It should be noted that the damage values of every attack (when you multiply its BI by nine), e.g. Brawl = 9, DB's Gloom = 44, match exactly with the numbers listed in the I7 villain patron powers, and therefore it is 99% likely that the developers use these numbers to compare powers.
So now everyone will move to adopt the DV (Brawl Index * 9) system at once, right?
After some consideration, I think you might need to multiply the Brawl Index by eighteen instead of nine to get the correct Damage Value for an attack.
I was basing the conclusions I had come to (the same as yours, that BI should be multiplied by 9 for easier comparison and correctness) on the recent information we've been given about the Patron Power pools (currently viewable on test); But since what i've seen relates to the damage a brute would do with a ranged attack, and brutes have a base ranged damage of .50, the numbers listed for the brute's ranged patron powers are 1/2 of the actual DV.
So, for example take the information we've been given, a Brute gets Gloom, does 44 damage at level 40.
Brutes have a ranged damage of 50% "normal", so Gloom's DV should be represented by 88, not 44.
And of course, divide 88 by 18 and get 4.88, the B.I.
But then I got to thinking... What if the current B.I. value of Gloom is based on either the .75 of Corruptors or the .65 of Defenders? That would imply that the actual DV of Gloom is either 117.33_ or 135.384etc etc. So that's pretty ugly.
actually, you have to multiply brawl by 36 to get rid of all of the repeating decimals.
or, you can use the iakona's exact system which multiplies by .36 and results in a bunch of very nice values which are never more than 2 decimal places and also happen to agree with the devs in posts where they have quotes what their internal dmg numbers are(2.777=1, 4.555=1.64). since iakona's stuff matches exact with a dev quote, i'm using his stuff. and i encourage everyone else to as well.
Level 50 is a journey, not a destination.
▲Scrapper Issues List - Going Rogue Edition▲
[ QUOTE ]
actually, you have to multiply brawl by 36 to get rid of all of the repeating decimals.
or, you can use the iakona's exact system which multiplies by .36 and results in a bunch of very nice values which are never more than 2 decimal places and also happen to agree with the devs in posts where they have quotes what their internal dmg numbers are(2.777=1, 4.555=1.64). since iakona's stuff matches exact with a dev quote, i'm using his stuff. and i encourage everyone else to as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, I believe Iakona's system is, or is very close to, the system used by the game itself. I have seen a number of suggestions as to BI replacements in the past few weeks, each revolving around multiplying Iakona's numbers/BI by one-value-or-another to arrive at a better system.
Let me see if I can answer your questions there Voxen, I apologize for not answering sooner, I've been away for a week.
I think you got a little mixed up, let me see if I can help.
Firstly, reducing the base damage by 50% reduces the base damage, it doesn't effect the actual powers. So the DF (or DV as you called it) would stay at 44. (which is also why I called it a DF, or Damage Factor, its a factor * a changing base damage. The reference comes out of a different post.)
Also, 50% of normal is: normal*0.5. So if the DF of gloom was reduced 50%, it would be 22, not 88. (88 is 44/0.5,.)
Lastly, The reason 88/18 works is because its also (44*2)/(9*2). For instance (44*20)/(9*20) or 880/180, would also = 4.8888. Also, remember, 9 is the DF of Brawl as well, so any DF/9 will give the brawl index, just like any power dmg/brawl dmg.
Did that answer your questions?
Ok, this has annoyed me a little too much. Searches of all the posts by devs bring up *2* total posts where the devs mention a damage scale like the one currently being researched.
The devs have *never* said the Damage scale system was the right system either, so far I have only the arbitrary decision of the people designing and researching their DS system that it is correct and right.
Since the devs have never said that the DS system was right, I'll let the numbers speak for themselves:
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
Damage Factor vrs Damage Scale.
.
Power DF DS
------------------------------------
Brawl 9 0.36
Ice Bolt 25 1
Ice Blast 41 1.64
Frost Breath 35 1.4
Freeze Ray 2.5 0.1
Ice Storm 66 2.64
Bitter Ice Blast 57 2.28
Bitter Freeze Ray 33 1.32
Blizzard 90 3.6
</pre><hr />
I look at DF system and see that it uses simple, whole number integers, unlike DS with weird arbitrary decimal points.
That makes the DF system more accurate than the DS system, it uses the simplest values possible while still being true to the math that appears in the game.
I also see that the simple Accuracy of the DF System, would not allow a system like the DS system to actually be in game.
*If* the game actually used DS values, the DF system would be far less accurate; Only 1 out of 4 DS values can produce a whole number DF value. This means that only about 25% of DF values would be whole number integers. Since the above set has 9 out of 10 powers, or 90% of powers have integer values, that means that the DS system cannot account for the accuracy of the DF system.
Whats more, the DF system is superior to the DS system in several ways.
It allows the flexibility of the BI system, a player can divide brawl damage by 9 and get the base damage. The DS system does not, it uses a power to determine base damage that not all AT's have access too.
The DF offers simpler, more intuitive numbers. DS offers long decimal values that are not as intuitive.
The DF system makes math much simpler, making it easier to calculate damage chains or SO values, or comparing across different AT types.
So no, I don't agree that the DS system is the one used in game, the devs have never said it was correct, any more then the devs have said the BI system is correct.
In fact, the accuracy of the DF system means that the DF system is probably the same numbers used in game.
I apologize for the rude tone of the post, but I'm a little tired of hearing that "the ds system is the right system." There is no basis for believing that it is.
Toastyr, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise, the devs do NOT use whole, round numbers as a standard in their calculations. In fact, it's very rare to see any dev post about power numbers that actually uses a whole number with no decimals. Just look at the posts by _Castle_ and Geko; it simply isn't the way they do things. The damage scale system IS the system used by the game and the developers, as confirmed in numerous developer posts and PMs. The very first mention of the "damage scale" system on these boards was by Geko. Do you honestly believe that he'd take the time to make up an arbitrary system of damage measurement just to make one post about blizzard vs. nova? Or is it far more reasonable to believe that he posted using the system that he and the other Powers devs understand and use every day in working with the game?
The devs post using a system that no player has ever mentioned before...yet you still think it's just an arbitrary system that the players have made up. Sorry, but your system is the arbitrary one, with NO redname support whatsoever.
and it uses the wrong arbitrary values. 36 is the correct factor to multiply all the stuff by if you're going to insist on whole numbers. Even your system, which we've already gone over as being wrong, doesn't have whole numbers.
and the only reason 36 works is because then you're simply multiplying the correct damage scale values by 100 to get a whole number.
here, right from the Ask geko thread.
[ QUOTE ]
A basic attack was determined to have a 4 second recharge time. So the DamageScale of a power with a 4 second recharge becomes 1. A power with an 8 second recharge cannot be 2, because this leads to alpha strikes and all kinds of other imbalances. So an 8 second recharge power gets a scale of 1.64.
[/ QUOTE ]
that right there is in perfect agreement with the damage scale system. Your arbitrary almost whole numbers are nowhere to be found.
Level 50 is a journey, not a destination.
▲Scrapper Issues List - Going Rogue Edition▲
Thank you Fanboy!
That post is actually exactly what I needed to know.
Apparently that post never showed up in my searches because it uses "Damagescale" without a space. 
That post also explains why DS*25 is nearly always a whole number.
I apologize for the confusion.
If people would please be more careful to site their exact sources in the future tho. On these boards, someone will always turn up to say X is wrong. So, it's always important to verify why they make the claim.
Actually, this is a repost of something out of Iakona's BI replacement post, but I've come to find it useful enough to warrant reposting.
I was looking over Iakona's data and finally determined what the true base damage for each AT was.
In short, heres the damage factors next to the BI values.
Brawl = 9
2.777 = 25
3.666 = 33
4.555 = 41
5.444 = 49
6.333 = 57
7.222 = 65
Otherwise its just like the BI system, multiply the base AT damage times the Power damage factor. Its a lot nicer for calculating damage chains though, the math is much easier without any of the decimals getting weird.
Since these values are actually non-decimal values I suspect that they are the in game values used.
Basically, to convert BI of a power to the real power factor, just multiply the BI value by 9, or multiply Iakona's values by 25. (since Iakona's is actually based off of a Damage/(2.777*brawl) instead of a damage/brawl)
Heres the recalculated base Melee damage charts, keep in mind that scrappers and doms are slightly different base ranged damage:
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
level blaster control defende scrappe tanker peacebr warshad brute stalker masterm dominat corrupt
1 0.40 0.36 0.36 0.41 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.36 0.38 0.38
2 0.43 0.39 0.39 0.44 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.39 0.40 0.41
3 0.46 0.41 0.41 0.47 0.44 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.45 0.41 0.43 0.43
4 0.49 0.44 0.44 0.51 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.48 0.44 0.45 0.46
5 0.52 0.46 0.46 0.54 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.51 0.46 0.48 0.49
6 0.56 0.48 0.48 0.58 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.54 0.48 0.51 0.52
7 0.59 0.50 0.50 0.62 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.57 0.50 0.53 0.54
8 0.63 0.52 0.52 0.66 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.60 0.52 0.55 0.57
9 0.67 0.53 0.53 0.70 0.61 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.64 0.53 0.58 0.59
10 0.71 0.55 0.55 0.75 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.67 0.55 0.60 0.62
11 0.74 0.56 0.56 0.80 0.66 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.70 0.56 0.62 0.64
12 0.78 0.57 0.57 0.84 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.74 0.57 0.64 0.67
13 0.83 0.58 0.58 0.89 0.72 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.77 0.58 0.66 0.69
14 0.87 0.59 0.59 0.94 0.75 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.81 0.59 0.69 0.72
15 0.91 0.60 0.60 1.00 0.77 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.84 0.60 0.71 0.74
16 0.95 0.61 0.61 1.05 0.80 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.88 0.61 0.73 0.76
17 1.00 0.62 0.62 1.10 0.83 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.91 0.62 0.74 0.79
18 1.04 0.62 0.62 1.16 0.86 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.95 0.62 0.76 0.81
19 1.09 0.62 0.62 1.22 0.88 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.99 0.62 0.78 0.83
20 1.14 0.62 0.62 1.28 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 1.02 0.62 0.79 0.85
21 1.18 0.65 0.65 1.33 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.89 1.06 0.65 0.83 0.89
22 1.23 0.68 0.68 1.38 0.98 0.92 0.92 0.92 1.11 0.68 0.86 0.92
23 1.28 0.70 0.70 1.44 1.02 0.96 0.96 0.96 1.15 0.70 0.89 0.96
24 1.33 0.73 0.73 1.49 1.06 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.19 0.73 0.93 0.99
25 1.37 0.76 0.76 1.55 1.10 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.24 0.76 0.96 1.03
26 1.42 0.78 0.78 1.60 1.14 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.28 0.78 1.00 1.07
27 1.47 0.81 0.81 1.65 1.18 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.32 0.81 1.03 1.10
28 1.52 0.84 0.84 1.71 1.21 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.37 0.84 1.06 1.14
29 1.57 0.86 0.86 1.76 1.25 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.41 0.86 1.10 1.17
30 1.61 0.89 0.89 1.82 1.29 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.45 0.89 1.13 1.21
31 1.66 0.91 0.91 1.87 1.33 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.50 0.91 1.16 1.25
32 1.71 0.94 0.94 1.92 1.37 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.54 0.94 1.20 1.28
33 1.75 0.96 0.96 1.97 1.40 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.58 0.96 1.23 1.32
34 1.80 0.99 0.99 2.02 1.44 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.62 0.99 1.26 1.35
35 1.84 1.01 1.01 2.07 1.47 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.66 1.01 1.29 1.38
36 1.88 1.04 1.04 2.12 1.51 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.70 1.04 1.32 1.41
37 1.93 1.06 1.06 2.17 1.54 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.73 1.06 1.35 1.44
38 1.96 1.08 1.08 2.21 1.57 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.77 1.08 1.37 1.47
39 2.00 1.10 1.10 2.25 1.60 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.80 1.10 1.40 1.50
40 2.04 1.12 1.12 2.29 1.63 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.83 1.12 1.43 1.53
41 2.07 1.14 1.14 2.33 1.65 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.86 1.14 1.45 1.55
42 2.10 1.15 1.15 2.36 1.68 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.89 1.15 1.47 1.57
43 2.13 1.17 1.17 2.39 1.70 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.91 1.17 1.49 1.59
44 2.15 1.18 1.18 2.42 1.72 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.93 1.18 1.50 1.61
45 2.17 1.19 1.19 2.44 1.74 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.95 1.19 1.52 1.63
46 2.19 1.20 1.20 2.46 1.75 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.97 1.20 1.53 1.64
47 2.20 1.21 1.21 2.48 1.76 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.98 1.21 1.54 1.65
48 2.21 1.22 1.22 2.49 1.77 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.99 1.22 1.55 1.66
49 2.22 1.22 1.22 2.50 1.77 1.66 1.66 1.66 2.00 1.22 1.55 1.66
50 2.22 1.22 1.22 2.50 1.78 1.67 1.67 1.67 2.00 1.22 1.56 1.67
</pre><hr />
Heres the link to Iakona's BI post,
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showf...amp;PHPSESSID=
Thx for the great post Iakona, I really could not have figured it out without examining the two charts side by side.