how high that constant factor can be on some days.
Maybe typing in the chat window should grant a +35% defense bonus and +60% resistance bonus while you are typing, because in the comic books, heroes almost never gets hit in the middle of a snappy comeback.
Of course, in Korea, hero don't talk.
[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 ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
It also significantly reduces my damage mitigation and offensive output at times, which others can attest to. I factor it out of my calculations because its a constant factor for all ATs, and because I'm embarrassed to tell you how high that constant factor can be on some days.
Maybe typing in the chat window should grant a +35% defense bonus and +60% resistance bonus while you are typing, because in the comic books, heroes almost never gets hit in the middle of a snappy comeback.
Of course, in Korea, hero don't talk.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm all for AS immunity while in chat mode.
On a serious note, maybe Unyielding's defense debuff should be derived directly from the enhanced resistance value.
[ QUOTE ]
On a serious note, maybe Unyielding's defense debuff should be derived directly from the enhanced resistance value.
[/ QUOTE ]
If the debuff was meant to be balanced against the resistances in UNY, it should have been lowered when those resistances were lowered.
If the debuff was meant to be balanced against the other defenses in the set, specifically invincibility, then it should have been lowered when those defenses were lowered.
If the debuff was meant to be balanced specifically against the overall utility of invincibility (my theory) then it should have been lowered when invincibility's utility and strength were lowered.
If the debuff was meant to be a static penalty that the invuln could offset by slotting UNY, then it should have been lowered when ED cut the number of resistance slots you could put in UNY.
If the debuff was meant to scale upward with higher foes, in the same manner as resistances, then the Defense Scaling changes mentioned in this thread will do that, but that has no bearing on whether the actual base magnitude of the debuff is set right. What it does is amplify the problem if (as many people feel) the debuff is set wrong, because the defense scaler is a magnifying glass on the issue: if its balanced now, the Defense Scaler will magnify a zero into a zero; if its not, it will magnify the discrepancy to a stronger net effect.
The Defense Scaler didn't create the problem, nor does it need to be changed to solve the problem. The sole issue is whether the debuff in UNY is actually set correctly, but the DefScaler is the perfect opportunity to reexamine the debuff in light of the much simpler way that defense (and defense debuffs) affects mitigation overall (we don't have to look at 25 different tohit cases to see what's happening).
[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 ]
On a serious note, maybe Unyielding's defense debuff should be derived directly from the enhanced resistance value.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why? What problem are you trying to solve? What imbalance?
To see why I question this, first, you need to compare what Invuln gets from Unyielding to what other sets do. Compare the mez and "armor" benefit to, for example, Integration.
Now (and I admit this is much more complex), compare what Invuln as a set can achieve as damage mitigation compared to SR, DA or Regen. This is so much more complex because:
*) it is actually quite difficult to compare Regen to anything else, though you can do well if you consider damage mitigation over time instead of instantaneous damage avoided.
*) if has been difficult to compare +DEF to DR (or regen) because +DEF scales non-linearly with foe base toHit.
The easiest set, in some ways, to compare Invuln to is DA. This too is difficult, however, because Invincibility is incredibly complex. It is a conditional defense buff that operates on pulses and varies with the number of foes in melee range. Moreover, it provides significantly less DEF to non-melee attacks.
However, some things we do know.
The defense debuff on Unyielding was added when Unyielding Stance (which rooted you) was made into Unyielding. At the time this happened, Unyielding was 15% (Scrapper) across-the-board DR to everything but Psionic damage. Invincibility provided easily twice the defense per foe as it does now, provided equal benefit to range and melee attacks, and it pulsed more often, affecting its self-stacking. Unstoppable was still able to be "perma", as was Dull Pain (not that much of anyone did it back then).
In other words, Invulnerability, as a set, looked nothing like it does now. Exacerbating the changes, when the I5 reductions went in Invincibility did not undergo a simple proportional decrease. Its maximum DR against non Lethal/Smashing damage is about 65% of what you would have expected if it had just been halved. Now, compared to other sets, which have no particular Achilles heal in terms of damage type (Regen and SR don't care, and DA has pretty full-spectrum coverage), Invuln now has not just Psi, but all ene/ele damage as a sort of weak Achilles. Compounding this, some sets weren't reduced at all. Fire and DA, for example, did not have their fundamental DR powers reduced in I5.
And last but not least, Invuln has always payed, using Mieux's terms, the second highest opportunity cost to take all its core armor powers. It used to get excellent (uniform) coverage at the cost of six powers. In comparison, Regen gets its core full-spectrum protection in 4 powers (IH no longer qualifies), and DA gets everything but Immobilization and Knockdown in 3 armors, leaving plenty of open opportunity to cover the missing aspects (and gain additional L/S protection) with pool powers. Only SR payed a higher cost, weighing in at 7 powers (3 toggles, 3 passive and one mez click), but for that cost, SR has no damage-type Achilles heal.
But in addiction to all these other downgrades, Invuln still has the same magnitude of defense debuff that was given to Unyielding way, way back when. This thread's long debate about scaling aside, I think this legacy of change indicates that the original debuff is, today, too large at a minimum. Honestly, I would love to know what math tells the devs it needs to be there. And Mieux's protestations aside, I do believe that it is almost totally pure math that the devs use to determining AT balance, because we know that Geko maintains a literal spreadsheet of balancing factors between the powersets. The defense, DR, mez shields, endurance costs and presumably other factors are all assigned numerical values, and those values are used to check for functional balance across powersets as a whole.
I'm open to be being proven wrong. If a redname came and actually laid out the math, or even a non-math logical explanation, showing that this penalty makes sense, I'm not so obtuse that I couldn't accept it. But in the absence of that kind of explanation, my personal inspection of the issue (more detailed than what I've outlined here) suggests to me the penalty needs to be looked at for reduction or removal. Not increase with DR, as you suggest.
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
Are accuracy debuffs being doubly penalized because base_hit/accuracy is increased by the purple patch *and* debuffs are always directly reduced by the purple patch too?
If so, something probably needs to be looked at to fix it somehow.
Even applying the debuffs to the base_hit, it will still have the same problem.
I wonder what would be easier to code? Removing the scaling affect of resisting the debuff (which still allows the improving accuracy to affect it) or changing the code some other way?
Still here, even after all this time!
[ QUOTE ]
Are accuracy debuffs being doubly penalized because base_hit/accuracy is increased by the purple patch *and* debuffs are always directly reduced by the purple patch too?
If so, something probably needs to be looked at to fix it somehow.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's a good question. I so much hadn't considered it that it took me a minute to understand what you were saying. I'm pretty sure this must be happening, and has always been that way.
To be fair, though, I'm not sure it's much of a bother to us. It's definitely good to bring it up so someone might consider it, but the toHit debuffs I'm used to using seem fairly effective for the range of foes I find it wise to fight (usually +3 or less, rarely +4 except on a large team, and +5 or higher only when I'm dragged along by circumstances).
Left alone, though, it would be a way "fixed" DEF would now work vs. mobs better than toHit debuffs.
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 ]
Why? What problem are you trying to solve? What imbalance?
[/ QUOTE ]
I feel bad for not being clear with what I was after.
I am in no position to say whether Uny's debuff makes sense in the scope of all scrapper/tanker sets.
What I'm trying to achieve is to make Unyielding's defense debuff:
1. Have the proper 4:3 scaling between tanks and scrappers.
2. Have less of a penalty on lower level players.
Let's say it is decided that a tank with fully SO'ed out Unyielding should get a 4.8% defense debuff. Then for a scrapper it would be 3.6%.
When a tank first gets the power and only slots it with endRdx, the debuff would be 3%. For the scrapper it would be 2.25%.
[ QUOTE ]
Let's say it is decided that a tank with fully SO'ed out Unyielding should get a 4.8% defense debuff. Then for a scrapper it would be 3.6%.
When a tank first gets the power and only slots it with endRdx, the debuff would be 3%. For the scrapper it would be 2.25%.
[/ QUOTE ]
I gotcha. Discussions of scaling with foe level aside, this seems like what they should have done to begin with.
Although I bet there's no code for linking enhanced value to a debuff (or buff) like that. At least, I know of no examples of it today.
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 ]
Left alone, though, it would be a way "fixed" DEF would now work vs. mobs better than toHit debuffs.
[/ QUOTE ]
The fact that the purple patch reduces the effect of tohit debuffs is an intended effect. Its unclear to me if there are any specific instances where tohit debuffs are explicitly meant to be as strong as pure defense.
However, the issue of purple patch fall off for debuffs relative to defense and resistance did come up with regard to Ice tankers: by giving Ice tanks foe debuffs to help compensate for defense not scaling, the devs (possibly inadvertantly) gave them yet another thing that didn't scale with increasing level of foes. That was clearly a case where the purple patch scaling was doing something almost certainly unintended in that specific instance.
I'm not sure, though, that things like radiation infection are meant to sidestep the purple patch: I believe the purple patch reducing the tohit debuff in RI is probably working as intended.
Although I've pushed for this change at least as hard as anyone, I'm *not* an advocate of making everything work exactly, precisely the same way. That's why even though I've harped on tohit buffs for a long time, I *dont* want a solution that completely nullifies their strong effect on defense. I *want* the devs to have a tool in their toolbox that allows them to make enemies that are hard on defense to create challenges above the norm: I just wanted that effect not be used *pervasively* (i.e. all higher ranks, all higher levels). I don't want defense to be immune to tohit buffs, I want the devs to use tohit buffs to make things special, ala villains with psi damage or regeneration debuffs.
I'm also not in favor of making tohit debuffs work precisely the same way as defense either. Defense, tohit buffs, tohit debuffs, and resistance should work differently for variety sake: what we need to make sure about is that each AT gets the appropriate one (or ones) necessarily to function as they should.
You can get too crazy trying to make *everything* "equal." For example, blasters are said to use offense as their primary defense: they are presumably supposed to kill faster than something like a tank, which has higher mitigation and lower damage. But tank mitigation is stable relative to higher level foes, while the purple patch reduces blaster damage substantially. It reduces tanker damage similarly, but the tank isn't relying on high offense for its survivability: in effect the tank gets high mitigation and low damage, while the blaster gets high damage and low mitigation, and one of those two is hit harder by the purple patch. Does this mean blasters need a damage boost against higher foes? I don't personally think thats a good idea myself, at least not directly.
[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 ]
Although I've pushed for this change at least as hard as anyone, I'm *not* an advocate of making everything work exactly, precisely the same way. That's why even though I've harped on tohit buffs for a long time, I *dont* want a solution that completely nullifies their strong effect on defense. I *want* the devs to have a tool in their toolbox that allows them to make enemies that are hard on defense to create challenges above the norm: I just wanted that effect not be used *pervasively* (i.e. all higher ranks, all higher levels). I don't want defense to be immune to tohit buffs, I want the devs to use tohit buffs to make things special, ala villains with psi damage or regeneration debuffs.
I'm also not in favor of making tohit debuffs work precisely the same way as defense either. Defense, tohit buffs, tohit debuffs, and resistance should work differently for variety sake: what we need to make sure about is that each AT gets the appropriate one (or ones) necessarily to function as they should.
You can get too crazy trying to make *everything* "equal." For example, blasters are said to use offense as their primary defense: they are presumably supposed to kill faster than something like a tank, which has higher mitigation and lower damage. But tank mitigation is stable relative to higher level foes, while the purple patch reduces blaster damage substantially. It reduces tanker damage similarly, but the tank isn't relying on high offense for its survivability: in effect the tank gets high mitigation and low damage, while the blaster gets high damage and low mitigation, and one of those two is hit harder by the purple patch. Does this mean blasters need a damage boost against higher foes? I don't personally think thats a good idea myself, at least not directly.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just wanted to echo this sentiment.
I think this DEF scaling fix is very good, and - if I understand it correctly - it boils down to moving the ACC bonus that +rank and +level opponents get to the same place in the equation where our ACC enhancers lie instead of putting that ACC for +rank and +level where ToHit and DEF live in the equation.
If that is correct, then ToHit buffing should still be able to penetrate DEF just as it used to do, and debuffing ToHit should act a lot like having +DEF (with the advantage that it helps your teammates, too). I think that's all very good as far as it goes.
But I hope they will retain the idea of ToHit buffs "penetrating" DEF and apply it where appropriate. Such as places where the extra accuracy of the entity isn't due to his rank or level, but due to his nature.
For example. Those damnable turrets with their higher BTH than other things. Don't move that ACC to the enhancement portion of the equation. Those suckers should have nice, DEF penetrating ToHit buffs so us squishies with no access to DMG RES continue to hate them.
I agree too, Arcanaville. But it can't hurt (well, I hope not!) to cause the devs to consider it.
In this specific case, like I said, I think toHit debuffing works pretty well, and if they somehow changed it in the way they indirectly are fixing defense, they might find it too effective and have to mess with it even more.
That's my gut feel, at least. I could be way outta wack on it.
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 ]
Although I've pushed for this change at least as hard as anyone, I'm *not* an advocate of making everything work exactly, precisely the same way. That's why even though I've harped on tohit buffs for a long time, I *dont* want a solution that completely nullifies their strong effect on defense. I *want* the devs to have a tool in their toolbox that allows them to make enemies that are hard on defense to create challenges above the norm: I just wanted that effect not be used *pervasively* (i.e. all higher ranks, all higher levels). I don't want defense to be immune to tohit buffs, I want the devs to use tohit buffs to make things special, ala villains with psi damage or regeneration debuffs.
I'm also not in favor of making tohit debuffs work precisely the same way as defense either. Defense, tohit buffs, tohit debuffs, and resistance should work differently for variety sake: what we need to make sure about is that each AT gets the appropriate one (or ones) necessarily to function as they should.
You can get too crazy trying to make *everything* "equal." For example, blasters are said to use offense as their primary defense: they are presumably supposed to kill faster than something like a tank, which has higher mitigation and lower damage. But tank mitigation is stable relative to higher level foes, while the purple patch reduces blaster damage substantially. It reduces tanker damage similarly, but the tank isn't relying on high offense for its survivability: in effect the tank gets high mitigation and low damage, while the blaster gets high damage and low mitigation, and one of those two is hit harder by the purple patch. Does this mean blasters need a damage boost against higher foes? I don't personally think thats a good idea myself, at least not directly.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just wanted to echo this sentiment.
I think this DEF scaling fix is very good, and - if I understand it correctly - it boils down to moving the ACC bonus that +rank and +level opponents get to the same place in the equation where our ACC enhancers lie instead of putting that ACC for +rank and +level where ToHit and DEF live in the equation.
If that is correct, then ToHit buffing should still be able to penetrate DEF just as it used to do, and debuffing ToHit should act a lot like having +DEF (with the advantage that it helps your teammates, too). I think that's all very good as far as it goes.
But I hope they will retain the idea of ToHit buffs "penetrating" DEF and apply it where appropriate. Such as places where the extra accuracy of the entity isn't due to his rank or level, but due to his nature.
For example. Those damnable turrets with their higher BTH than other things. Don't move that ACC to the enhancement portion of the equation. Those suckers should have nice, DEF penetrating ToHit buffs so us squishies with no access to DMG RES continue to hate them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, as debuff are divisors, it does not matter where in the accuracy calculation they are put (relative to Defense which is a flat subtractive/additive number).
Basically, this change does not fix nor hurt accuracy debuffs, which are still getting double dinged.
Still here, even after all this time!
[ QUOTE ]
I agree too, Arcanaville. But it can't hurt (well, I hope not!) to cause the devs to consider it.
In this specific case, like I said, I think toHit debuffing works pretty well, and if they somehow changed it in the way they indirectly are fixing defense, they might find it too effective and have to mess with it even more.
That's my gut feel, at least. I could be way outta wack on it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't forget that accuracy debuffs were heavily affected under ED. My Darkest Night (which was about a 90% -ACC before) is now only 65% -ACC, a fairly hefty change.
Still here, even after all this time!
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but you are presenting your case as if you have an inside track on what that "vision" is...
[/ QUOTE ] I am beginning to think your MO is to grossly exaggerate my position at every opportunity to distract the reader from the real issue. I never once claimed to have the inside track. My post to Arcana was series of logical progressions that attempted to understand what the purpose of the debuff was/is. My post includes many question marks and lot of "maybe." Likie..."Maybe the debuff is there to retaint the root effect...."
You completely ignore that line of reasoning and try and present my position like I am absolutely certain.
[ QUOTE ]
we have no evidence to support your assertion that it was always intended for the defense debuff to scale in this manner
[/ QUOTE ] 110% false. We have the very logical evidence, which you simply choose to ignore. Arcana goes through it herself in her last post as of my writing. I'll break down for you one last time..
1) The balance is based on +0 mobs.
2) Defensive and resistance sets are supposed to be balanced against +0 mobs.
3) Since defense did not scale, defense fell behind (this is stated explicity by Statesman in the OP).
4) Ergo, any +DEF related buffs/debuffs did not scale properly.
5) Once defense scales properly, the intended effect/balance of Uny will scale properly.
[ QUOTE ]
My assumption here is no more or less valid than your own
[/ QUOTE ] Your position rests on the sole assertion that the devs want some uncorrelated effect from the debuff as you go up in level. Please show me one place where they intentionally programmed such a change? The very fact that they are fixing the scaling problem shows that the lack of scaling IS a problem from their perspective.
The only leg you have to stand on, which you did not make interestingly enough, is that the debuff base does not appear to be mathmatically correlated to anything else. Arcana goes through this. Why is it the same for Tanks/Scraps? Why was it never adjusted after other changes? Etc etc...are valid questions about what the purpose of the debuff is. But they do not undermine the notion that what ever the debuff value is, it should scale appropriately.
[ QUOTE ]
your premises may well be false, in which case your whole argument falls apart.
[/ QUOTE ] lol....this is trueism for every argument Hunter.
[ QUOTE ]
and if that is the case isn't it important to even mention it?
[/ QUOTE ] You keep trying to take this tack..it has become a contemptable tactic on your part because I have repeatedly agreed that things should be reexamined when global changes are made.
[ QUOTE ]
I am functioning under the assumption that this change might not have even been considered with the unyielding debuff in mind
[/ QUOTE ] It's possible, but it's more likely that this change considered ALL defense related buffs/debuffs...as they have been play testing it since October.
[ QUOTE ]
You are getting into a whole different argument here than really is necessary...
[/ QUOTE ] I think his is an odd statement because you are the one who falsely accuses me of putting the aesthetic above all else and then claiming I played the game for the social aspect.
[ QUOTE ]
and that the social aspect is a seperate but altogether important part of setting up a gaming community.
[/ QUOTE ] Let's just remember that this is an MMO...its business model is predicated on the social aspect. This is not a console game with a tacked on multiplayer aspect. There are missions that you can get solo where you have to have another player.
[ QUOTE ]
so lets just agree that it is something fo find out, alright?
[/ QUOTE ] Please show me one single quote where I say the devs should not answer this question?
[ QUOTE ]
and frankly I am not the only one who thinks so
[/ QUOTE ] You're right. And there is more than one person who wants perma-Unstoppable/Elude back and thinks that those were the "right" choice for the game. The devs disagree...does that make those people wrong? No, but it shows that they want something different from CoH than what the devs want us to experience.
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, in Korea, hero don't talk.
[/ QUOTE ] Where does that come from?
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe typing in the chat window should grant a +35% defense bonus and +60% resistance bonus while you are typing,
[/ QUOTE ] Honestly, they should make you un AS'able 
EDIT:
Didn't see Devian's post.
[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget that accuracy debuffs were heavily affected under ED. My Darkest Night (which was about a 90% -ACC before) is now only 65% -ACC, a fairly hefty change.
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong, I deeply resent ED and dislike what it meant for the PvE game. However, that drop in DN is representative of what happened to most powers in the game, defensive and offensive, and as such, by itself, it doesn't mean that much.
The power still works pretty well. While I intended to 6-slot mine, I never got it over three, and I still solo my DDD on Invincible. (My Corruptor, too.) Yeah, it gets cut through like hot butter by bosses too often for my tastes; usually an issue when it's a mezzing attack (like they all seem to be). But in the scope of the game as it exists now, it's still pretty dang effective. If it didn't seem to do much, I'd be rallying with you on the front patio at Cryptic. But since it is still a powerful, uh, power, I'm just not sure it needs a champion.
That said, I'm not going to try to stop you. 
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 ]
Its unclear to me if there are any specific instances where tohit debuffs are explicitly meant to be as strong as pure defense.
[/ QUOTE ] This is a curious statement. RI and DN seem to be better than pure defense as they have a higher base value than say /SR's toggles and they require less slots for completely comprehensive acc reduction..i.e. three slots emulating six powers in /SR in the non-resistance days.
[ 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 ]
Lmao.....sonned,owned, pwnt whatever you wanna call it
�The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion."
@Mr. Magnifico
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its unclear to me if there are any specific instances where tohit debuffs are explicitly meant to be as strong as pure defense.
[/ QUOTE ] This is a curious statement. RI and DN seem to be better than pure defense as they have a higher base value than say /SR's toggles and they require less slots for completely comprehensive acc reduction..i.e. three slots emulating six powers in /SR in the non-resistance days.
[/ QUOTE ]
As powers imposed on a foe, debuffs have always suffered directly from the purple barrier, where defense has only suffered as an indirect function of the increased base toHit of foes (and this is clearly now considered a defect).
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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its unclear to me if there are any specific instances where tohit debuffs are explicitly meant to be as strong as pure defense.
[/ QUOTE ] This is a curious statement. RI and DN seem to be better than pure defense as they have a higher base value than say /SR's toggles and they require less slots for completely comprehensive acc reduction..i.e. three slots emulating six powers in /SR in the non-resistance days.
[/ QUOTE ]
As powers imposed on a foe, debuffs have always suffered directly from the purple barrier, where defense has only suffered as an indirect function of the increased base toHit of foes (and this is clearly now considered a defect).
[/ QUOTE ]I don't see how that addresses my question. Arcana is suggesting that a power like DN, or RI, or Flash Arrow was not mean to be as effetive as the +DEF in /SR for example. Against an even level minion, it seems that one should be just as effetive as the other.
You said the lack of scaling is a defect, then we can not use the scaling defficiencies as a design intent.
I should rephrase my question as the comparision between base values is not the context under which I think her statment is made. I am curious what in the game leads her to make the statement she did.
[ QUOTE ]
I am beginning to think your MO is to grossly exaggerate my position at every opportunity to distract the reader from the real issue.
[/ QUOTE ]
Funny how you say that... as to be honest that is what I thought your MO was when I have brought up a valid and demobstrably true mathematical effect and all you keep bringing up is artistic issues to obfuscate the point I was trying to make.
Not to mention, there have been a number of times already where you have quoted me out of context to make your points... shall I provide an example for you?
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
The actual statement is actually longer and is "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"
You don't think it was unfair to cut off my statement at the point you did as if to suggest I think the social aspect is completely unimportant?... I was merely trying to draw a parallel and you presented it as some sort of a blanket statement... that would be defined as a "gross exageration of my position" wouldn't you agree?
I am not trying to exagerate your position at all... and frankly I am not even sure what your position is anymore... I have already agreed with you that it all rests upon the developers original intent. So what more is there for us to discuss here?
[ QUOTE ]
Your position rests on the sole assertion that the devs want some uncorrelated effect from the debuff as you go up in level. Please show me one place where they intentionally programmed such a change? The very fact that they are fixing the scaling problem shows that the lack of scaling IS a problem from their perspective.
[/ QUOTE ]
My assertion rests upon the fact that in certain cases the developers desire varying effects dependant upon mob classification... an example of such a system is scrapper criticals which are different dependant upon whether they are facing a minion, lieutenant, or boss.
This particular system encourages scrappers to engage bosses over other foes... so it stands to reason that it is possible that the debuff in unyielding was designed to have a similiar effect by virtue of not scaling equally amongst villain types.
[ QUOTE ]
4) Ergo, any +DEF related buffs/debuffs did not scale properly.
5) Once defense scales properly, the intended effect/balance of Uny will scale properly.
[/ QUOTE ]
This hinges upon 2 things:
1 - The developers desired that the defense debuff in unyielding scale as opposed to how it was originally designed.
2- That the balance was to achieve a 10% increase in damage from minions as opposed to a 6.67% increase in damage from bosses.
Both of these issues will adjust the outcome here, and you have no idea if either of these is correct or false.
If the original idea was to make the debuff effect a 6.67% increase in damage from bosses then the 10% increase versus minions was a consequence and not a goal.
If the original idea was to make the debuff effect a 10% increase in damage from minions then the 6.67% increase was a consequence and not a goal.
Dependant upon which of these was the original intent will determine if a reduction is necessary due to the scaling, or if it is in line with the scaling.
The only way to find out is to ask, to bring up the issue, to explore the boundaries of this problem... yet you resist my attempts to garner new information here for no reason that is really clear to me.
[ QUOTE ]
lol....this is trueism for every argument Hunter.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it is... and to borrow a statement from one of your earlier posts... "it's unfortunate that the point has to be made at all."
It is indeed a truism that if your premesis are false so is your argument... but you are unwilling to admit that your premesis are based in speculation on the intent of the developers for which you have no more evidence than I do.
[ QUOTE ]
You're right. And there is more than one person who wants perma-Unstoppable/Elude back and thinks that those were the "right" choice for the game. The devs disagree...does that make those people wrong? No, but it shows that they want something different from CoH than what the devs want us to experience.
[/ QUOTE ]
Asking for a particular effect to be examined in light of this change is hardly comparable to wanting perma-unstoppable.
Again I shall ask who is exageratting whose points here?... I am pretty sure it isn't me.
I have tried many avenues here to reach an amicable consensus here with you... but you want no part of it so it seems... I will just have to accept that you desire to argue with me for some reason when I have tried on multiple occasions to just see if we agreed on looking into the issue and nothing more... that is my ONLY motivation, make of it what you will.
[ QUOTE ]
You said the lack of scaling is a defect, then we can not use the scaling defficiencies as a design intent.
[/ QUOTE ]
As I said, there is a facet of debuffs that has always made them weaker than even today's defense powers. It has nothing to do with scaling as discussed in the OP of this thread. That facet is that they are reduced by the purple barrier (as are all powers that affect foes) and, additionally, most are affected by debuff resistances of various sorts. As a result, toHit debuffs have always been "double dinged", in addition to having the same scaling issues as defense.
This is what leads to the idea, at least for me, that they are not to be as effective. As was pointed out, even if they are somehow changed to scale (such as by making them scaling accuracy debuffs instead of subtracting from base toHit), then they would still be attenuated by high-level mobs and by resistances. Thus, they would have a weakness that defense does not. And while I can't speak for Arcana, I read the comment we're discussing as referring to this aspect.
Edit: Their magnitude compared to defense powers definitely muddies the waters, but I can see where the behavior above might lead to the idea that debuffs are, perhaps if not to be less powerful, maybe to be less dependable than outright defense.
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 ]
Actually, as debuff are divisors, it does not matter where in the accuracy calculation they are put (relative to Defense which is a flat subtractive/additive number).
Basically, this change does not fix nor hurt accuracy debuffs, which are still getting double dinged.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I understood Castle correctly, we went from:
Final ToHit = (Base ToHit + ToHit Buffs - Defense) * (1 + Accuracy)
Where
Base ToHit = (50% + Rank Bonus) * Purple Patch Multiplier
And now we have something more like
Final ToHit = (50% + ToHit Buffs - Defense) * (1 + Accuracy)
where
Accuracy = Rank Bonus + (Purple Patch Multiplier - 1)
EXAMPLE:[*]AT +1 level PPM ~= 1.1 (1.0940)[*]And a BOSS gets a 15% Rank Bonus[*]Let's say with no ToHit Buffs or debuffs
and [*]0% vs a 20% DEF
<ul type="square">[*]OLD SCHOOL (0 DEF): ((50% + 15%) * 1.1 + 0 - 0%) * (1+0) = (71.5 - 0) * 1 = 71.5%[*]OLD SCHOOL (25 DEF): ((50% + 15%) * 1.1 + 0 - 25%) * (1+0) = (71.5 - 25) * 1 = 46.5%[*]25% DEF = 46.5 vs. 71.5 = ~35% DMG mitigation
[*]NEW SCHOOL (0 DEF): (50% + 0 - 0%) * (1 + 15% +10%) = 50% * 1.25 = 62.5%[*]NEW SCHOOL (25 DEF): (50% + 0 - 25%) * (1 + 15% +10%) = 25% * 1.25 = 31.25%[*]25% DEF = 31.25/62.5 = ~50% DMG mitigation[/list]
If you put ToHit Buff in there of 20% you'd get
<ul type="square">[*]OLD SCHOOL (0 DEF): ((50% + 15%) * 1.1 + 20% - 0%) * (1+0) = (91.5 - 0) * 1 = 91.5%[*]OLD SCHOOL (25 DEF): ((50% + 15%) * 1.1 + 20% - 25%) * (1+0) = (91.5 - 5%) * 1 = 86.5%[*]25% DEF vs. 20% ToHit= 86.5 vs. 91.5 = ~5.5% DMG mitigation
[*]NEW SCHOOL (0 DEF): (50% + 20% - 0%) * (1 + 15% + 10%) = 70% * 1.25 = 87.5%[*]NEW SCHOOL (25 DEF): (50% + 20% - 25%) * (1 + 15% + 10%) = 45% * 1.25 = 56.25%[*]25% DEF vs. 20% ToHit= 56.25 vs. 87.5 = ~35% DMG mitigation[*]CHANGE + ToHit -> + ACC (25 DEF): (50% - 25%) * (1 + 15% + 10% + 20%) = 25% * 1.45 = 36.25%[*]25% DEF vs 20% ToHit = 36.25 vs. 87.5 = ~58.5% DMG mitigation[/list]
So, if I understand the equations right (a big IF), it DOES matter where you put that ToHit Buff or Debuff.
Leave it over where DEF is and it penetrates DEF more strongly That 25% DEF delivered only a 35% DMG mitigation when ToHit was over there.
Move it to where the level and rank ACC bonuses are and it does a worse job of penetrating DEF. That same 25% DEF mitigated 60% of the damage when you put ToHit buffs in that part of the equation.
In either case, ToHit Buffs penetrate DEF less than they used to, but it still matters where you put them.
As for ToHit Debuffs. If they leave ToHit buffs on the left hand side of this equstion, they will have the exact same effect as DEF does.
If they move them to where the rank and level bonuses are going...bad news for ToHit Debuffs.
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
They did *lower* the defenses across the board, while decreasing accuracy. Now that they are fixing Defense so that it scales better/correctly, I dodn't see that any defense/accuracy numbers (across the board) need to be revisited.
+5 should be at the top level of effectiveness. The calculation they are doing does not actually preclude about +5 per se, but there isn't a reason to really go beyond it either.
This is a fairly elegant fix, IMO.
Still here, even after all this time!