[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
I may go to Hell simply for acknowledging your existence, but:
You're coming at this discussion without a strong understanding of how primary powersets are intended to work in comparison to secondary sets. Specifically, how brute/scrapper sets have 75% of the base effectiveness of tanker sets. If it worked as you say it should, invuln would be at a noticeable disadvantage for brutes and scrappers.
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 ]
But the question is not "Which of these two numbers (i.e. 6.25 vs. 3.75) is more effective, or makes the PLAYER less effective?" The question is "Which of these two numbers causes the POWER to have LESS EFFECT on the PLAYER?".
The answer isn't the one you're pushing.
Kam
[/ QUOTE ]
I added this as you wrote
The devs had the equation x .75
But when they did this move and got the math they 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)
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
I may go to Hell simply for acknowledging your existence, but:
You're coming at this discussion without a strong understanding of how primary powersets are intended to work in comparison to secondary sets. Specifically, how brute/scrapper sets have 75% of the base effectiveness of tanker sets. If it worked as you say it should, invuln would be at a noticeable disadvantage for brutes and scrappers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Every defensive set for brute/scrapper is at a disatvantage compared to a tank.
Example temp inv.
30% resist tank 22.5 % brute = brute at disandvantage
Every other set works this way too.
Now tell me why would the devs would make it so that unyeilding gives an advantage to brutes when every other move and sets gives them a disadvantage???
This is why it is the same. They did not want to give brutes a better defense for this move compared to a tank. That would be unbalanced.
But instead of doing the math I said... (likely do to excessive code to do so) They simply left them the same for - defense, and gave tanks the advange from the other parts of the toggle.
The balance for the -% defence in Inv. is due to Inv. being better resist the all the sets for smash and lethal.
Honestly run hero stats and look
70% of dmg in PvE comes from smash and lethal.
If Brutes resist 25% less than what a tanker resists, then the debuff from Unyielding needs to be 25% less than the Tanker version. Yes, that does make Unyielding's penalty for Brutes lower, but their resistances are lower as well. The idea is to make Unyielding's defense debuff proportional between archetypes.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
I may go to Hell simply for acknowledging your existence, but:
You're coming at this discussion without a strong understanding of how primary powersets are intended to work in comparison to secondary sets. Specifically, how brute/scrapper sets have 75% of the base effectiveness of tanker sets. If it worked as you say it should, invuln would be at a noticeable disadvantage for brutes and scrappers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Every defensive set for brute/scrapper is at a disatvantage compared to a tank.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is why I might go to Hell for talking to you.
I didn't say "invuln would be at a noticeable disadvantage for brutes and scrappers compared to tankers." I meant at a noticeable disadvantage compared to other brute or scrapper secondaries.
[ QUOTE ]
Now tell me why would the devs would make it so that unyeilding gives an advantage to brutes when every other move and sets gives them a disadvantage???
This is why it is the same. They did not want to give brutes a better defense for this move compared to a tank. That would be unbalanced.
But instead of doing the math I said... (likely do to excessive code to do so) They simply left them the same for - defense, and gave tanks the advange from the other parts of the toggle.
[/ QUOTE ]
I see you don't understand the concept of "compounding."
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 ]
If Brutes resist 25% less than what a tanker resists, then the debuff from Unyielding needs to be 25% less than the Tanker version. Yes, that does make Unyielding's penalty for Brutes lower, but their resistances are lower as well. The idea is to make Unyielding's defense debuff proportional between archetypes.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think he wants to admit that if every other number in the set is 75% that of a tanker's that making the defense debuff larger reduces the entire set's effectiveness beyond that 75%.
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 ]
If Brutes resist 25% less than what a tanker resists, then the debuff from Unyielding needs to be 25% less than the Tanker version. Yes, that does make Unyielding's penalty for Brutes lower, but their resistances are lower as well. The idea is to make Unyielding's defense debuff proportional between archetypes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok the idea is that a brutes defense is 25% less effective.
Pehaps the wording thows this off for some so lets use this
A brutes defense is 25% worse then that of a tank.
what is a worse defense -5% or -3.25%?
For a brutes defense for unyeilding to be 25% worse (less effective) It would need to be -6.25%
Be happy it is not. The reason being that it would be a pain to write that much code into a system for 1 simple toggle.
As to the "to hell comback"
For the devs they only balance 1 thing. This means tank.
If tank is balanced they then use the %... 75% in this case for a brute.
It is very likely the devs may have aggreed that -6.25% (which IS 75% less effective the -5%) was to much.
This may be why they left it the same...
However if they decrease the penelity for unyeilding then it would infact be overpowerd for the Inv. set for brutes.
To be honest keeping it the same makes it a little more powerfull in comparision now... because every aspect of every other move in the comparing sets gets a -25% decrease in effectivness.
Unyeildiings - debuff got away with one. because it does not decrease its effectiveness.
The idea you are missing is this
You are decreasing the effectivness of the defense.
Not decreasing the maginitude of the % (again only time this would matter is for the case at hand)
[ QUOTE ]
The idea you are missing is this
You are decreasing the effectivness of the defense.
Not decreasing the maginitude of the % (again only time this would matter is for the case at hand)
[/ QUOTE ]
The idea you are missing is this: Without the debuff, brutes and scrappers have 75% tanker effectivness. If you give a stronger debuff to the scrapper than the tanker, you're throwing that balance off.
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 ]
Not only that, the whole debuff was on the premise that you had to pay for mobile status protection AND the great RES protection UY gave. When UY was gutted, the penalty should've been reduced or removed...PERIOD.
.
There is no justification for the harsh penalty for ANYONE now.
[/ QUOTE ]
bingo! my favorite point in all of this!
the 5% was balanced against a power that provided 47.6% resists to all-psy when slotted up(6 +3s). The -5% def brought that down to 37.6% res (1def=2res). It took away 21% of the maximum value of the power.
Now that power when slotted(6 +3s) gives 8.25% S/L res and 16.5% F/C/E/N res. The -5% def brings that down to -1.75%S/L res and 6.5% F/C/E/N res. It takes away 121% of the max S/L resists and 60% of the max F/C/E/N resists.
That's fair and balanced? No. That's bulls***.
Level 50 is a journey, not a destination.
▲Scrapper Issues List - Going Rogue Edition▲
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?
[/ QUOTE ]
Hey, I don't even HAVE Invince.
It's like you steal five bucks from my wallet every week, but it's okay because I could have gotten a job 
Gorrila is correct on the math and does make a good point. However, I really think this is arguing over the unimporant details. We don't really care why the debuff is what it is. I think the majority cares more about why the debuff IS here at all. In issue 3 the debuff was reduced from -20% to -5% beucase they removed Rooting. Then in issue 5 they completely gutted the base 20% res to all but psi and left the -5% Debuff. (actually raised it for awhile ... <shifty eyes>
As the power stands now regardless of what AT your on, its an idiotic debuff. The only reason I would agree that the debuff should be Lower (-3.25%) instead of higher is beucase it can't be corrected by the base value of Tough hide is 3.75% At least with a tank just getting that power can negate the effects of the debuff, but a scrapper/brute can't.
Over all you can't change a buff and debuff linear to each other when trying to make one set perform 25% as effective as another. The set needs to be balanced with its self, to reflect how its balanced with other sets.
Imo They totaly screwed invul over no matter which AT your on. The set went from 90% res to all - psi with only having to take the invul set by its self to 70% l/s and 30% all - Psi. That may not seem like a big difference but when 17 things are attacking you at once, that 60% lower resitance to all - psi KILLS. Thank god tanks can still cap l/s by getting tough, No such luck for everyone else.
I think invul needs to be given a little love, and I think removing a -5% debuff would be more then justified becuase its still deserves a lot more then that.
[ 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 ]
Sorry, but that's not what the discussion is about. A Brute and a Scrapper have -5% defense, meaning they'll take 5% more damage overall. They only have (after slotting no less) close to 10% +res to compensate. This is (effectively) a pointless debuff, when you could remove both the +Res AND the -Defense.
What exacerbates this is that Tankers get closer to 12.5% +Res and have the same -5% defense.
Having both provide -5% defense means that Brutes and Scrappers actually have LESS than 0.75 * Tanker values, because Tankers have Unyielding such that they can offset the penalty, but Brutes and Scrappers will ALWAYS take additional damage from just USING Unyielding. It's the only status protection power that actually puts you in more danger by turning it on.
Integration provides 150% regeneration boost, no penalties.
Practiced Brawler doesn't give you any penalties or bonuses.
Obsidian Shield provides +Res vs Psionic, no penalties.
Fire/Plasma Shield provide +Res, no penalties.
Energy Armor's shield doesn't give you any bonuses (iirc) or penalties.
Ice Armor provides +1% Defense and no penalties.
Stone Armor provides +100% Regeneration and a movement penalty.
NONE of the other powers (aside from Stone) are even inconvenient, much less cause you to take more damage running them than not. If Temporary Invulnerability had Status protection, NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD EVER TAKE UNYIELDING WITH THE DEFENSE DEBUFF.
It's just silly, and you've dodged the point of the discussion, deliberately or accidentally, I don't know. It's not that Unyielding is inferior, because it SHOULD be by the listed 0.75 modifier, it's that it's MORE INFERIOR than it ought to be. Against anything that isn't status effect heavy, Unyielding is a liability. A trait it doesn't share with any of the other powers.
We'd probably happily give up the resistances in the power for the removal of the debuff, because the debuff is not applied fairly across sets. This hurts Scrappers more than Brutes, if only because Brutes have much higher caps than scrappers to offset this in a team.
Sgt Liberty - 50 Martial Arts / Super Reflexes
Verdigris Eagle - 50 Archery / Energy Manipulation
Stormeye - 50 Storm Summoning / Electric Blast
[ QUOTE ]
Gorrila is correct on the math and does make a good point.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, he's not. He's either delusional, trolling, or lacks a basic understanding of math, while projecting these traits onto the rest of us who are not.
Sgt Liberty - 50 Martial Arts / Super Reflexes
Verdigris Eagle - 50 Archery / Energy Manipulation
Stormeye - 50 Storm Summoning / Electric Blast
People still play invuln? Yeah, right. Next you'll be telling me people still fight Hamidon.
[ QUOTE ]
I think the majority cares more about why the debuff IS here at all. In issue 3 the debuff was reduced from -20% to -5% beucase they removed Rooting. Then in issue 5 they completely gutted the base 20% res to all but psi and left the -5% Debuff. (actually raised it for awhile ... <shifty eyes>
[/ QUOTE ]
IIRC the debuff didn't even exist before Issue 3. it was added as payment for the removal of the rooted effect. In fact, it was bugged as hell on test at first, right? it was something like a 50% debuff instead of 5%.
Level 50 is a journey, not a destination.
▲Scrapper Issues List - Going Rogue Edition▲
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the majority cares more about why the debuff IS here at all. In issue 3 the debuff was reduced from -20% to -5% beucase they removed Rooting. Then in issue 5 they completely gutted the base 20% res to all but psi and left the -5% Debuff. (actually raised it for awhile ... <shifty eyes>
[/ QUOTE ]
IIRC the debuff didn't even exist before Issue 3. it was added as payment for the removal of the rooted effect. In fact, it was bugged as hell on test at first, right? it was something like a 50% debuff instead of 5%.
[/ QUOTE ]
Correct.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gorrila is correct on the math and does make a good point.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, he's not. He's either delusional, trolling, or lacks a basic understanding of math, while projecting these traits onto the rest of us who are not.
[/ QUOTE ]
What he said. Not to mention he(the monkeyboy) managed to almost derail a conversation calling out the joke called Unyielding's -5% DEF by arguing some cornpipe clownshoes semantic spin on whether 75% of blah was really blah when blah was blah'ing the 75% of blah blah blah.
What's more sad than anything is that the conversation got boatanchored by it in the first place.
/rant
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gorrila is correct on the math and does make a good point.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, he's not. He's either delusional, trolling, or lacks a basic understanding of math, while projecting these traits onto the rest of us who are not.
[/ QUOTE ]
What he said. Not to mention he(the monkeyboy) managed to almost derail a conversation calling out the joke called Unyielding's -5% DEF by arguing some cornpipe clownshoes semantic spin on whether 75% of blah was really blah when blah was blah'ing the 75% of blah blah blah.
What's more sad than anything is that the conversation got boatanchored by it in the first place.
/rant
[/ QUOTE ]
That's why after it became clear that he was working from an incorrect starting point, I didn't even bother to correct him. It's just not worth arguing.
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.
[ QUOTE ]
Gorrila is correct on the math and does make a good point. However, I really think this is arguing over the unimporant details. We don't really care why the debuff is what it is. I think the majority cares more about why the debuff IS here at all. In issue 3 the debuff was reduced from -20% to -5% beucase they removed Rooting. Then in issue 5 they completely gutted the base 20% res to all but psi and left the -5% Debuff. (actually raised it for awhile ... <shifty eyes>
[/ QUOTE ]
Incorrect.
Here's how Scrappers/Brutes are supposedly balanced: the Tanker version of powers are basically considered the base value. Scrappers/Brutes are meant to have a certain percentage of Tanker effectiveness. (The old rule was Tankers did 80% of Scrapper damage while Scrappers had 80% of Tanker defenses.)
So, simple math problem which seems to be eluding certain people here is: If I have 10 + (-5), what is 75% of this value? Is it 3.75 or, uh... 1.25?
Solve the equation and show your work, please.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the majority cares more about why the debuff IS here at all. In issue 3 the debuff was reduced from -20% to -5% beucase they removed Rooting. Then in issue 5 they completely gutted the base 20% res to all but psi and left the -5% Debuff. (actually raised it for awhile ... <shifty eyes>
[/ QUOTE ]
IIRC the debuff didn't even exist before Issue 3. it was added as payment for the removal of the rooted effect. In fact, it was bugged as hell on test at first, right? it was something like a 50% debuff instead of 5%.
[/ QUOTE ]
Correct.
[/ QUOTE ]
First off I do not think the 50% debuff was a mistake at all. If you look at where the 5 key and zero key are on the keyboard it is kind of hard to make that kind of typing error when coding it. Secondly had we not complained about so bad then we would be argueing now on whether the debuff should be 50% or 37.5% for scrapper/brutes. Lastly if the brute rep wont give us a clear cut answer as to why there still is a debuff given the power is gutted now more than ever we need to go to someone else. I say we give _castle_ an overload of pms on this subject he would respond to our cries for help hopefully. Also while you guys are at it be sure to mention things on knockback penalty that dark armor, fire armor, and ninjutsu have. Those powers are out of balance considering the minor benefits they give now as well. Like how dark can no longer cap psi, for fire burn does not work anymore for anyone without someone holding the mobs and how fear protection wont work when longbow bosses summon spectral terrors that are +12 to the casters level and they double stack cloak of fear and terrify with spectral terror. 
Bump and Grind Bane/SoA
Kenja No Ishi Earth/Empathy Controller
Legendary Sannin Ninja/Pain Mastermind
Entoxicated Ninja/PSN Mastermind
Ninja Ryukenden Kat/WP Scrapper
Hellish Thoughts Fire/PSI Dominator
Thank You Devs for Merits!!!!
[ QUOTE ]
I say we give _castle_ an overload of pms on this subject he would respond to our cries for help hopefully.
[/ QUOTE ]
though castle is the man. such suggestions are more harmful that good. i know you say this in jest but some people are normal and might not understand. lets not punish a man for being helpful to us.
Yes! I'm NORMAL! What are you looking at freak!?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the majority cares more about why the debuff IS here at all. In issue 3 the debuff was reduced from -20% to -5% beucase they removed Rooting. Then in issue 5 they completely gutted the base 20% res to all but psi and left the -5% Debuff. (actually raised it for awhile ... <shifty eyes>
[/ QUOTE ]
IIRC the debuff didn't even exist before Issue 3. it was added as payment for the removal of the rooted effect. In fact, it was bugged as hell on test at first, right? it was something like a 50% debuff instead of 5%.
[/ QUOTE ]
Correct.
[/ QUOTE ]
First off I do not think the 50% debuff was a mistake at all. If you look at where the 5 key and zero key are on the keyboard it is kind of hard to make that kind of typing error when coding it. Secondly had we not complained about so bad then we would be argueing now on whether the debuff should be 50% or 37.5% for scrapper/brutes. Lastly if the brute rep wont give us a clear cut answer as to why there still is a debuff given the power is gutted now more than ever we need to go to someone else. I say we give _castle_ an overload of pms on this subject he would respond to our cries for help hopefully. Also while you guys are at it be sure to mention things on knockback penalty that dark armor, fire armor, and ninjutsu have. Those powers are out of balance considering the minor benefits they give now as well. Like how dark can no longer cap psi, for fire burn does not work anymore for anyone without someone holding the mobs and how fear protection wont work when longbow bosses summon spectral terrors that are +12 to the casters level and they double stack cloak of fear and terrify with spectral terror.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's easy to make an error coding 50 or 5.0, though.
Exactly. Example in point...
A decimal point screwed Michael Bolton's calculations on his bank software so that his virus stole thousands of dollars. You know, like Superman III.
But the question is not "Which of these two numbers (i.e. 6.25 vs. 3.75) is more effective, or makes the PLAYER less effective?" The question is "Which of these two numbers causes the POWER to have LESS EFFECT on the PLAYER?".
The answer isn't the one you're pushing.
Kam