Defense and Scaling
By
Aaron123,
Posted on: 2006-01-11 16:47 in Archetypes and Powers General Discussion
[ QUOTE ]
For instance, an AV had a base To Hit of 75%. If a player had 25% Defense, the AV would have had a 50% chance to hit. Under the new system, the AV's has a base 50% chance to hit. The Defense is applied, reducing his To Hit to 25%. The Accuracy is then applied, giving a final To Hit of 37.5% -- a 12.5% improvement over the old system.
[/ QUOTE ]
This means that every enemy always had a base of 50% plus a % buff instead of a fixed buff? Or was it changed to be this way with the new system?
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
...And that power is? C'mon you can't just leave us guessing here. 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But why should ToHit buffs be worse on Defense than Resistance when there are sets like Ice and EA that have little to no defense to psi and toxic anyway?
[/ QUOTE ]
The question is, should there exist "undefendable attacks" as a mechanism, given that there are unresistable (or less resisted) damage as a mechanism for resistance. In my opinion, such a mechanism has to exist in theory, or else Resistance has holes Defense does not. The issue is moderating tohit so that it is infrequent instead of pervasive (like toxic/psi damage), less devastating (DE Quartz eminators must die), and possibly have alternate counter mechanisms (psi resistance does exist, albeit less commonly).
[/ QUOTE ]
I have always questioned the wisdom of having global "undefendable" (or very had to defend/rare defense) power types. It's entirely reasonable for a single power set to have a specific Achilles' heel (e.g., Psi makes sense to me for Invuln). But having all (or most) powersets have the same Achilles' heal, given how different the sets are in "special effect" (fire vs. cold vs. dark/negative vs. invulnerable) has always seemed utterly nuts to me. It's entirely unclear why Fire, Cold, and Invuln characters should have the same weaknesses, other than "it makes the devs' jobs easier."
But oh well... that horse left the barn a long time ago...
I definitely agree that if any character has to have an Achilles' heel, they all need to have one -- fair is fair. SR should have a weakness just like Invuln does. I just wish the weaknesses were different, rather than all the same thing (basically, everyone gets hit by the same auto- or near-auto-hit attacks, everyone is weak in res to Psi and Tox, and everyone is best vs. S/L, no matter what the effects).
F
[ QUOTE ]
This means that every enemy always had a base of 50% plus a % buff instead of a fixed buff? Or was it changed to be this way with the new system?
[/ QUOTE ]
That's not exactly true, but for all practical purposes, it is close enough. They had a higher Base To Hit value, which is the same as having a To Hit buff that increased their To Hit to that point.
[ QUOTE ]
...And that power is? C'mon you can't just leave us guessing here.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're joking, right?
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
...And that power is? C'mon you can't just leave us guessing here.
[/ QUOTE ]
For non-followers of SR, that power is (almost certainly has to be) evasion.
[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 ]
For non-followers of SR, that power is (almost certainly has to be) evasion.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lucky currently gives 7.5% right? I reckon that'll be dropped down to 5% as well.
Something like AVs having 1.5 base acc multiplied by 50 then? And if so thats where the subtraction went? Resting the def against the 50 before the multiplication?
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a post should be either funny, informative, a question or a combination of the three.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which was yours?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lothart, if you cant figure out mine was an "informative" post, I feel bad for your brain cell. may it live long and prosper.
[/ QUOTE ]
poisonbox,
Judgemental !=! Informative
[ QUOTE ]
I definitely agree that if any character has to have an Achilles' heel, they all need to have one -- fair is fair.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear, I'm not explicitly advocating Achilles Heels in the sense of all *sets* having no mitigation against a particular type of attack at all, but rather something related: the devs should always have the *option* of creating special case villains that are explicitly harder for a particular type of mitigation than normal. Psi does that for many resistance-oriented sets (but they aren't completely defenseless: most have dull pain or healing); tohit buffs do that for SR. The question is one of intensity, and prevalence - SR didn't have an Achilles Heel, it had an Achilles Epidermis.
[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's a way to do that and still be perfectly fair to defense and resistance sets. Just give higher level villains accuracy increases instead of tohit buffs. Higher level foes would now hit more often, but in a proportional manner. Problem solved.
Someone give Arcanaville a cigar!
[/ QUOTE ]
!
Now, since my ego simply has to know: did one of my suggestions finally get stuck on someone's shoe and then tracked into the right cubicle, or was this always on the boards as a potential solution to the problem that simply required sufficient coding time to engineer?
[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 ]
SR didn't have an Achilles Heel, it had an Achilles Epidermis.
[/ QUOTE ]
OK, ROFL.
You know, I am now positively salivating to see I7.
Please, please, please, Devs, don't sneak in something we will hate with this one? Even if you have something cooking that we will hate, can it wait an issue? I'm tired to the bone of getting all excited about a new issue only to find that not only did it come with a huge wet blanket, but the blanket was soaked in mild acid. And made of fiberglass.
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 ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
...And that power is? C'mon you can't just leave us guessing here.
[/ QUOTE ]
For non-followers of SR, that power is (almost certainly has to be) evasion.
[/ QUOTE ]
Evasion was 10% higher than Focused Fighting and Focused Senses (22.5% versus 12.5%). They'll probably drop it down to 12.5% to coincide with the others.
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
As a long time SR user... I am actually happy to hear this.
1: It makes more sense from an RP standpoint.
2: It makes the choice to dump evasion that much easier
3: With these changes in place come I-7, we wil now get a free respec as this will probably be considered a major change.
I'm giddy.
To Arcanaville, thank you very much for your diligence in getting help for we defense based folks. If this change isn't proof that a player can put forth an idea that is actually implemented in game, I don't know what is.
I bow to your beautiful math and testing.
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For non-followers of SR, that power is (almost certainly has to be) evasion.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lucky currently gives 7.5% right? I reckon that'll be dropped down to 5% as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
All the passives as far as I know were a base 5%.
It also sounds, upon careful read of this, that tohit buffs themselves, separate from level and rank adjustments, are unaffected by this change, which is consistent with Statesman's original wording of the change.
Is there a different change to adjust the effect of high tohit buffs, especially (but not exclusively) in PvP? High tohit buffs were one of the things Statesman mentioned many months ago as being "looked at."
[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 ]
For non-followers of SR, that power is (almost certainly has to be) evasion.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lucky currently gives 7.5% right? I reckon that'll be dropped down to 5% as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
All the passives as far as I know were a base 5%.
[/ QUOTE ]
When the bump to evasion occurred, there were several tests run that apparently showed lucky to have also been raised. Thus the 5/5/7.5 and 12.5/12.5/22.5 stats that were bantered around.
Now, I'm NOT going to state that I am happy with what will be our values of 5 and 12.5, but with this change in place, I have the distinct feeling that I WILL be.
I will throw out one bit of negativity to put my overall happiness in check:
It's about damn time this was fixed.
Be well, people of CoH.
Can someone tell me if I should start crying doom just for the sake of it even this all sounds good.
[ QUOTE ]
It also sounds, upon careful read of this, that tohit buffs themselves, separate from level and rank adjustments, are unaffected by this change, which is consistent with Statesman's original wording of the change.
Is there a different change to adjust the effect of high tohit buffs, especially (but not exclusively) in PvP? High tohit buffs were one of the things Statesman mentioned many months ago as being "looked at."
[/ QUOTE ]
Didn't they already look at them and make a change accordingly by making ToHit Buff enhancements Schedule B rather than A?
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For non-followers of SR, that power is (almost certainly has to be) evasion.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lucky currently gives 7.5% right? I reckon that'll be dropped down to 5% as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
All the passives as far as I know were a base 5%.
[/ QUOTE ]
I seem to recall Stargazer, ArchTester of Defense, measuring lucky at 7.5% a while back.
[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.)
Castle:
I'm curious. Why the complicated math (well, relatively)? Wouldn't it be more effective to get away from the subtractive design of DEF and move to something multiplicative (terminology shamelessly stolen from FreelanceWizard)?
The numbers on DEF powers would have to be tweaked, but you'd have -perfect- equivalence in scalability with RES sets at -all- levels.
Ex: 50% DEF would cut a target's ACC in half, whatever that ACC was to begin with. So then, say, a white minion would have a 25% chance to hit (50% base ACC x 50%). Then, no matter -what- the mob's base accuracy, 50% DEF would mean you take (on average) half the damage you would have with no DEF, exactly the same as 50% RES means you take half the damage you would with no RES.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
As a long time SR user... I am actually happy to hear this.
1: It makes more sense from an RP standpoint.
2: It makes the choice to dump evasion that much easier
3: With these changes in place come I-7, we wil now get a free respec as this will probably be considered a major change.
I'm giddy.
To Arcanaville, thank you very much for your diligence in getting help for we defense based folks. If this change isn't proof that a player can put forth an idea that is actually implemented in game, I don't know what is.
I bow to your beautiful math and testing.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am equally giddy of this change. I don't think I would drop evasion once this took effect however, as it still provides a DefDebuff resistance. Rather my hope is that they will reduce the end cost of evasion to be more in line with the other toggles and compensate for the defense loss. If that is the case I will gladly welcome this "nerf".
Caios - Modern. Vampire. Cowgirl, not Catgirl.
Karnage - Monster. Psychopath. Fun at Parties.
FyreShadow - Innocent. Naive. God-like Powerful.
Queen Armitage - Caring. Exiled. and out of Options.
[ QUOTE ]
It also sounds, upon careful read of this, that tohit buffs themselves, separate from level and rank adjustments, are unaffected by this change, which is consistent with Statesman's original wording of the change.
Is there a different change to adjust the effect of high tohit buffs, especially (but not exclusively) in PvP? High tohit buffs were one of the things Statesman mentioned many months ago as being "looked at."
[/ QUOTE ]
I would like to see anything done here done with extremely careful consideration to the difference in PvE and PvP.
In PvP, high toHit can counter Defense based armors. But in PvE, toHit powers are a joy to the players. Missing is one of the most basic forms of frustration, and getting a power that cuts down on this is often paid for by choosing a particular power set, pool set, or epic set, and often comes with other considerable costs, such as endurance burn or some other kind of downtime. I would hate to see these powers gutted simply because they become onerous in PvP when someone decides to maximize them through both paying the cost of having/using them and slotting heavily for accuracy.
Basically this topic is a potential sticking point for me of the PvP game intruding on things that, for me at least, make the PvE game more fun. Because I hate missing frequently in PvE more than any other single thing, even more than pervasive mezzing.
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 ]
It also sounds, upon careful read of this, that tohit buffs themselves, separate from level and rank adjustments, are unaffected by this change, which is consistent with Statesman's original wording of the change.
Is there a different change to adjust the effect of high tohit buffs, especially (but not exclusively) in PvP? High tohit buffs were one of the things Statesman mentioned many months ago as being "looked at."
[/ QUOTE ]
Didn't they already look at them and make a change accordingly by making ToHit Buff enhancements Schedule B rather than A?
[/ QUOTE ]
Unless they also heavily reduced the base values of the actual tohit buffs in PvP, and didn't say so, switching tohit buffs from A to B balances then against defense enhancements, which they technically should be, but doesn't really do much to powers like Aim or Build Up, which each possess (as far as I know) higher base tohit buffage than SR possesses total defense. Most people I know don't even *slot* Aim with tohit buff enhancements, making a reduction in them ineffective on its own in taming that power.
But its really focused accuracy that is the real killer, since its tohit buff is lower, but continuous, and its base is also high enough that a reduction in slotting power to "just as strong as defense" still makes it pretty darned good against defense sets.
[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.)
/em gives Arcanaville a box of cigars.
So when you guys gonna put him on the payroll?
And hey, you answered my smart [censored], rhetorical question!