Unyielding on Test - Brutes and Scraps(7/13 patch)
By
Aett_Thorn,
Posted on: 2006-07-13 14:36 in Tankers
[ QUOTE ]
Nothing should ever go live without testing
[/ QUOTE ]
/QFT
Yup, and history shows that the Devs oftentimes don't check their decimal locations, and tend to give out overly large or small buffs/debuffs. However, I doubt anyone will be able to test the actual value of the new debuff in time before it goes live anyways.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
[ QUOTE ]
now on the Test Server:
[ QUOTE ]
The 5% Defense reduction in Scrapper and Brute versions of Unyielding has been reduced to a 3.75% Defense reduction. This value matches then unenhanced Defense gained from the Tough Hide passive power in the same power set. The Tanker version remains unchanged, as the values already match properly.
[/ QUOTE ]
i just thought it was interesting the oft speculated "UY debuff is conveniently close to the Tough Hide base buff" seems to be verified as "intended".
while this is certainly nice for Scrappers and Brutes, who paid a penalty that was harder to overcome, it also kindof implies there are no plans to get rid of the debuff in the near future.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's kind of sad really. In a post I5/I6 world a small change can make a big difference and I've always wanted that penalty removed. At the very least it really hurts when you're starting out and are stuck with it.
If that penalty gets removed we WILL see a nerf somewhere else to conpensate. I doubt the devs want tankers running arrond with 42 def (full invince plus tough hide and single sloted combat jump)
[ QUOTE ]
It needs to spend time on test to make sure that, oh, they didn't make it a 35 percent debuff. Or a 35 percent buff, for that matter. I mean, they've tested double XP twice now. Any change can go wrong.
Nothing should ever go live without testing, really, you don't want that. At least I sure don't.
[/ QUOTE ]
or a 375% debuff.
[ QUOTE ]
If that penalty gets removed we WILL see a nerf somewhere else to conpensate. I doubt the devs want tankers running arrond with 42 def (full invince plus tough hide and single sloted combat jump)
[/ QUOTE ]
But 37% is ok? And you can currently take weave to hit over 42%.
At level 8, the Invulnerable Tanker picks up Unyielding for status-effect protection. When it is on, he/she gets hit more often. If it is Smashing/Lethal damage, the effects are managible. If it is any other damage type, the effects are more severe. So, for the next 8 levels he/she has a severe weakness to non-smashing/lethal damage types.
Combat Jump or Hover can eleviate half the debuff during these 6 levels making non-smashing/lethal damage less severe. Also, Resist Elements at level 6 and Resist Energies at level 12 can help with this problem. If he/she is running Combat Jump or Hover and have both REl and REn, he/she probably has negated the effects of the debuff for everything except Smashing/Lethal, which is still the strength of Invulnerability. The problem is, that not many take these early because offense suffers.
At 16, he/she picks up Invincibility. The -debuff is negated if there is one foe in melee range. If there is not 1 foe in melee range, he/she is more vulnerable to ranged attackers of non-smashing/lethal damage types.
Again, Combat Jump/Hover, REl and REn can help with the ranged weakness to non-S/L damage types.
At 26, he/she can get Tough Hide and eliminate the debuff entirely passively. Or, he/she can skip this power if the debuff of Unyielding does not seem to be causing any harm.
[*]Scrapper Secondary Info in Issue 7 [*]Tanker Primary Info in Issue 7 [*]The Harsh Reality of PVP
[ QUOTE ]
Okay... here's what bugs me the most about this change.
Why does it need to spend a week on test before it makes it live?
[/ QUOTE ]
Remember when the Unyielding debuff first was -50%, instead of -5% ?
Thats why.
There is a world of diference between 37 and 42. Imagine if all you had to do to get to the floor every single enemy was to turn on single sloted hover and combat jump?
And as it is now we do pay a penalty at less enemy count so we can have that "marvelous" defense while caped, meaning at AV fights, the time we need it most, we suffer penalties.
[ QUOTE ]
It makes me think that they thought of only 8 powers, but had to fill in 9 tiers. So... let's subtract DEF here (UY) and put it over here (TH), to tone down the potential DEF provided by Invinc. Viola! 9 powers!
[/ QUOTE ]
Unyielding was originally Unyielding Stance and it had no -DEF component. It did, however, make you immobile. This was incredibly unpopular and it was decided to remove that penalty. At that point, the -DEF was added to replace the Immobilize penalty.
Quite true. However, as I pointed out previously, said penalty was not reduced proportionately to the amount of resistance removed from the power in Issue 5.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It makes me think that they thought of only 8 powers, but had to fill in 9 tiers. So... let's subtract DEF here (UY) and put it over here (TH), to tone down the potential DEF provided by Invinc. Viola! 9 powers!
[/ QUOTE ]
Unyielding was originally Unyielding Stance and it had no -DEF component. It did, however, make you immobile. This was incredibly unpopular and it was decided to remove that penalty. At that point, the -DEF was added to replace the Immobilize penalty.
[/ QUOTE ]
We know the history, but why is it needed after the GDN and ED?
Single. Greatest. Question. Evar. 
Sign It : http://www.change.org/petitions/ncso...city-of-heroes
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It makes me think that they thought of only 8 powers, but had to fill in 9 tiers. So... let's subtract DEF here (UY) and put it over here (TH), to tone down the potential DEF provided by Invinc. Viola! 9 powers!
[/ QUOTE ]
Unyielding was originally Unyielding Stance and it had no -DEF component. It did, however, make you immobile. This was incredibly unpopular and it was decided to remove that penalty. At that point, the -DEF was added to replace the Immobilize penalty.
[/ QUOTE ]
We know the history, but why is it needed after the GDN and ED?
Single. Greatest. Question. Evar.
[/ QUOTE ]
What he said. We know the history. Why is it still needed?
@KingSnake - Triumph Server
@PrinceSnake
My common sense is tingling... ~ Deadpool
If you can't learn to do something well... learn to enjoy doing it poorly...
[ QUOTE ]
Its bad idea to rush anything to live and make it skip testing just because. Remember updates in CoH go trough a queue, and unless its an emergency hot fix it wont skip ahead of anything. That being told there are other fixes on this patch that may require the extensive testing.
[/ QUOTE ]
But we're not their QA department.
Supposedly this has been vetted and unit tested by geko, Positron, and Castle, and then it went through a QA cycle. And its at that time that QA is supposed to go "this makes X too strong, or leaves Y too weak", etc. And its up to the QA dept to poke holes and find bugs with it before it gets to the test server.
So again, if its vetted, if its QA'd, and its gonna go live and is a much needed and must requested quality of life sort of thing, why does it have to go to the test server for a week?
[ QUOTE ]
It needs to spend time on test to make sure that, oh, they didn't make it a 35 percent debuff. Or a 35 percent buff, for that matter. I mean, they've tested double XP twice now. Any change can go wrong.
Nothing should ever go live without testing, really, you don't want that. At least I sure don't.
[/ QUOTE ]
And that is what a QA department is for. They're the ones who should catch that 37.5% is wrong, not us. The test server is supposed to be there for us to provide feedback, but not for us to actually be the ones who test changes.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay... here's what bugs me the most about this change.
Why does it need to spend a week on test before it makes it live?
[/ QUOTE ]
Remember when the Unyielding debuff first was -50%, instead of -5% ?
Thats why.
[/ QUOTE ]
And that means that the QA dept screwed the pooch on their testing. Again its not for us, the players to catch bugs like this on the test server. This is the job of a QA department - something they claim to have.
Didnt castle or states say there QA is about 1 year old?
Yes, bad excuse for bad code.
I work in the diag department of a major company. To have that level of QA is unforgivable, and would get me fired. Sadly, test server exists to use the players as free QA.
From all the bugs players caught (invincibility pulsing twice) as opposed to states himself stating it was fine, I cant trust them on the bug lists/fixes.
If I was in charge, after a massive whipping, I'd make them take some software engineering classes, proper code check-in (cvs/whatever), and huge arch specs.
For some reason, I see massive spagetti code in C, rushed for the almighty dollar, not for quality or continued maintenance.
or maybe old m$ basic ...
50 Tanks: Invul/ss, Fire/ice/fire, Ice/em, Stone/fire
WP/Stone, dark/dark, shld/mace
50 Other: WS, SS/dark/sc brute, BS/Regen/WM scrpr, fire/fire/force blaster, rad/kin corr, mind/rad ctrl, ill/storm cntrl
Two Red Name posts in one day? I think I am going to faint...
But the question that gets me is still why not remove the -def penalty and Tough Hide, and not come up with an interesting new power. Also, people have been complaining left, right, and center about the passives. Why not move the +res gained in Unyielding to them? Net results being a new power, and a slight loss of defence because of not being able to have the slotted up bonus from Tough Hide. The passive would be useful and have a point to getting sloted as well. Unyielding would be nothing like it original incarnation, but I don't feel that is a bad thing. Powers need to grow and change, and I hope that these changes would, if implimented, make the set feel more balanced. Invs problem is being a little cumbersome in how it is done, not the numbers per se.
Just my thoughts, for what they are worth, _Castle_. Keep up the good work.
Age of a QA dept shouldn't be an excuse.
Poor employment choices would be the only excuse.
And neither is really an acceptable excuse.
BTW, I'm the one who found the Invincibility bug, so believe me I don't have high expectations of their QA, but either they're doing they're job and keep it, or they're not and get let go and replaced. That is how you run a business.
[ QUOTE ]
But the question that gets me is still why not remove the -def penalty and Tough Hide, and not come up with an interesting new power. ...
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it'd be a good idea to do this. I think that part of the problem is the corner of their rigid box of post-ED design that Tankers sit in.
Now, on the flip side, if they absolutely have to keep the penalty in Unyielding, then maybe its high time they seriously considered swapping Resist Physical and Tough in the powerset.
Because right now, when people get Unyielding they get hit more, if they had the opportunity to take Tough beforehand then they're equalized sooner rather than halfway through the game.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It makes me think that they thought of only 8 powers, but had to fill in 9 tiers. So... let's subtract DEF here (UY) and put it over here (TH), to tone down the potential DEF provided by Invinc. Viola! 9 powers!
[/ QUOTE ]
Unyielding was originally Unyielding Stance and it had no -DEF component. It did, however, make you immobile. This was incredibly unpopular and it was decided to remove that penalty. At that point, the -DEF was added to replace the Immobilize penalty.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes we know. However the debuff was as pointless then as it is now.
THEN we had high resistance and bugged high def so the -DEF was simply an annoyance.
NOW we have low resistance and middling def and the -DEF is a real issue for low level tanks and the fact that it takes a whole power to cancel out the penalty is simply stupid. There is no other word for it.
If the -DEF was removed it would have ZERO effect on high level tanks in PvE or PvP however it would make life for low level Invulns that much more comfortable.
There is no rational defense for this design
The very LEAST the devs should do is swap the position of Resist Physical Damage with Tough Hide. The reasonable thing they should do is kill the -DEF.
This is a song about a super hero named Tony. Its called Tony's theme.
Jagged Reged: 23/01/04
[ QUOTE ]
Age of a QA dept shouldn't be an excuse.
Poor employment choices would be the only excuse.
And neither is really an acceptable excuse.
BTW, I'm the one who found the Invincibility bug, so believe me I don't have high expectations of their QA, but either they're doing they're job and keep it, or they're not and get let go and replaced. That is how you run a business.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I remember you found the bug. Sadly, I expected teh bug to get fixed, even if invincibility was 'good as it is', and thus be a nerf. *sigh* such is life.
Not excusing their QA. I just feel the devs feel test server is their 'free QA', along with the players on the boards.
My biggest problem (back to unyielding) is the ever changing answers. I remember a brute asked why do we have 5% penalty, if we have less resistances? dev answer was, working as expected.
burn with fear, yet it did have fear before, was removed, because it wastn fun, now its fun with fear, while other damage auras, and that monster with a battle axe, do NOT cause fear ...
As for running a business, sadly, this is the ONLY hero (didnt say super) MMO (for now). I left, tried wow (bored of clone characters and hunting rats), tried another, and do you know why I came back?
Friends. Good people. Not this stupid 'vision' crap. Give me a good game, and I will draw my friends there.
sorry, ranting.
50 Tanks: Invul/ss, Fire/ice/fire, Ice/em, Stone/fire
WP/Stone, dark/dark, shld/mace
50 Other: WS, SS/dark/sc brute, BS/Regen/WM scrpr, fire/fire/force blaster, rad/kin corr, mind/rad ctrl, ill/storm cntrl
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It makes me think that they thought of only 8 powers, but had to fill in 9 tiers. So... let's subtract DEF here (UY) and put it over here (TH), to tone down the potential DEF provided by Invinc. Viola! 9 powers!
[/ QUOTE ]
Unyielding was originally Unyielding Stance and it had no -DEF component. It did, however, make you immobile. This was incredibly unpopular and it was decided to remove that penalty. At that point, the -DEF was added to replace the Immobilize penalty.
[/ QUOTE ]
We know the history, but why is it needed after the GDN and ED?
Single. Greatest. Question. Evar.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see the answer to this also. I think it's an avoided question, because if they were to remove the silly -def in uny since ED and the global defense change, they would be swarmed with pleas and hopes that the other powers that were changed pre ED get looked at.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It makes me think that they thought of only 8 powers, but had to fill in 9 tiers. So... let's subtract DEF here (UY) and put it over here (TH), to tone down the potential DEF provided by Invinc. Viola! 9 powers!
[/ QUOTE ]
Unyielding was originally Unyielding Stance and it had no -DEF component. It did, however, make you immobile. This was incredibly unpopular and it was decided to remove that penalty. At that point, the -DEF was added to replace the Immobilize penalty.
[/ QUOTE ]
We know the history, but why is it needed after the GDN and ED?
Single. Greatest. Question. Evar.
[/ QUOTE ]
What he said. We know the history. Why is it still needed?
[/ QUOTE ]
/agreed
Of all the tank/brute/scrapper secondaries, UY is the only mez protection power that hurts the player more than it helps. The silly debuff should just be removed completely.
I doubt that will happen, but since UY is half as strong as it was before I5, the debuff should have been at least halved as well.
It needs to spend time on test to make sure that, oh, they didn't make it a 35 percent debuff. Or a 35 percent buff, for that matter. I mean, they've tested double XP twice now. Any change can go wrong.
Nothing should ever go live without testing, really, you don't want that. At least I sure don't.