I really have my doubts as to how 'official' this answer is, though, given how odd it sounds.
Jonyu may be the brute rep, but he has given conflicting information in the past. Look up his response to the 'nullifiers vs. unstoppable' topic, given -after- and yet completely conflicting with the answer _Castle_ gave in CoV general discussion.
I may have jumped the gun on Jonyu there a bit, but it does get irritating to have red names changing their tune at any time it suits the point they wish to make.
I understand perfectly... I just think that what you said made perfect sense. So much sense, in fact, that I find it hard to believe that his comment is 'official'.
Edit: I'm not saying I don't think Jonyu's response may be 100% correct, but I don't think his response was in any way official. Especially since if it is, he MIGHT be giving people a month of heads-up on nerfs. Is this the dev's usual pattern of behavior?
[ QUOTE ]
I may have jumped the gun on Jonyu there a bit, but it does get irritating to have red names changing their tune at any time it suits the point they wish to make.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I don't think he was being inconsistent. I think he just emphasized the least important part of the question - I don't think anyone is bothered that brutes, scrappers, and stalkers get status protection later than tankers.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can you complain that Brutes have to wait 8 more levels to get an inferior version of Unyielding when they're getting powers like Knockout Blow at level 8 compared to a Tanker at level 20?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because it's a double penalty. No one is complaining about Scrapper/Brute Unyielding having lower resists. What people are complaining about is the fact that the debuff isn't in proportion to the reduced resists. I can't speak for everyone, but I would ask why the debuff isn't 3.75% since the resists are 75% of the Tanker numbers.
And if this is balanced, how is it balanced? Is it balanced because we can still do missions on Heroic? Or is there some formula that tells you this is balanced? If so, please tell us. The forum population here will understand it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok basic math so you can understand
brute is 75% as effective as a Tanker.
if a number is a negative like -5% 75% as effective is 6.5% not 3.5%
3.5% would infact be 125% as effective... BECAUSE THIS IS A NEGATIVE NUMBER... THE CLOSER TO ZERO THE BETTER IT GETTS, MEANING THE MORE EFFECTIVE.
EXAMPLE:
30% defence - 25% = 22.5% which is 75% as effective.
-5% defense - - (minus a negative is a +) 25% = 6.25 which is 75% as effective (you minus a negative because the original number is a negative)
when you take away from a negative you go more negative.
For a postive you can go 30 x .75 to get 75% as effective
For a negative you must go - 5 - - (+) 25 % to get 75% as effective as -5.
Actaully I hope the devs fix this "gift" to us and make INV. -6.25% as effective, just so you whiners get a taste of what you are whining about.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you weren't trying so hard to be smart, you might have realized a couple of things to wit:
.75 X -5 = -3.75
You outthought yourself. Let's talk about the basic math that you forgot. Tanker resist powers are multiplied by .75 to arrive at the Scrapper/Brute numbers. No one (other than you) said anything about them being 75% as effective. What we are arguing for is to assign the multiplier to all aspect of the power not just the positive aspects.
Can you get your brain around that.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
Math buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurn.
It's like a kung-fu fight against a pillow. The pillow takes the lickin' like a champ, but c'mon. It's a pillow.
[ QUOTE ]
Heh. I usually stay out of stuff like this, but when someone is SO blatantly wrong, and THEN starts throwing stuff around like "Here, let me dumb this down for you so you can understand" (i.e. "basic math" type of crap) I tend to jump in.
Not that it's going to get through to the poster, you understand - just to counteract misinformation for other folks. There's enough of that as it is without adding to it.
Kam
[/ QUOTE ]
Because you are the one being blantant and completely wrong and i will try to help
Example straight from statistics.
I am having atrophy (reduction of size in muscle due to non use) Say a car crash.
Treatment 1 slows my atropy to - 5 % (muscle 5% smaller)
Treatment 2 slows my atropy to - 6.25 % (muscle 6.25% smaller)
So in effect you would state that treatment 1 is more effective then treatment 2. To be exact you would state that treatment 2 is 75% as effective as treatment 1 in preventing atrophy.
Tanks are more effective at taking dmg both via resist and defense.
If a brute is 75% as effecitive as a tank. and a tanks base is -5% a brute would be -6.25% see above example.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I may have jumped the gun on Jonyu there a bit, but it does get irritating to have red names changing their tune at any time it suits the point they wish to make.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I don't think he was being inconsistent. I think he just emphasized the least important part of the question - I don't think anyone is bothered that brutes, scrappers, and stalkers get status protection later than tankers.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. In general, these little reminders about the differences between the scrappers/brutes and tankers strike me as a huge red herring. We all *know* that scrappers and brutes get more damage and more attacks earlier and that tanks get stronger defenses earlier. And other than occasionally quibbling about the details, most people accept that as an reasonable trade-off between the ATs.
But Jonyu's argument seems to imply that that balancing somehow isn't enough--that scrappers and brutes need a 'bonus' penalty to balance their sets against tanker sets, and that's the justification for the disproportionately large Def debuff in UY for them. Does this strike anyone else as, well, bizarre?
My Characters
Knight Court--A CoH Story Complete 2/3/2012
[ QUOTE ]
I know I don't think so. Why? Because if I have 3/4 the effectiveness of this power I should only have 3/4 of the penalty. I can't think of another power that is this punitive.
[/ QUOTE ]
Granite Armor. (same penalties, less buff) rooted too.
to others: i feel as you do; i just don't think the devs are seeing the issue. either way, i can see the devs pillow-talking us on this one.
Yes! I'm NORMAL! What are you looking at freak!?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can you complain that Brutes have to wait 8 more levels to get an inferior version of Unyielding when they're getting powers like Knockout Blow at level 8 compared to a Tanker at level 20?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because it's a double penalty. No one is complaining about Scrapper/Brute Unyielding having lower resists. What people are complaining about is the fact that the debuff isn't in proportion to the reduced resists. I can't speak for everyone, but I would ask why the debuff isn't 3.75% since the resists are 75% of the Tanker numbers.
And if this is balanced, how is it balanced? Is it balanced because we can still do missions on Heroic? Or is there some formula that tells you this is balanced? If so, please tell us. The forum population here will understand it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok basic math so you can understand
brute is 75% as effective as a Tanker.
if a number is a negative like -5% 75% as effective is 6.5% not 3.5%
3.5% would infact be 125% as effective... BECAUSE THIS IS A NEGATIVE NUMBER... THE CLOSER TO ZERO THE BETTER IT GETTS, MEANING THE MORE EFFECTIVE.
EXAMPLE:
30% defence - 25% = 22.5% which is 75% as effective.
-5% defense - - (minus a negative is a +) 25% = 6.25 which is 75% as effective (you minus a negative because the original number is a negative)
when you take away from a negative you go more negative.
For a postive you can go 30 x .75 to get 75% as effective
For a negative you must go - 5 - - (+) 25 % to get 75% as effective as -5.
Actaully I hope the devs fix this "gift" to us and make INV. -6.25% as effective, just so you whiners get a taste of what you are whining about.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you weren't trying so hard to be smart, you might have realized a couple of things to wit:
.75 X -5 = -3.75
You outthought yourself. Let's talk about the basic math that you forgot. Tanker resist powers are multiplied by .75 to arrive at the Scrapper/Brute numbers. No one (other than you) said anything about them being 75% as effective. What we are arguing for is to assign the multiplier to all aspect of the power not just the positive aspects.
Can you get your brain around that.
[/ QUOTE ]
LOL this is too funny.
of course .75 x - 5 = - 3.25
Thats not how you do the math.
like I said - 5 - - (+) 25 % = -6.25
here it is neg. 5 minus a negative (two negatives equal a positive in math) 25 % = -5 + 25% = - 6.25.
If defense is 75% as effective, you may also say it is 25% less effective.
Example 30% - 25% = 22.5
(this is 30 x.75)
For a negative you cannot do the muliplication... becuase it is increasing the value. In the positive it is decreasing the value.
See mult. by a .XX for percetage always brings the value closer to 0. In a positive case closer to 0 decreases value, In a negative case closer to 0 increases the value.
You need to decrease the value of a brutes defence, because it is less effective then a tanks. So you do like I said
- 5 - - (+) 25% = - 6.25
This makes it so your brute is always 75% as effective... or 25% less effective then a tank.
Even when dealing with negative numbers.
All in all, I am fine with the -5 Def Debuff from Unyeilding for the superior mez resistance it provides compared to Fiery Aura, Dark Armor, Super Reflexex, ect.
I do, however, believe that the arguement for a 3.75% Debuff for Brutes and Scrappers has weight since they recieve lesser mez protection from it as well and the penalty is overstrict compared to the bonuses it provides.
But, all in all, its an unskippable power thats great to have. Its just would be nice if the Def penatly did overcompensate for extra resistance it provides in the case of scrappers and brutes.
Member of:
Repeat Offenders Network - The Largest Coalition Network in the Game, across Virtue, Freedom, Justice and Exalted. Open to all, check us out.
Current Team Project: Pending
It does. Like I said, it doesn't sound like an official comment, it's just too unreasonable. Before taking it seriously, I'd like to hear a confirmation of this by a different dev, to be honest.
I mean, KO blow at 8? But, uh, what if you... I don't know, not pair up SS with INV? Is Whirling hands the balance for an EM/Inv brute? Or does this mean that secondaries are balanced with specific primaries in mind?
[ QUOTE ]
A Tankers job is do soak up damage so they get a bonus to their resistances. Scrappers and Brutes make up for this by dealing more damage.
How can you complain that Brutes have to wait 8 more levels to get an inferior version of Unyielding when they're getting powers like Knockout Blow at level 8 compared to a Tanker at level 20?
Powers are balanced by the grand scheme of the archetype, not via individual powers so it's not fair to compare power for power versus the various archetypes. Brutes are more than fine as they are.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm more interested in the unscaling debuff than the level difference, honestly, though I included it for the sake of completeness.
It sounds to me like these powers are very arbitrarily decided upon.
Gorilla, your main mathematical problem is this:
For any number, reducing it to 75% of itself is indeed the same as subtracting 25% from it. However, you're neglecting the fact that a percentage of a negative number is ALSO a negative number. In other words:
30 * .75 = 30 - (.25 * 30) = 30 - 7.5 = 22.5.
-5 * .75 = -5 - (.25 * -5) = -5 - (-1.25) = -5 PLUS 1.25 = -3.75.
As to the "effectiveness" argument - I don't dispute that a 6.25 percent debuff makes the PLAYER less effective than a five percent debuff would. However, it makes the effect of the POWER *more* effective - that power has more of an effect on the player. And that's exactly opposite to all the other power reductions - every single one has the Tanker version with a stronger effect on the player than the Scrapper/Brute version.
Kam
It makes me wonder how EA stands in this whole mess. They went and created a new powerset, correct? And then they went and gave it superior mez protection with NO DRAWBACKS. No rooting, no slow, no debuff. It doesn't seem to mesh with any notion that they don't want to give mez protection for free.
Unless this is to balance the fact that the set has no self-heal, which is very possible... which means that people who think EA should have a self-heal have to consider if they'd be willing to live with a 10% res debuff on entropy shield. 
Okay, so you're saying that to balance the lower benefit from the power the penalties should be increased? You would appear to be so dazzled by your own "cleverness" that all pretense of intelligent thought has been obliterated.
For me all future posts by this posterior headgarment called anarchicgorilla shall read ***You are ignoring this luser***. It will increase the level of discourse for any forum he posts in as far as i'm concerned.
Oh, sorry, i meant to say that his blinding idiocy has inspired me to put him on ignore. The rest of you please continue, you're raising some good points and useful insights.
Dr. Todt's theme.
i make stuff...
Actually, I was thinking about this, and I'm not sure if it's true. Is a brute's rooted's slow effect smaller in magnitude than a tanker's? Should it be?
But anyway... I'm not sure if you should continue arguing with anarchicgorilla, since I've seen him carry on 'mathematical' arguments for PAGES in other threads, which just makes them drift off-topic with an endless flow of rather meaningless numbers.
[ QUOTE ]
3)be patient, keep grinding. Once you get invincibility, you'll probably forget all about this problem
[/ QUOTE ]
I have Invincibility, and it's very much not the point.
If I come and steal five bucks from your wallet every week, is it okay because you'll make more money later?
Hah, in SC I run invincibility and it kills me MORE quickly than if I had it off.
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I was thinking about this, and I'm not sure if it's true. Is a brute's rooted's slow effect smaller in magnitude than a tanker's? Should it be?
But anyway... I'm not sure if you should continue arguing with anarchicgorilla, since I've seen him carry on 'mathematical' arguments for PAGES in other threads, which just makes them drift off-topic with an endless flow of rather meaningless numbers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Mmm. You raise a good point, I'd forgotten the Rooted slow effect. (And I'd argue that a Brute should be going faster anyways 
)
As to arguing with AG - like I said earlier, I have no hope of making him see the light. I'm just combatting his misinformation.
Kam
By the way, Jonyu, I do want to thank you for responding, despite the fact that I find your answer entirely baseless from a logic standpoint and underwhelming.
I'm glad you've made yourself available for dialogue. 
[ QUOTE ]
It does. Like I said, it doesn't sound like an official comment, it's just too unreasonable. Before taking it seriously, I'd like to hear a confirmation of this by a different dev, to be honest.
I mean, KO blow at 8? But, uh, what if you... I don't know, not pair up SS with INV? Is Whirling hands the balance for an EM/Inv brute? Or does this mean that secondaries are balanced with specific primaries in mind?
[/ QUOTE ]
It's an example. In general, brutes get good attacks long before tankers do, but again, it's just emphasizing part of the question which wasn't really a question.
I also don't think Jonyu responded as he did to obfuscate the issue. I think the response does make it clear that the devs feel that Unyielding's penalty is balanced for brutes, scrappers, and tankers.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
Actually, I don't think he intended to obfuscate it either, but I do feel that the devs don't necessarily research (or consult each other about) an issue before posting on the forums, and that's why I think I'd like some confirmation. I base this on that 'nullifier toggledrops' thread a few weeks back.
[ QUOTE ]
Gorilla, your main mathematical problem is this:
For any number, reducing it to 75% of itself is indeed the same as subtracting 25% from it. However, you're neglecting the fact that a percentage of a negative number is ALSO a negative number. In other words:
30 * .75 = 30 - (.25 * 30) = 30 - 7.5 = 22.5.
-5 * .75 = -5 - (.25 * -5) = -5 - (-1.25) = -5 PLUS 1.25 = -3.75.
As to the "effectiveness" argument - I don't dispute that a 6.25 percent debuff makes the PLAYER less effective than a five percent debuff would. However, it makes the effect of the POWER *more* effective - that power has more of an effect on the player. And that's exactly opposite to all the other power reductions - every single one has the Tanker version with a stronger effect on the player than the Scrapper/Brute version.
Kam
[/ QUOTE ]
You donot get it. Honestly have you even taken a statistics course?
You are throwing these equations that are basic misunderstandings from students entering statistics and saying they are right when you are wrong.
"-5 * .75 = -5 - (.25 * -5) = -5 - (-1.25) = -5 PLUS 1.25 = -3.75."
This whole equation is the same as finding 75% of -5
This is completly different then finding what is 75% less effective then -5.
A brutes defense is 75% less effective then a tanks not 75% of a tanks.
Now for positive numbers this does not matter... because 75% and 75% less effective are the same. My guess is this is why the devs say 75% only... becuase its easier and applies for everything but this point. (also it is easier for the math write up. If anything this alone is why they are both at 5%. The devs likely did it x .75 and then realized [censored] now a brute acually has better defense then a tank in this area... so either they could not figure out the math, or they simply did not want to add more code for 1 toggle and thus gave brutes a break and gave them the same penelity)
But for negtives 75% of a negative number and 75% less effective then a negative number (when effectivness is 0 or +) are completly different statements.
Go back to anything I said.
If drug A reduces atrophy to - 5% and B reduces swelling to - 6.25% which is more effective?
A is and B is 75% less effective.
All the posts that say 75% of tanker.. is just short for 75% less effective which is what it is.
Heh. I usually stay out of stuff like this, but when someone is SO blatantly wrong, and THEN starts throwing stuff around like "Here, let me dumb this down for you so you can understand" (i.e. "basic math" type of crap) I tend to jump in.
Not that it's going to get through to the poster, you understand - just to counteract misinformation for other folks. There's enough of that as it is without adding to it.
Kam