[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, BETTER. They drain endurance (Ice also give slow resist and a slight amount of defense). Which is a heck of a lot better than a one brawl attack.
[/ QUOTE ]
Eh, the endo drain on those powers is pretty useless. You're not sucking even a minion dry with them. At least the damage from Consume helps you defeat the mobs a touch faster (although most of them will heal it back up before you get to them).
The endo drain is semi-useful if you're teamed with an electric blaster or a Kinetics user, but that's certainly not the common case.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough, so let's just say the secondary effects of all three powers are pitiful and get to the real issue which is that the Ice and Energy powers have 1/3 the recharge.
Because there is NO way that a brawl damage attack justifies a 180 sec. recharge.
[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't consume also have to be slotted for acc, while the others are autohit?
[ QUOTE ]
It only takes 2 enemies in melee range to make the invuln better than the fire against energies.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to know how you are coming about these numbers.
For example, 46.8 resists from a fire tanker against an even con minion mitigates 77.1% of the incoming damage (50% base chance to hit).
For invul, thats 30% resists and 2 minions which is something like a 12% defense boost which is a 73.4% mitgation over time. Against higher cons, fire will only be better as defense will have less of an impact.
So I'm curious to see your math.
What is it about a red name post that bring everyone together to talk about a lot of different issues. 
Desperation. 
[ QUOTE ]
Is that including the -5% DEF debuff on Unyeilding Stance? That seems a bit high with only one person in melee.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes i include the debuff, i also include tough hide, invince and pasives all being 3 sloted for their stuff.
And for one enemy the number is rather low not high. Try to survive against an energy/elemental AV without backup like that.
I stoped complaining about tankers being too weak a while back, my current grudge is against specific power sets and fire is one of the worse sets in the game. [third to energy aura (2nd) and scrapper SR(1st)]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It only takes 2 enemies in melee range to make the invuln better than the fire against energies.
[/ QUOTE ]
For example, 46.8 resists from a fire tanker against an even con minion mitigates 77.1% of the incoming damage (50% base chance to hit).
[/ QUOTE ]
1) you cant do that. 46.8 mitigates 46.8 nothing else. The fact that the enemy has 50% acc does not matter.
As to how to come up with the numbers?
Here:
DefenseBenefit = Def/50 * 100
ResistBenefit = Resist * (1- (DefenseBenefit) /100)
HPBuffBenefit = (1-1/((.01*(1+(HPBuff/100)))/1)) * 100 * (1- (DefenseBenefit + ResistBenefit) /100)
[ QUOTE ]
What is it about a red name post that bring everyone together to talk about a lot of different issues.
[/ QUOTE ]
Healing flames has been discussed as part of the many issues fire tankers face now, the dev here posted on it alone but its not an isolated thing because it is simply a sub set of the fire tanker issues.
If Castle wants to keep the things focused ONLY on the healing flames issue i do can see that, but you cant expect talk about fire balance to go by without everyone that has solid observations about fire balance being messed up not commenting.
Espically with ED, healing flames just sucks now. The animation is too long, and since it gives you back less than DP does.... *sigh* I guess we all have to accept that the devs hate fire tanks. -_-
[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: I think I found a bug. Stay tuned for more info! The info below is INACCURATE.
After numerous PMs about this, I'll go ahead an post this publicly.
Healing Flames heal scale of 1.75 has not changed since I3. I didn't bother going back further than that -- a year is a good period of time.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the update.
I am worried that you will look *only* into HF. As shown by posts here and in other threads, the tanker community thinks that Fire Armor as a ->whole<- needs help and not only in their heal power.
I am also worried that your post simply mean that we should spam you relentlessly until you look into issues. Are you looking into tanks or are you just reacting to PM spam ?
d
Thank you everyone that called attention to this power!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: I think I found a bug. Stay tuned for more info! The info below is INACCURATE.
After numerous PMs about this, I'll go ahead an post this publicly.
Healing Flames heal scale of 1.75 has not changed since I3. I didn't bother going back further than that -- a year is a good period of time.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the update.
I am worried that you will look *only* into HF. As shown by posts here and in other threads, the tanker community thinks that Fire Armor as a ->whole<- needs help and not only in their heal power.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed! Though apart from bug fixes I can't see them rebalancing fire until after I7 goes live.
[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: I think I found a bug. Stay tuned for more info! The info below is INACCURATE.
After numerous PMs about this, I'll go ahead an post this publicly.
Healing Flames heal scale of 1.75 has not changed since I3. I didn't bother going back further than that -- a year is a good period of time.
The AT mod for Tankers self heal has not changed in that time period, either. It is still 1.5. Brutes Self Heal mod is the same -- 1.5.
A level 30 Tanker using an unenhanced Healing Flames gets 178.5 health. With 2 SO's, that would increase to 296.31. 178.5 is 17.5% of a Tankers health at that level. 296.31 is 29% of a Tankers health at that level.
Brutes percentages would be the same, though the numerical value of the heals would be lower due to brutes lower max health.
[/ QUOTE ]
IMO, the worst thing about HF is that you can't attack till the animation is finished unlike Reconstruction. It's kind of counter productive to continue to be damaged for 3 secs or so while you are trying to heal.
Off Topic:
Temperature Protection: How bout this power does what the name implies and resists cold slows? Crazy, I know.
[ QUOTE ]
you cant do that. 46.8 mitigates 46.8 nothing else. The fact that the enemy has 50% acc does not matter.
[/ QUOTE ]
To say it doesn't matter is to ignore a vital part in how defense plays a role in damage mitigation. To put it quite simply, if an enemy only hits you 50% of the time and you resist 46.8% of the incoming damage, you are not taking 77.1% of the incoming damage. That is how defense and resistance work together.
[ QUOTE ]
DefenseBenefit = Def/50 * 100
[/ QUOTE ]
This can be simplified down to Defense benefit = Def * 2. This assumes the gneral rule that one defense = 2 resistance, which is NOT accurate in the current i6 world. For example, fight an enemy high enough level right now, and 10% defense gives you NO benefit, as they'll still have a 95% chance to help you. It is true in the i7 world, but only in a sense. Your equation gives the damage mitigation on top of the 50% hit/miss mitigation, and not the total overall mitigation.
The true defense benefit equation is this (simplified to take out things like level bonsues and rank bonses and defense debuffs)
DefenseBenefit = 100% - (Enemy's Tohit - Defense)
So with 45% defense and a even con minion, you dodge 95% of the hits.
You cannot simplify it more than that. In the world of i7, it's actually more complicated while more simple at the same time but you can get a general idea of the damage mitigation by saying
DefenseBenefit = 100% - (50% - Defense) = 50% + Defense
[ QUOTE ]
To say it doesn't matter is to ignore a vital part in how defense plays a role in damage mitigation
[/ QUOTE ]
An enemy wi th 50% acc will hit 50% of the time himself, you are not mitigating the damage he tosses, HE is the one with lower damage output, its not mitigation on your part, so you cant account that. Enemies damage IS balanced arround how much they miss. You can only call mitigation to the reduction of the damage that would normaly go trough. this means, an enemy with 50% acc that attacks 10 times per minute at 10 dmg has a normal damage output of 50 dmg per minute. THAT is what you will go mitigating.
[ QUOTE ]
This can be simplified down to Defense benefit = Def * 2. This assumes the gneral rule that one defense = 2 resistance, which is NOT accurate in the current i6 world.
[/ QUOTE ]
I did noted i am using I7 def changes, and i note it that way so that the 50% acc base remains visible on the formula. I simply like seeing it there, if it was to change i can change it there.
[ QUOTE ]
It is true in the i7 world, but only in a sense.
[/ QUOTE ]
I seen nothing to show anywhere an exception of why it would not be so in I7. If you know of somemething that will change that, plese post it.
[ QUOTE ]
Okie I want to ask a related question, also yay first post.
What about the fact that fire has 4 situational useless powers.
1 Temp protection... really useless... there isnt enough fire or cold for it to matter.
2 Fiery embrace... situational, unless you are fire/fire its usefullness is highly questionable.
3 Rotp..... a tank shouldnt need a self res and it doesnt even come close to being as good as granite or unstop
4 Burn... a power that deaggros mobs and makes them run and gets your team killed is questionable at best.
[/ QUOTE ]
None of these powers are really available to a fire tank. Their worthlessness allows you to take boxing, tough, combat jumping, super jump, and acrobatics. Those are the real powers within the set. 
Currently roleplaying, badgehunting, and laughing at the PvPers of CoX. lol, PvP.
Truedusk - Human Rogue
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okie I want to ask a related question, also yay first post.
What about the fact that fire has 4 situational useless powers.
1 Temp protection... really useless... there isnt enough fire or cold for it to matter.
2 Fiery embrace... situational, unless you are fire/fire its usefullness is highly questionable.
3 Rotp..... a tank shouldnt need a self res and it doesnt even come close to being as good as granite or unstop
4 Burn... a power that deaggros mobs and makes them run and gets your team killed is questionable at best.
Also what about the contention that regen can take more damage over time than fire.
[/ QUOTE ]
Off topic.
[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't invalidate the question though. A lot of excellent points there.
Stand UP.
FIGHT BACK!
I personally will wave this flag.....but not in this thread. That's what invalidates the argument. You can't show up at the Ford Chairman's meeting and ask why Fire Tanks are under performing.
[ QUOTE ]
An enemy wi th 50% acc will hit 50% of the time himself, you are not mitigating the damage he tosses,
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid I'm just going to have to disagree with you, and we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this part. I think knowing that 50% is important because I think it makes more sense to say, "The enemy is throwing out 1000 damage attacks, but I'm only taking 10% of that over time", not "The enemy is throwing out 1000 damage attacks that hit 50% of the time, and I'm taking 20% of the damage that hits over time". That's what I meant when I said its only sort of true in the i7 world.
Seeing as your defense directly affects the enemies chance to hit, and seeing as tohit buffs on the enemies part, and defense debuffs on your part, and rank buffs and level buffs and so on all play part to produce one tohit number for the enemy, it only makes sense to leave it altogether in one compact number.
Another reason, why it is important to have that 50% in your equation. Health regen powers like aid self. If you know that you can heal 100% of your health every minute, it's important to know how much damage you are taking over time. Basically, the difference between our two systems means that to get real effective damage over time, you have to divide the enemies damage numbers by 2 before muliplying in your mitigation.
But why do this when you can do the same amount of math (.5 - defense instead of defense * 2), and not have to do that extra step in the end to get practical results?
You may disagree with me however.
[ QUOTE ]
I personally will wave this flag.....but not in this thread. That's what invalidates the argument. You can't show up at the Ford Chairman's meeting and ask why Fire Tanks are under performing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, I hated this analogy so bad I was prompted to post as much!
The parallels are so far off. Castle = Chairman?? haha 
I think it would have been better for him to just ignore it than have even put a response but... well, Castle is generally pretty awesome so it can slide. 
I'm also impressed he came back and edited the post to admit there was a bug. Very cool.
Did you get the point? Then the analogy couldn't have been THAT bad.
[ QUOTE ]
Another reason, why it is important to have that 50% in your equation
[/ QUOTE ]
As i noted its just the way i do it because i feel better having the 50 visible as it also means less explaining as to where the number came from. Its exactly the same as the Def*2 you pointed, i dont argue that. But if tomorow they changed the multiplicative base to 55, id just have to change 50 for 55 while the whole def*2 becoems invalid.
Call it programer's preference, keeping variablesa arround that dont seem to have an aparent reason at the moment but can be used to tweak the process later on if there was need for it. Again, your def*2 is not wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid I'm just going to have to disagree with you, and we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this part. I think knowing that 50% is important because I think it makes more sense to say, "The enemy is throwing out 1000 damage attacks, but I'm only taking 10% of that over time", not "The enemy is throwing out 1000 damage attacks that hit 50% of the time, and I'm taking 20% of the damage that hits over time". That's what I meant when I said its only sort of true in the i7 world.
[/ QUOTE ]
Lets run one example.
One minion, he can toss 100 attacks in a minute (just imagine) each of 1 point of damage. His accuracy is of 50% so he will only land 50 of those. This means the natural DPM of the enemy is of 50 damage per minute.
If you are naked, no buffs, no resistance, no defense, you suffer 50 damage per minute on his hands. Thats pure damage. Thats your enemy potential.
If you add a 46.8 resistance, that goes down to 26.6 damage done to you. You lowered his normal dps by 23.4 points of damage, or 46.8%.
Once fully slotted invuln gets 12.94 Def and 34.00 Resist. This is counting the unyielding debuff and only one enemy in melee range.
Out of the 50 minion hits, now we take away 12.94 (Ill go with fractions even if truth would you can only miss or not for what it matters, so now the enemy only hits 37.06 times, causing only 37.06 damage in one minute.
Now you have also resistance. You can reduce this damage by 34%. So 37.06 become 24.4596 points of damage. That is, by now you have reduced 25.5404 points of damage, or 51.08% of the incoming damage.
I7 def changes make sure this holds true across all enemies regardless of rank or level difference.
I got to say you are the first person I ever seen that wants to pass an enemy's naturally low accuracy as part of your own mitigation.
Well if you look at arcana's values, for instance, it's all one big formula for calcuating an enemy's chance to hit. Since defense plays a role in his tohit, I don't really see that as part of your mitigation, but part of an overall formula for tohit. So I don't think I'm the only one that thinks this way, and I've seen other people calculate like me. I've seen other weird ideas, such as converting everything to a hp regen % over time.
Especially since come i7 everyone is going to have that 50% no matter what, why not have it in the equation? It's basically a constant, a modifer on your mitigation so to speak. It's easy enough to change in the equation should the 50% change. And if the devs change the number, it does have an effect on your overall survivability, so doing so would also show that the tank's effectiveness/damage taken over time has changed.
I prefer not to think of it as my mitigation and enemies's accuracy. I prefer to think of it as %of damage taken over time with X set. Yes this means that all squishes automatically have 50% damage taken over time, but it's true.
I can honestly see wanting to use a 0 resistance 0 defense person as a baseline for determining effectiveness tho (which is what happens if you take that 50% out). If you know that squishy x is 0 and tank is 50, you know that the tank can take twice the punishment of x pretty easy. Of course, the same is also true of 50% mit and 75% mit, but it's less easy to see I guess.
And I'm a programmer too, btw
I can see part of our diferences then, because the numbers you started to dispute were pure mitigation.
Also, the formula you state is not constant and require to know what enemy you are fighting, so its only useful to determine how you fare against a specific enemy. Mitigation lets you to check how good you are against all enemies relative to other sets. If i was comparing against other ATs id also include the "mitigation" that comes from having a naturaly higher HP base.
[ QUOTE ]
And I'm a programmer too, btw
[/ QUOTE ]
Shame on you for simplyfing formulas then, thats mathematician thinking! 
[ QUOTE ]
Also, the formula you state is not constant and require to know what enemy you are fighting
[/ QUOTE ]
As far as I know, the only time my formula breaks down is when the enemy has a natural accuracy bonus, a rank bonus, or a level bonus, or some kind of tohit buff/defense debuff, but that's because it's simplified. Even then, that 50% is still 50% in even the extended all-emcompassing i7 defense function.
I wouldn't include the mitigation that comes from having a higher hp base, I would however include the health regen that comes from having a higher hp base. The higher hp is only useful for some math that shows how fast your character would go down in x situation, not really for overall damage mitigation.
It allows you to get a general idea of how much damage you'd mitigate against the average minion. Admittedly I'm starting to see how having a mitigation separated from enemies is useful.
To be honest, when I talk about damage mitigation, I usually like to talk about the average minion because it's more of a real world example. A sort of, "What do these numbers mean anyways?" kind of example. 33% resistance, for example, means very little until you see the numbers that show it reducing a 300 damage attack to 200.
That's personal preference on my part tho.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okie I want to ask a related question, also yay first post.
What about the fact that fire has 4 situational useless powers.
1 Temp protection... really useless... there isnt enough fire or cold for it to matter.
2 Fiery embrace... situational, unless you are fire/fire its usefullness is highly questionable.
3 Rotp..... a tank shouldnt need a self res and it doesnt even come close to being as good as granite or unstop
4 Burn... a power that deaggros mobs and makes them run and gets your team killed is questionable at best.
Also what about the contention that regen can take more damage over time than fire.
[/ QUOTE ]
Temperature protection helps out a bunch stacked with the other shields. It should have something like slow resist or +perception to make it worthwhile.
Fiery Embrace works just like a normal build up with an added bonus for fire attacks. It has the same length on regular attacks as Build Up but lasts longer for fire attacks.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fiery Embrace does not act like a normal buildup.
It doesn't grant a to-hit buff, and its on a 180 second recharge window. Also, it used to grant a 30 second buff to fire attacks (all but burn) but that was decreased to 20 seconds.
Proud member of the Cole-a-lition.
Fighting to make every reality, a better reality.