To Hit Debuff Enhancement Change Explained
By
Amber_Blaze,
Posted on: 2006-04-05 16:34 in Developers' Corner
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not worried over whether there's one's coming WITH i-7, that's just common sense.
We need one for THIS patch
[/ QUOTE ]
I certainly wouldn't gripe about it, but it isn't going to happen. Not with I-7 a month away from live.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, to be fair we don't know that. It could be another 1-2 months, or 1-3 months unless Statesman or CuppaJo say "a month away from live".
Given how fast and with the apparent ease of which they pushed out free costume tokens, I don't think it would be hard (and hardly unbalancing for the game) to push out an extra Freespec *immediately*, and then to do so again after I7 comes out. Respeccing a character is *not* a game unbalancing thing, and people still did the respec trials immediately after they came out. I did Terra Volta a day or two AFTER the last Freespec. Why? I wanted another one.
Note they've done interim Freespecs before like this after dropping big changes, and it hurts nothing.
I don't understand the explanation. Can someone break it down clearly so a non min/maxer, anti-powergamer can comprehend?
Not to suggest that anyone who understands it is any of the aforementioned, just that those who are apparently do.
I think this post by Statesman illustrates clearly that CoH/V is now viewed as nothing more than a min/maxing game where story is only applicable to rationalize 'nerfs' and rigid, choiceless gameplay. Once upon a time, this game was all about being a superhero like those we used to see in comicbooks.
No more, apparently.
thanks for the assistance in advance...
Cal2
[ QUOTE ]
Also, why couldn't a short version of this been in the patch notes? 99% of the complaints that have been floating around would have been dismissed. Instead, we get something about reducing all ToHit DeBuffs because of Hamidon Enhancements? Weren't we promised that the patch notes would at least try to be honest and accurate?
[/ QUOTE ]
Hi Statesman,
A *vast* majority of the issues surrounding this can be traced EXACTLY back to this comment.
We were assured by you directly that this problem would be addressed and resolved. What is the status of this?
Thanks!
[ QUOTE ]
Conclusions:
+0 = MUCH worse
+1 = MUCH worse
+2 = Slightly worse
+3 = Slightly better
[/ QUOTE ]
I second the call for this to be addressed directly, specifically, and posthaste by a redname.
It should be noted again that Dark Defenders who play a purely debuff game (controller style builds) also get hit extra hard on this. That is, the brave team-minded souls who slot their attacks with debuffs like most do with damage.
[ QUOTE ]
Welp, I've seen enough numbers from people who know how to do math to tell this is an irredeemable nerf.
You cannot argue that To Hit Debuffs are easier to use than Defense Buffs. You cannot argue that the toons who use them have enough damage dealing power to not feel this nerf. You cannot claim this was something you missed with ED and are cleaning up now.
In your own words:[ QUOTE ]
Id like to promise you that there wont be ANY changes in I7 that are nerfs and that any change is a buff, but thats unrealistic given that there might be bugs, errors, etc. It simply wouldnt be honest. BUT I do promise that I dont foresee any more big swings on how things are done.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is a big swing, bucko. Just put the nerfbat down.
[/ QUOTE ]
QFT.
[ QUOTE ]
I really would like to know how the numbers work out for PvP, Statesman. That's where the hardest edge of things is. After all, no AI will ever be as hard a fight as a good human, and we want to be the best we can be.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we discovered that we couldnt pull the change out without jeopardizing the I7 release schedule. Right now, QA (at NCSoft and Cryptic) is working away at I7 and shaking out bugs. If we were to roll back this change, our teams would need to put I7 aside and retest the current build. I made the decision to stay the course instead.
[/ QUOTE ]
Great... just Great... then you can "Make the decision" to give us a 'Freespec' with this patch so we won't be totally gimped between now and when I-7 finally goes live. Debuffing defenders already have enough hardships to endure. A month or more of sucking b/c you guys messed up the development schedule.... shouldn't be one of them
...You already owe one to everybody who took Whirlwind...
[/ QUOTE ]
You know what. I'll prove your [censored] wrong that debuffing isnt gimped now. When the patch goes Live, I'll still debuff and kill things easy.
I've lived through SR going from Subpar, to awesome with perma elude. To no perma elude. Then the global defense change, then ED and I still run great. Other people proclaimed it was the end for SR and that it was useless to play. But I still fight damn well.
This space is intentionally left blank.
You know, when the change was coming through, I wasnt worried about PvE. Theyre mindless enough and we're so powerful by lvl 30 that it really isnt a problem. But the thing that DID bother me was PvP. In particular, all the squishies that depend of tohit debuffs to survive.
What about PvP?
[ QUOTE ]
After George Bust... err, Bush, began to use the phrase "stay the course". I pretty much learned to dislike the phrase. No difference here, except for a month or two of my Seeker Drones being less effective, then a nice large leap.
Still leaves a bitter taste, but it's betterr than what Bush force-fed us.
Now, watch as this topic explodes into a ball of political flames, and States escapes scott-free.
[/ QUOTE ]
Help for you
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Conclusions:
+0 = MUCH worse
+1 = MUCH worse
+2 = Slightly worse
+3 = Slightly better
[/ QUOTE ]
I second the call for this to be addressed directly, specifically, and posthaste by a redname.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're joking, right? I can handle even level minions and lieutenants on any character without turning on a single toggle or using a single debuff. (Except Sappers, of course) If I was intensely bored, I could only attack with Brawl and still come out ahead. +1's I rarely use all my toys for. +2 and +3 are where it starts to get fun, and +3 is going to be easier ultimately with this change.
A full group of 8 is going to be doing a minimum of +2's if not +3's and higher. Yes, before Issue 7 it's going to be noticeably harder, but after that... Well, barring defense scaling amounting to "anything higher level than you auto-hits you" this is actually going to be an improvement. Yeah in PvP you still have Aim/Buildup/YellowPez to deal with, but that's not going to change without completely re-doing the system.
Kung Ru - 50++ MA/Regen Scrapper
Kalleesta - 50 Necro/Dark MM
Hidden Justice - 44 Kin/Psy Defender
Altaholic
[ QUOTE ]
You know, when the change was coming through, I wasnt worried about PvE. Theyre mindless enough and we're so powerful by lvl 30 that it really isnt a problem. But the thing that DID bother me was PvP. In particular, all the squishies that depend of tohit debuffs to survive.
What about PvP?
[/ QUOTE ]
Something just occurred to me. Aren't Stalkers going to be unable to one-shot people now, come I7, because of new code?
If so, is this a nerf a measure to "balance" the PVP field so that stalkers are in fact just as effective as they currently are?
NOTE: in PVP everyone cones as *EVEN* which took the biggest hit here.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm torn here.
1. I really appreciate having the boss come here and give an explanation. You rarely get that from gaming companies.
2. I'm really annoyed something that is a substantial nerf in most situations (It will be worse for the people who use 3 enhancments), is being framed dishonestly. Its not just an error of omission, as all the talk about these changes matches up with the wrong numbers, not the corrected numbers.
This is a large nerf for a month+. If a month+ is no big deal, then how about we don't have to pay for that month? Its a big deal...
P.S. I am not currently playing any character who uses accuracy debuff (My DDD has been sidelined for a long time), I just feel bad for all those who do.
[/ QUOTE ]
Captured my feelings exactly (and as you can see from my sig, my main is a dark/dark defender).
Either used the "freespec" or a hard-earned respec after I6 to address ED by doing what? You guessed it: Slotting for debuffs and dropping some attacks to add team-friendly debuff powers ...
Boy, I feel pretty stupid now. And I take back anything bad I ever thought about other AT communities getting into a lather over earlier nerfs. Oy vey es mir!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Conclusions:
+0 = MUCH worse
+1 = MUCH worse
+2 = Slightly worse
+3 = Slightly better
[/ QUOTE ]
I second the call for this to be addressed directly, specifically, and posthaste by a redname.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're joking, right? I can handle even level minions and lieutenants on any character without turning on a single toggle or using a single debuff. (Except Sappers, of course) If I was intensely bored, I could only attack with Brawl and still come out ahead. +1's I rarely use all my toys for. +2 and +3 are where it starts to get fun, and +3 is going to be easier ultimately with this change.
A full group of 8 is going to be doing a minimum of +2's if not +3's and higher. Yes, before Issue 7 it's going to be noticeably harder, but after that... Well, barring defense scaling amounting to "anything higher level than you auto-hits you" this is actually going to be an improvement. Yeah in PvP you still have Aim/Buildup/YellowPez to deal with, but that's not going to change without completely re-doing the system.
[/ QUOTE ]
In PVE, even on big teams of 5-6, I routinely do missions with 0/+1 cons, and VERY often without a tank, unfortunately. For some reason they often seem to in a deficit on Virtue for PUGs when I'm on, without excluding someone from my friends due to SK/mentor space. Because of that, I often have squishies on my team (or me! most often) taking return alphas as I lay down debuffs.
This will lead to more team deaths/debt. It's mathematically impossible NOT to.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we discovered that we couldnt pull the change out without jeopardizing the I7 release schedule. Right now, QA (at NCSoft and Cryptic) is working away at I7 and shaking out bugs. If we were to roll back this change, our teams would need to put I7 aside and retest the current build. I made the decision to stay the course instead.
[/ QUOTE ]
Great... just Great... then you can "Make the decision" to give us a 'Freespec' with this patch so we won't be totally gimped between now and when I-7 finally goes live. Debuffing defenders already have enough hardships to endure. A month or more of sucking b/c you guys messed up the development schedule.... shouldn't be one of them
...You already owe one to everybody who took Whirlwind...
[/ QUOTE ]
You know what. I'll prove your [censored] wrong that debuffing isnt gimped now. When the patch goes Live, I'll still debuff and kill things easy.
I've lived through SR going from Subpar, to awesome with perma elude. To no perma elude. Then the global defense change, then ED and I still run great. Other people proclaimed it was the end for SR and that it was useless to play. But I still fight damn well.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but debuffs and the roles of defenders/controllers/corruptors are a bit different than defense and the role of scrappers. It's not soloing that I'm most worried about, it's teaming.
Being a corruptor, controller, or defender puts you in a somewhat competitive market. People generally want the hero/villain that can protect their team the best. If you look at I7, you'll see that not only are ToHit debuffs getting a good deal worse, but defense buffs are getting drastically better. So then why would anyone want a ToHit debuffing set on their team when they could have a defense set?
ToHit Debuffs aren't getting gimped, but they are getting worse. When compared to defense buffs, however, they're useless. Nobody will want them.
Two FF defenders with Aid Other can keep a team safe from +10 enemies in much the same way that 300 Dark Defenders can.
[ QUOTE ]
This will lead to more team deaths/debt. It's mathematically impossible NOT to.
[/ QUOTE ]
I seriously doubt that. The problem with only using numbers and math is you ignore the entire strategy aspect and human beings behind keyboards involved. In a tank-less group, stock up on a few orange pez for alphas. Crazily enough, they work. Adapt to your situations. It's mathematically proven* that adapting to different team configurations leads to fewer deaths!
*As mathematically proven as your assessment, at least.
Kung Ru - 50++ MA/Regen Scrapper
Kalleesta - 50 Necro/Dark MM
Hidden Justice - 44 Kin/Psy Defender
Altaholic
I've tracked down the error in the "Before" case. Statesman says:
[ QUOTE ]
The To Hit chance also increased over level. A +1 level had a 1.05 modifier, +2 level 1.1 and +3 1.15. For example, the base to hit chance of a lieutenant +2 levels was .58*1.1 or 63.8%.
[/ QUOTE ]
As iakona shows, the math doesn't work using these base to hit chances. However, if the level modifiers are additive rather than multiplicative, the numbers match perfectly. (In other words, a +3 boss would have a base to hit of 0.65+0.15=0.80). Which leads to the question: which is wrong, the explanation or the math?
[ QUOTE ]
ToHit Debuffs aren't getting gimped, but they are getting worse. When compared to defense buffs, however, they're useless. Nobody will want them.
Two FF defenders with Aid Other can keep a team safe from +10 enemies in much the same way that 300 Dark Defenders can.
[/ QUOTE ]
And that is what for some reason we all danced around and didn't come right out and just say. I don't know why.
Rednames any comment on this? This is what it really does boil down to.
[ QUOTE ]
I've tracked down the error in the "Before" case. Statesman says:
[ QUOTE ]
The To Hit chance also increased over level. A +1 level had a 1.05 modifier, +2 level 1.1 and +3 1.15. For example, the base to hit chance of a lieutenant +2 levels was .58*1.1 or 63.8%.
[/ QUOTE ]
As iakona shows, the math doesn't work using these base to hit chances. However, if the level modifiers are additive rather than multiplicative, the numbers match perfectly. (In other words, a +3 boss would have a base to hit of 0.65+0.15=0.80). Which leads to the question: which is wrong, the explanation or the math?
[/ QUOTE ]
Good question. It would be nice to get numbers that are actually generated from the game engine and not based on what the devs thinks the current formula is. I'm sure they have a bunch of different ones and are trying to figure out which math they actually ended up implementing..
[ QUOTE ]
I've tracked down the error in the "Before" case. Statesman says:
[ QUOTE ]
The To Hit chance also increased over level. A +1 level had a 1.05 modifier, +2 level 1.1 and +3 1.15. For example, the base to hit chance of a lieutenant +2 levels was .58*1.1 or 63.8%.
[/ QUOTE ]
As iakona shows, the math doesn't work using these base to hit chances. However, if the level modifiers are additive rather than multiplicative, the numbers match perfectly. (In other words, a +3 boss would have a base to hit of 0.65+0.15=0.80). Which leads to the question: which is wrong, the explanation or the math?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the way he wrote the math was wrong, but that's not a big deal.
The whole point of the Issue 7 DEF changes is that the old system WAS additive (ToHit buff), and the new one is multiplicative (Accuracy buff). So States' explanation was correct; his example was just wrong.
Old system: Even boss had a .5 + .15 = .65 modified chance to hit.
New system: Even boss has a .5 * 1.3 = .65 modified chance to hit.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
 |
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I really would like to know how the numbers work out for PvP, Statesman. That's where the hardest edge of things is. After all, no AI will ever be as hard a fight as a good human, and we want to be the best we can be.
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ] Well, as close as I can come to understanding Statesman's latest numbers(are they even accurate?), Until I-7 comes out, and if you don't change your slotting, ToHit Debuff powers won't work as well as now. After I-7(1-3 months away), THDB's will be worse than now for Even Con's and +1's, while +2's and +3's will be SLIGHTLY better than they are now
Okay, my question is, if this is the explanation, then why aren't Defense Debuff Enhancements not changing? Is it because they are applied to Defense Buffs and not to to hit directly? In other words, if you have a 50% Defense and someone hits you with a 50% Defense Debuff, does that mean to hit is adjusted by -25% (50%*50%) or -0%? (50%-50%)
As for FF Defenders replacing Dark and Rad Defenders, I'm sorry, but it's not gonna happen. All this change really means is that Dark and Rad defenses will Enhance AT THE SAME RATE as FF. And they can still 1) heal, 2) buff damage and 3) rez, not to mention hold and slow and in the case of Rad even boost attack rate and Endurance, none of which FF is capable of. And if you bring up Aid Self, that's a slot that can't be used for the FFers Primary or Secondary, three if he wants to be able to rez.
Nobody's going to give up Accelerate Metabolism for an FF Defender. At best, this means FFers might be able to compete, instead of obviously being weaker than all other Sets but Trick Arrow. It's not what I wanted, I would rather the defense ratio stay where it is, and FF get some offense. But neither this nor the Accuracy rebalance are going to suddenly make FF popular. FF will be no more useful against reds and purples than it is against whites right now, and saying that an FF is better against whites than 300 Darks is certainly not true.
[ QUOTE ]
REgardless of whether or not its new, I submit that it's a bad idea, and should be abolished post haste.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I've been looking at this, and I understand why they did it.
Without this we could totally trivialize a +0 or even +1 AV, slamming their toHit to the floor.
I do question the strength of the numbers. Personally, I think numbers 1/2 this large would be better.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've tracked down the error in the "Before" case. Statesman says:
[ QUOTE ]
The To Hit chance also increased over level. A +1 level had a 1.05 modifier, +2 level 1.1 and +3 1.15. For example, the base to hit chance of a lieutenant +2 levels was .58*1.1 or 63.8%.
[/ QUOTE ]
As iakona shows, the math doesn't work using these base to hit chances. However, if the level modifiers are additive rather than multiplicative, the numbers match perfectly. (In other words, a +3 boss would have a base to hit of 0.65+0.15=0.80). Which leads to the question: which is wrong, the explanation or the math?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the way he wrote the math was wrong, but that's not a big deal.
The whole point of the Issue 7 DEF changes is that the old system WAS additive (ToHit buff), and the new one is multiplicative (Accuracy buff). So States' explanation was correct; his example was just wrong.
Old system: Even boss had a .5 + .15 = .65 modified chance to hit.
New system: Even boss has a .5 * 1.3 = .65 modified chance to hit.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's not what I'm saying. The error is in the level modifier, not the rank modifier. Is a +3 boss:
1) 0.65*1.15=0.7475 or
2) 0.65+0.15=0.80 ?
Both of these vary from player tested numbers:
+0 1.00000
+1 1.09400
+2 1.18670
+3 1.26670
+4 1.36000
Obviously, we can't evaluate the change if we don't know how things work now.
Can anyone provide me with good numbers for the toHitDebuff values for other Dark Miasma powers? I am running this with various other numbers, and I want to inspect the numerical impact of stacking multiple debuffs on someone. I'd love to have numbers for Fearsome Stare and Twilight Grasp, and I wouldn't mind some confirmation on Darkest Night. Dark Blast powers would be cool, too.
For the willing helpful, I already have builder numbers. I'm sorry to say I don't trust them.
After getting my math to line up to Statesman's numbers (as with MrQuizzles, I'm off in the hundredths place, probably due to rounding differences), I ran the I7 numbers for RI with 3 SOs. For the curious, here are my results:
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>Lev/Rnk : Normal -> Debuffed
-----------------------------
+0 Minion: 50.00% -> 5.00%
+0 LT : 57.50% -> 5.75%
+0 Boss : 65.00% -> 13.00%
+0 AV : 75.00% -> 22.50%
-----------------------------
+1 Minion: 55.00% -> 5.50%
+1 LT : 63.25% -> 12.02%
+1 Boss : 71.50% -> 20.02%
+1 AV : 82.50% -> 30.53%
-----------------------------
+2 Minion: 60.00% -> 12.00%
+2 LT : 69.00% -> 19.32%
+2 Boss : 78.00% -> 28.08%
+2 AV : 90.00% -> 39.60%
-----------------------------
+3 Minion: 65.00% -> 22.75%
+3 LT : 74.75% -> 31.02%
+3 Boss : 84.50% -> 40.56%
+3 AV : 95.00% -> 53.14%</pre><hr />
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA