[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An Illusion/FF Controller, however, can use Group Invisibility, Grant Invisibility, Maneuvers, or some combination of stuff, and cap Defense w/ just a minor teamate's defense power like Combat Jumping. (Let's not even get into Spectral Terror, which allows accuracy to be floored regardless. Just looking at buffs here.) They can reach 40% Defense pretty easily.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, if Spectral Terror (or some combination of ST and Group Invis and Maneuvers) really does floor opponent ToHit (which means anything approaching 45% ToHit debuff), then I think it'd be more appropriate to ask why an Illusion Controller would take FF as a Secondary at all.
Which speaks to a few different issues. Is Illusion just too powerful? Or does Force Field just need dramatic improvement in terms of its non-DEF capabilities?
I don't think your example addresses the debate on whether or not the Force Field powerset is actually better for Controllers, though. Maybe if you'd picked a different primary it would have been better. I think the problem here is that some of us are just arguing different things. I'm arguing that the Force Field powerset, by itself, is better in its Defender incarnation. You appear to be arguing here that Controllers are just better than Defenders, which may well be true.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, that's not what I'm arguing at all. There's no way to go from "Controllers get just as much effective defense from FF as Defenders" to "Controllers>Defenders." They're related, but not dispositive.
I'm trying to understand how can you even figure out if FF is better for Defenders than Controllers without seeing what the Controller does with it. Powers don't exist in isolation. They are used. The issue is what happens when that power is used.
By saying this just shows that "illusion controllers are too powerful," you're ignoring why Illusion Controllers are better than Defenders with the FF set. It's because, effectively, they are getting the same defense out of the FF set - enough to floor accuracy w/ other powers. Several other Controller sets can do the same thing, I'm just more familiar w/ Illusion.
And this comparison also shows what changes will and will not help the FF Defender. More Defense won't help the Defender. Less Defense for the Controller won't help much - it just demands another pool power. So changing those aspects of the Primary are irrelevant.
And no, I'm taking ST out of the equation. Illusion Controllers don't need ST to floor accuracy w/ FF. There's a host of reasons you might not want or take ST.
And I'd agree with you completely if :
a)
the precedent hadn't already been set in stone constantly as set after set were spayed for being to Controllerish, too Blasterish, too Tankerish.
or b)
Force Fielder Defenders could consistantly provide something that a Force Field Controller couldn't.
or c)
Force Field Defenders, given the same number of powers, could provide something useful in terms of Defense that a Force Field Controller could never reach.
[ QUOTE ]
(1) If I understand the I7 defense changes correctly, that 40% figure is the relative difference, not the absolute difference. In absolute terms the Defender's shields floor enemy to-hit, while the Controller's shields get enemy to-hit down to about 15%. So as a practical matter the Defender's shields are only mitigating about 10% more of the absolute incoming damage than a Controller's. That's a difference, sure, but it's hardly this earth-shattering, orgasm-inducing one.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fair point. When one talks about mitigation, things can definitely get a little misleading. Depending on how one goes about calculating it, the disparity (between Controller and Defender FF) could be expressed by as little as 25%, and as much as 200%.
Personally, I don't lend much credence to either of those two extreme figures. As you point out, a 15% chance to hit isn't very much, although I tend to give the gap between 15% and 5% more importance. In Issue 7, 15% and 5% will only be the numbers against even-con minions. If you're fighting something with an initial ToHit value of 95%, then those numbers become 28.5% and 9.5%.
Proportionally, it's the same ratio. But on a practical level -- and as you point out -- no one is likely to care when even minions are hitting 15% instead of 5%. People ARE likely to care (and what was more my point, notice) when that +3 ArchVillain is hitting roughly thirty percent of the time instead of ten percent.
Just an example obviously. Your points are well taken, though. I can't really dispute any of them, when so expressed.
I guess, as I said to another poster, my own approach to the issue was a bit colored by certain preconceptions about the nature of certain past Defender complaints. Forcefield strikes me as a fairly lackluster set on a number of levels. But what leapt out at me immediately upon reading about the DEF revisions in Issue 7 was that FF will likely be noticeably different (to teammates) in the hands of a Defender as opposed to a Controller.
That's something that not many of the shared powersets can claim, at least not to the same extent. I've heard many complaints to that effect in the past, about just about every shared Defender Primary/Controller Secondary, and rightly so.
It seems that the power set was simply designed poorly, and that's the problem, moreso than that it's more effective for Controllers. The latter is just a symptom, a natural result of the powerset's high aggro and target-only buffs.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
 |
[ QUOTE ]
It seems that the power set was simply designed poorly, and that's the problem, moreso than that it's more effective for Controllers. The latter is just a symptom, a natural result of the powerset's high aggro and target-only buffs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough.
Though, IMO, this kind of thinking does have a statute of limitations, and is susceptible to estoppel. Allowing a poor design to go uncorrected for long enough constitutes, in my view, a ratification of that design; further, we've had Statesman expressly try to tell us that life for FF/* Defenders is perfectly peachy. I don't have a lot of benefit-of-the-doubt left to extend.
[ QUOTE ]
No, that's not what I'm arguing at all. There's no way to go from "Controllers get just as much effective defense from FF as Defenders" to "Controllers>Defenders." They're related, but not dispositive.
I'm trying to understand how can you even figure out if FF is better for Defenders than Controllers without seeing what the Controller does with it. Powers don't exist in isolation. They are used. The issue is what happens when that power is used.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm aware that powers don't exist in a vacuum. But the context of this thread lead me to examine how the powerset performs by itself. Remember the first post is that mammoth by Castle, going through the laundry list of individual powers' issues.
That lead to many comments about the relative effectiveness of individual powers in shared (controller/defender) sets -- some happy, some sad, some angry, some apathetic, but that's neither here nor there.
The point, if I could be said to be advocating any course of action, is that you cannot very well argue to the devs that certain powers' or powersets' values are unfairly weighted in Controllers' favor if you keep falling back on things like, "but, but, he can forcefield his pets!"
While it's absolutely true that he can Force Field his pets, and it's absolutely true, in fact, that Controllers (generally) enjoy synergies that Defenders can only dream of between their Primary and Secondary sets, that's an ancillary issue. In short, no amount of buffing the knockback distance, or the disorient duration, of certain Force Field powers is ever going to correct the problem that the Controller has certain advantages intrinsic to the design of his class (like being able to cast Deflection and Insulation on pets, or being able to take aggro better).
The bottom line, I think, is that your problems with FF have very little to do with Controllers.
[ QUOTE ]
By saying this just shows that "illusion controllers are too powerful," you're ignoring why Illusion Controllers are better than Defenders with the FF set. It's because, effectively, they are getting the same defense out of the FF set - enough to floor accuracy w/ other powers. Several other Controller sets can do the same thing, I'm just more familiar w/ Illusion.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was being partially facetious. My point was that, if what you said was true -- and I have no idea what the value on ST or any other Illusion power is off the top of my head -- then the Controller in your example could achieve floored ToHit on opponents without touching the Force Field set.
That strikes me as broken, and not terribly relevant to Force Field. But sure, if we ignore ST entirely, then I see your point, even agree with it. The problem is, as stated above, that what you're really asking for is a revamp of the 5 non-DEF FF powers into something more appreciably useful, am I correct?
And that has very little to do with a Controller's Primary.
[ QUOTE ]
And this comparison also shows what changes will and will not help the FF Defender. More Defense won't help the Defender. Less Defense for the Controller won't help much - it just demands another pool power. So changing those aspects of the Primary are irrelevant.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's exactly my point.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
[ QUOTE ]
I was being partially facetious. My point was that, if what you said was true -- and I have no idea what the value on ST or any other Illusion power is off the top of my head -- then the Controller in your example could achieve floored ToHit on opponents without touching the Force Field set.
That strikes me as broken, and not terribly relevant to Force Field. But sure, if we ignore ST entirely, then I see your point, even agree with it. The problem is, as stated above, that what you're really asking for is a revamp of the 5 non-DEF FF powers into something more appreciably useful, am I correct?
And that has very little to do with a Controller's Primary.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I'd ask for something completely different.
As for ST . . . it's a whole nother ball of wax. If you think it's overpowered, you should use it a little.
[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough.
Though, IMO, this kind of thinking does have a statute of limitations, and is susceptible to estoppel. Allowing a poor design to go uncorrected for long enough constitutes, in my view, a ratification of that design; further, we've had Statesman expressly try to tell us that life for FF/* Defenders is perfectly peachy. I don't have a lot of benefit-of-the-doubt left to extend.
[/ QUOTE ]
I understand your point; I really do. I can see how it might be a bit annoying to have someone come in here and basically blow sunshine up your *#% (subject to interpretation, of course 
) about how the whole set should be overhauled, when you guys have apparently been waiting for a very long time.
It's just that I don't see how any amount of tweaking of the current implementation of those five non-DEF powers is going to ever correct your beef about Controllers. Even if the aggro on Repulsion Bomb (and whatever else) were reduced to nothing, even if the disorient were increased five-fold, you'd still have the same fundamental complaints.
My position isn't that you have it better than Controllers overall. It's that your set is (as of Issue 7, at least as far as we know) much better in terms of DEF than it used to be, and certainly good enough to get the "job" done for just about any group composition. Granted, the rest of your powers are still pretty crappy, and probably a liability in such a team situation -- which makes your playstyle boring -- but at least you're competitive again.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
[ QUOTE ]
No, I'd ask for something completely different.
[/ QUOTE ]
Meaning, you'd ask for something completely different in place of those five non-DEF powers? Then we agree. This isn't about tweaking values. This isn't about its being "unfair that Controllers have better control even in their Secondaries," even though that may be true.
It's about the fact that the fundamental design of the powerset is lacking, and it just so happens that Controller Primaries are better equipped to compensate for that lack.
[ QUOTE ]
As for ST . . . it's a whole nother ball of wax. If you think it's overpowered, you should use it a little.
[/ QUOTE ]
LOL, I think you mistake me. I don't know whether ST is overpowered or not. I don't care either. You brought it up. As I said, I was being facetious.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a great debater, and I especially hesitate to be opposite Arcanaville, whom I respect a great deal from other posts and threads, but I do think I see the other side's view, and I'll be happy to try and represent it as best I can.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, in this case you don't have to be, since I agree with you and Concern that there are potential synergy issues with defender and controller sets, separate from the direct benefits each might get out of a set individually. But synergy problems should probably be looked at in a more holistic manner, and within the AT and not across ATs.
[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 ]
If I understand the I7 defense changes correctly, that 40% figure is the relative difference, not the absolute difference. In absolute terms the Defender's shields floor enemy to-hit, while the Controller's shields get enemy to-hit down to about 15%. So as a practical matter the Defender's shields are only mitigating about 10% more of the absolute incoming damage than a Controller's. That's a difference, sure, but it's hardly this earth-shattering, orgasm-inducing one.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's not a proper way to look at mitigation. The difference between the scrapper resistance cap and the tanker one is only 15%. The difference between I7 SR defenses and perma-elude is only 17%. Its very easy to notice the difference between those two. Looking at it the way you do trivializes the difference in a way that bears no resemblance to the true overall effect on survivability.
[ QUOTE ]
So Arcana's contention is, essentially, that ~10% more absolute damage mitigation makes the Defender's overall capabilities with the set at least arguably superior to those of a Controller despite the fact that (a) that damage mitigation is of no personal benefit to the solo Defender, whereas it's of tremendous personal benefit to any Controller build that includes a pet; (b) any Controller already gets far more mileage out of the set's knockback and repel powers, inasmuch as he can better manage the aggro that those powers draw; and (c) any Controller is concededly superior with the set's ST immobilization/phase, and its AOE knockback/disorient (note that a good phase or a good disorient is better than a +defense buff as damage mitigation, inasmuch as for the duration of the effect the target(s) aren't attacking at all).
[/ QUOTE ]
My contention is, and has been from the beginning, that the FF set is arguably as effective if not more for FF defenders as for FF controllers, which was the general statement. You're saying that *if* the two are solo then an FF controller can get more out of FF than a defender because of pets, which is probably true but is a synergy problem with FF and other sets, not a statement about the FF set itself.
Originally, the statement was that it was trivial to prove that FF is stronger for controllers than defenders; that a simple straight-line argument demonstrates this. The *original* simple straight line argument is full of holes. They may be resolvable by resorting to much more complex analysis, but its still neither obvious, nor simple to demonstrate.
The fact that you can easily hand-wave the defense numbers away strongly implies to me the rest of your argument similarly hand-waves away a lot of other potential problems.
[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.)
Just wait until these guys get around to looking and debating Trick Arrow.
That will be a good debate. Anyone know what the damage is like in comparison between the Oil Slick of a defender and a the Oil Slick of a controller?
[ QUOTE ]
Looking at it the way you do trivializes the difference in a way that bears no resemblance to the true overall effect on survivability.
[/ QUOTE ]
Because, having actually played a FF/* Defender for 600+ hours, I'd clearly have absolutely no understanding, either practical or abstract, of how a 10% variance in +defense affects overall survivability.
I stand by my statement. Your objection is frivolous. The gap between FF/* Defender +def buffs and */FF Controller +def buffs in I7 will be noticeable, but will not be particularly important except at the margins, i.e., AV fights.
[ QUOTE ]
You're saying that *if* the two are solo then an FF controller can get more out of FF than a defender because of pets, which is probably true but is a synergy problem with FF and other sets, not a statement about the FF set itself.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's not even a reasonably fair paraphrase of what I'm saying. And in any case, powers aren't used in a vacuum; if there's a synergy problem between FF and other sets, that's a problem with the FF set, because it's the constant. All you're trying to do here is scope the conversation in such a way that it favors your position.
[ QUOTE ]
Originally, the statement was that it was trivial to prove that FF is stronger for controllers than defenders; that a simple straight-line argument demonstrates this. The *original* simple straight line argument is full of holes. They may be resolvable by resorting to much more complex analysis, but its still neither obvious, nor simple to demonstrate.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your not liking the straight-line argument is different from the straight-line argument being "full of holes".
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that you can easily hand-wave the defense numbers away strongly implies to me the rest of your argument similarly hand-waves away a lot of other potential problems.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not hand-waving anything; I simply think you're profoundly and hilariously mistaken about the importance of the difference, especially relative to the obvious advantages that a Controller enjoys over a Defender when utilizing the FF set as a whole. You think the Defender's +def advantage is of such magnitude that it at worst offsets all of the the Controller's other advantages; I think you're dramatically overstating the importance of the +def advantage and that, beyond that, you either don't know what you're talking about, or are trying to artificially bound the comparison so that it favors your position. Thus far I've ssen absolutely nothing from you to dissuade me from that view. So the fact that you're accusing me of hand-waving strongly implies to me that this conversation is no longer worthwhile.
Good day.
Arcanaville, comparing Force Field powers in terms of survivability really doesn't look at the full context of the powers. They don't operate in stasis - everyone that has them not only can provide other defense buffs, but also can provide other ways to drop enemy tohit values. While a Controller (will) 'protect' his constituents a whole 40% worse, it takes a mere 10% defense or tohit debuff to nullify the whole difference. Many situations, characters end up with that without even thinking about it.
[ QUOTE ]
Just wait until these guys get around to looking and debating Trick Arrow.
That will be a good debate. Anyone know what the damage is like in comparison between the Oil Slick of a defender and a the Oil Slick of a controller?
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's more likely we'll have to hire a band to play it's Dirge.
Sgt Liberty - 50 Martial Arts / Super Reflexes
Verdigris Eagle - 50 Archery / Energy Manipulation
Stormeye - 50 Storm Summoning / Electric Blast
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I understand the I7 defense changes correctly, that 40% figure is the relative difference, not the absolute difference. In absolute terms the Defender's shields floor enemy to-hit, while the Controller's shields get enemy to-hit down to about 15%. So as a practical matter the Defender's shields are only mitigating about 10% more of the absolute incoming damage than a Controller's. That's a difference, sure, but it's hardly this earth-shattering, orgasm-inducing one.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's not a proper way to look at mitigation. The difference between the scrapper resistance cap and the tanker one is only 15%. The difference between I7 SR defenses and perma-elude is only 17%. Its very easy to notice the difference between those two. Looking at it the way you do trivializes the difference in a way that bears no resemblance to the true overall effect on survivability.
[/ QUOTE ]
IMO you can't look at FF the way you analyze it. Unlike Tank and Scrapper sets, FF doesn't live in a vacuum, ever, and so it's not really useful to look at it that way. The normal analysis of mitigation, focusing on the huge mitigation change marginal, near-cap changes make are almost irrelevant.
For instance, looking at getting an Inv Tank to 90% resistance v. an Inv Scrap to 75% is a useful comparison. They largely depend on their own buffs to get there, and looking at constant inspiration use and other stuff isn't helpful.
FF doesn't work that way at all. It's only useful as a buff to other heroes. What's more important is that most every character has some small amount of defense. And if they don't, it's likely that somebody else does have something to contribute.
As a practical matter, bringing defense to 45% v. bringing defense to 40%, for FF, doesn't really matter that much. Many Scrappers have weave, if not out-right defense powers. Every Blaster has CJ or Hover (seems like at least). Most characters have stealth. A Dark or Storm Defender will provide low-level defense as a matter of course. Don't you think you'd have to try really hard to build a team that didn't have a spare 5% defense wandering around for each hero?
Hence the problem w/ FF. Yes, the numbers from the bubbles, standing alone, look great compared to a Controller. However, the numbers, as actually used? Not so good.
Just a weird thought, if all Defender secondaries are decreased in damage so that a 30% Damage Resistance Debuff from a few Primary power sets can't equal or exceed Blaster Primary Damage, should *all* Defender Primaries have an equivilant 30% boost somewhere in there, even if it is only for the defender themselves?
This may mean taking a look at AR/Devices too.
Still here, even after all this time!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a great debater, and I especially hesitate to be opposite Arcanaville, whom I respect a great deal from other posts and threads, but I do think I see the other side's view, and I'll be happy to try and represent it as best I can.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, in this case you don't have to be, since I agree with you and Concern that there are potential synergy issues with defender and controller sets, separate from the direct benefits each might get out of a set individually. But synergy problems should probably be looked at in a more holistic manner, and within the AT and not across ATs.
[/ QUOTE ]
I certainly agree with you and Concern and Obitus there. Thankfully.
I think looking at changes that can be made to Defenders as a whole is very difficult. The sets can be so different from one another in what they need and what they provide.
FF is a lost cause I'm afraid. Any changes would have to be balanced between Controllers/MM's (two powerful AT's) and Defenders (and let's face it, FF Defenders don't have much going for them), and that doesn't add up to good things for the Defender. I think their best solution would be to scrap the whole primary and build another one with some of the same powers, but not linked (and thus able to be balanced separately) to the Controller/MM sets.
Heck, the Defender set that seen the most changes since release is Dark, no surprise there since it was the only one that didn't require balancing two AT's around.
[ QUOTE ]
Because, having actually played a FF/* Defender for 600+ hours, I'd clearly have absolutely no understanding, either practical or abstract, of how a 10% variance in +defense affects overall survivability.
I stand by my statement. Your objection is frivolous. The gap between FF/* Defender +def buffs and */FF Controller +def buffs in I7 will be noticeable, but will not be particularly important except at the margins, i.e., AV fights.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you really want to settle this debate on the basis of resumes, just let me know. If your 600 hours of experience says there's no real difference between 40% defense and 30% defense, I can't help you. If this is how you classify a "frivolous" objection, no one can help you.
[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 ]
IMO you can't look at FF the way you analyze it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I have a sketch outline of an analysis of FF - for both defenders *and* controllers - that I started a long time ago on a lark after Concern made a joke about it. If I were going to do an analysis of FF, it would take all those things into account. Just a cursory examination of all those things, and how they affect the set, demonstrates to me that anyone saying "its obvious" hasn't thought about it long enough.
All I said was that calling the gap between 40% defense verses 30% defense trivial because its "only mitigating about 10% more of the absolute incoming damage" represents an essentially irreparable misunderstanding of how defense works all together.
*IF* I were to do an analysis of FF, it might occur to me that FF controllers do not have the same access to accuracy debuffs that FF defenders do, so the gap between 30% and 40% - which is a difference of 100% in admitted damage - can easily get wider, to 30% verses 45% net effective defense, which is a 300% difference in admitted damage.
I'd also look at the overall census of defense: specifically the lowered power pool defenses (typically no more than 5% on average), separate from the special cases (Ice tanks, SR scrappers, etc). I'd also note that the gap from 30% defense to the tohit floor - 15% (and stable in I7) is not easily achievable for any set without primary or secondary defenses, and thus its far more likely that an FF defender could get to the floor with additional power pool support, a controller is much less likely to do so.
Whether the overall impact is better for defenders or controllers given the addition of power pool defenses and primary/secondary defenses is a simple question of conducting a census of all of those possibilities and averaging them out, or determining the mean case, which ever you can justify. Which apparently is supposed to be obvious just by glancing.
I don't find it obvious at all, or I would have just done it long ago.
[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 ]
Just wait until these guys get around to looking and debating Trick Arrow.
That will be a good debate. Anyone know what the damage is like in comparison between the Oil Slick of a defender and a the Oil Slick of a controller?
[/ QUOTE ]
Trick arrow is broken. What sort of sides will there be to a trick arrow debate anyway (sometimes after some missions my tr/ar defender just wants to shoot her own contacts).
[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 ]
Just wait until these guys get around to looking and debating Trick Arrow.
That will be a good debate. Anyone know what the damage is like in comparison between the Oil Slick of a defender and a the Oil Slick of a controller?
[/ QUOTE ]If you strike Trick Arrow down now, it will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
[ QUOTE ]
All I said was that calling the gap between 40% defense verses 30% defense trivial because its "only mitigating about 10% more of the absolute incoming damage" represents an essentially irreparable misunderstanding of how defense works all together.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good thing that nobody called the difference trivial, then; you can flog your straw man in peace.
[ QUOTE ]
If you strike Trick Arrow down now, it will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
[/ QUOTE ]
Heh. Priceless...
"Hi, my name is Ail. I make people sick."
A partial selection from my 50's on Freedom: Ail = Ice/Traps, Luck = Street Justice/Super Reflexes Stalker, Mist = Bane, Pixy = Trick Arrow/Archery, Pure = Gravity/Energy, Smoke = Fire/Fire Dominator
[ QUOTE ]
If you really want to settle this debate on the basis of resumes, just let me know.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually I only brought it up as a response to your obnoxious patronizing. You said: "Looking at it the way you do trivializes the difference in a way that bears no resemblance to the true overall effect on survivability." It seemed to me that 600+ hours of observation allows me to have a considered opinion about the true overall effect on survivability contrary to Your Majesty's.
[ QUOTE ]
If your 600 hours of experience says there's no real difference between 40% defense and 30% defense, I can't help you.
[/ QUOTE ]
My characterization of 40% +def vs. 30% +def: "noticeable, but not particularly important except at the margins, i.e., AV fights".
Your characterization of my characterization: "no real difference".
If anybody had any question about which of us is arguing in bad faith, this ought to settle it.
[ QUOTE ]
If this is how you classify a "frivolous" objection, no one can help you.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think we're done, here.
[ QUOTE ]
No, they *really* did an exhaustive test of DPE and DPS and blasters ended up being very superior.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I got that. I fail to see where I tried to argue that point.
My point was simply that Mieux's damage number for Defenders is higher than it would be in practice because, in practice, Blasters generally don't walk around at 75% ToHit. Hence, when you objected to the 65% on the basis that his comparison didn't work with other, more exhaustive comparisons, you were getting a false impression.
Mieux's was a very simple calc, and I'd daresay it wasn't intended as anything more than that. Realistically, as you point out, there are going to be a great number of factors, some of which aren't quantifiable on paper.