[ QUOTE ]
In my veiw, Defiance doesn't work, because even though the programming code implemention is sound, the Reward, no matter how big it really is, simply does not balance with the Risk. And the counter-intuitive nature of Defiance, means you fight against your own Inherent Ability, and that's not a good feeling
[/ QUOTE ]
See, that's my issue: I am glad we can establish that it is "working" in the sense that they designed it.... but it is still an inherent that runs contrary to good playing. If I am constantly riding at low health then either I am an incompetent blaster or I have an incompetent tank.... but that's the only way I will see my inherent... and that's just awful...
Or the implication could be that I am a perfectly competent blaster, and that this power is designed for those oh so rare occassions when I for some reason bite off more than I can chew soloing or manage to yank aggro off a good tank when teamed.... both of these events are few and far between.... in which case it is, again, an awful power.
So either it's designed for blasters who cannot control their battles and are constantly getting into the red on health or its designed for very, rare situations.... either way it is lacking. I understand that we are getting a tiny buff no matter where the health lies, but I think it says it all that a poster had to test to find that out and inform the rest of us, because we sure weren't seeing it on our own.
Nice work. 
If this analysis is correct (and I have no reason to suspect otherwise at this point), then getting a tiny amount of healing or popping a respite isn't as detrimental at the Defiance bar suggests.
I've been soloing my Fire/Electric Blaster and trying to milk the Defiance bar as long as possible to buff up my damage output. Not surprisingly, I die more often than I'd like to if my Lucks and Sturdies expire. Being able to pop a green without fear of killing my buff is fantastic news.
It does bring up a questions though: How does a fluxuating defiance value affect the streak breaker?
[ QUOTE ]
Or the implication could be that I am a perfectly competent blaster, and that this power is designed for those oh so rare occassions when I for some reason bite off more than I can chew soloing or manage to yank aggro off a good tank when teamed.... both of these events are few and far between.... in which case it is, again, an awful power.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is exactly what the power is designed (and apparently working properly) for. The Development team by and large is apparently of the opinion that Blasters are working as intended and don't really need anything other than minor tweaks. Therefore the inherent for the AT is fairly situation, as it would be overpowering if it were useful all the time.
One of the best avenues of evidence for this belief is to look at Defenders. Another AT that the devs seem to be generally happy with, and by all accounts another AT with a almost universally percieved poor inherent. The equation seems to be, working as intended = crappy (situational) inherent.
I just want to post some a few comments before I head off into obscurity.
What Arcanaville describes when she mentions the "sliver of health" is something I think every blaster sees. In fact, several blasters, includeing those in this thread have pointed out in multiple other threads that they wished their snipe or some other attack did just a little more damage as without a build-up or aim type power they left a "sliver of health"
This becomes more obvious in the AR and Archery sets which are lethal based for the most part and it makes sense for those sets to leave that little sliver of health considering mob resistances.
It is interesting to me, the contrast between pre-ED and post-ED bias when it comes to the use of certain powers. Pre-ED it was popular to slam both Aim and Build-up to cap damage for a little while and unleash with AoE killing everything. Post-ED many Blasters alternate between aim and build-up so that their attacks will not leave those little slivers of health. At least, that is my personal experience, I know some chained aim and build-up Pre-ED but I recall them being shouted down pretty frequently. Hell, I took the time to learn the most efficient attack chains would kill a yellow or orange mob with build-up running and which ones would kill a yellow or orange with Aim running with my main blaster specificaly because of that "sliver of health". Incidently, melee had to be included.
Thinking back about that "sliver of health" concept, hasn't every blaster under the sun looked for some way to increase damage? Some have asked for just a straight boost (similar to Arcanaville's suggestion of raising the floor of defiance), others have asked for a damage resistance bypass similar to what we have in PvP (something I think fits the theme of defiance and would work just as well as increaseing damage).
Is there any question that blasters feel like they are just not doing enough damage? There must be something that blasters are seeing that are giveing them that impression.
That "sliver of health" is a definate tipping point. It represents one more attack that must be employed to defeat. It also represents added time that must be taken, added risk that must be managed. I think this is more problematical for the classical ranged blaster, who has a more limited selection of ranged attacks to chain and branch. This was especially problematic for my Electric/Energy blaster, who only has 2 ST, 1 AOE, and 1 Snipe to chain through out the majority of his levels. I took Assault to help deal with the "sliver of health" problem, and it worked, but the problem came back after ED, and it was just compounding the problem of already having to use more ranged attacks to defeat foes because of ED.
If there was a way to supplement the number of attacks in a ranged attack chain, so that it could be extended before repeatition, and/or allow the attack chain to branch, maybe it wouldn't be so bad. But the only supplemental ranged attacks are not available til Ancillary Power Pools were opened up. So, this leaves the only other methods available is to digress into taking melee attacks, against the classical ranged blaster concept, or increase the attack rate, which was now further limited by ED.
This may not be the case for other Primaries which have more direct attacks in them, but Electric is really hurt by the "Sliver of Health" problem.
<QR>
Workin' your magic numbers yet again, Arcana. Awesome job, I tell ya, I am smart enough to understand, use, and slightly adapt the forumla, but for the life of me I couldn't have created or gotten to it from data points alone.
Few observations I have though:
I agree with some of the others that the balance of the risk and reward for Defiance is not where is should be. The 100 to 50% health range just isn't helpful at less than 10% damage boost. A more level increase could help round out the balance a bit and make Defiance more meaningfull. Not completely linear, but more so than this equation.
Also, I was trying to play with the equation a bit to see if I could do the above, but it seems the skill involved in making adjusting the equation to do what I described above is over my head. I was trying to adjust it so that a new equation would yield the same values at 9% and 90% health as the one you posted, but would ramp up sooner in the middle. Can you do that? Just to see how different it would be?
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I was trying to play with the equation a bit to see if I could do the above, but it seems the skill involved in making adjusting the equation to do what I described above is over my head. I was trying to adjust it so that a new equation would yield the same values at 9% and 90% health as the one you posted, but would ramp up sooner in the middle. Can you do that? Just to see how different it would be?
[/ QUOTE ]
If I had to suggest an alternative on the spot, something like this might make more sense:
25% * 2 ^ [(54 - HealthPercentage)/12.5]
(Current: 25% * 2 ^ [(45 - HealthPercentage)/10])
Comparing the current formula to this one, we get this:
Code:[/color]
Health current alternate
100 0.55% 1.95%
90 1.10% 3.40%
80 2.21% 5.91%
70 4.42% 10.29%
60 8.84% 17.92%
50 17.68% 31.21%
40 35.36% 54.34%
30 70.71% 94.61%
20 141.42% 164.72%
10 282.84% 286.79%
9 303.14% 303.14%
5 400.00% 378.42%
1 527.80% 472.40%
The noteworthy points are that 9% health still damage caps a 3-slot (SO) blaster in both equations (the alternate is specifically designed to pivot around that point, but the boost is a little higher at lower health levels). Also, at 60% health, the boost in the alternate is approximately equal to scrapper criticals (at SO slotting levels), because an 18% boost to base damage is about a 9% boost to total damage when you're 3-slotted for damage, which has a certain logical symmetry to me: its the point where SR passive resistances first kick in (the equivalent point in the current defiance formula is about 50% health).
It also ramps up a bit faster, but doesn't get quite as high as fast at the top end. But the top end doesn't matter quite as much to me, since its above the cap for most blasters above level 22, and for blasters under 22 even 300% damage boost is likely to be a massive boost relative to the targets being faced (the current defiance hits the absolute cap for blasters at 5% health: the alternative is only 12% short of that at 5% health).
This assumes you want to keep the basic structure of how defiance works intact, and just are looking to fiddle with the tunable parameters of the current defiance formula. But it does soften the low end, without making it dramatically overpowering it at the high end.
[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.)
Captain_Napalm:
I think the exponential nature of the equation is going to make that difficult. The problem is that if you add an integer on the "low end" (the 50% to 100% health zone, for example), it's going to inflate the "high end" (the 1% to 10% health zone), too, unless you overly complicate the equation with If/Then statements, though then you'd probably wind up with a "chunky" equation at the if/then statement point(s).
Knowing the equations themselves is good, but it still doesn't really resolve what we need to know. I know most of us say that Defiance "doesn't kick in until it's too late", that it "doesn't matter until we're almost dead". The real question is, however, what kind of average ToHit and Damage Buffs do Blasters, as an aggregate, get from Defiance in-game.
Unfortunately, we're not privy to that data, nor can we be. It's possible that, on average, our ToHit and Damage Buffs exceed Scrappers' damage from Criticals and the +12.5% more base damage they do. It's possible that, on average, ours do less. It's possible that the average completely makes up the difference, but not much more.
The thing is it doesn't take very many instances at the +350% Damage range to skew the average considerably upwards.
40062: The World's Worst PUG
84008: Jenkins's Guide to Super-Villainy
230187: The Hero of Kings Row
No H8 - 08.04.10
@Circuit Boy - Moderator - Pride global chat channel
[ QUOTE ]
I just want to post some a few comments before I head off into obscurity.
What Arcanaville describes when she mentions the "sliver of health" is something I think every blaster sees. In fact, several blasters, includeing those in this thread have pointed out in multiple other threads that they wished their snipe or some other attack did just a little more damage as without a build-up or aim type power they left a "sliver of health"
This becomes more obvious in the AR and Archery sets which are lethal based for the most part and it makes sense for those sets to leave that little sliver of health considering mob resistances.
It is interesting to me, the contrast between pre-ED and post-ED bias when it comes to the use of certain powers. Pre-ED it was popular to slam both Aim and Build-up to cap damage for a little while and unleash with AoE killing everything. Post-ED many Blasters alternate between aim and build-up so that their attacks will not leave those little slivers of health. At least, that is my personal experience, I know some chained aim and build-up Pre-ED but I recall them being shouted down pretty frequently. Hell, I took the time to learn the most efficient attack chains would kill a yellow or orange mob with build-up running and which ones would kill a yellow or orange with Aim running with my main blaster specificaly because of that "sliver of health". Incidently, melee had to be included.
Thinking back about that "sliver of health" concept, hasn't every blaster under the sun looked for some way to increase damage? Some have asked for just a straight boost (similar to Arcanaville's suggestion of raising the floor of defiance), others have asked for a damage resistance bypass similar to what we have in PvP (something I think fits the theme of defiance and would work just as well as increaseing damage).
Is there any question that blasters feel like they are just not doing enough damage? There must be something that blasters are seeing that are giveing them that impression.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was reading the above quote and I had a thought: Is it possible to overcome the "sliver of life" by slotting a fourth Damage SO in all your attacks?
Anyway, here were some additional questions I had cross my mind: If someone does find that the fourth Damage SO in all attacks actually overcomes the sliver on a regular basis would that possibly change people's optimized slotting? Would it be better to slot a 4th Damage and overcome the sliver of life or to slot recharge and have to cast another attack?
It just seems to me that when playing a Blaster, and with the sliver of life issue, it may be beneficial to actually consider a fourth damage SO.
Also, if I am just completely off my rocker with this line of thinking please tell me. 
50 Fire/Kin Cont
50 Fire/Axe Tank
50 Spine/Inv Scrap
50 Eng/Dev Blast
50 Claw/SR Scrap
50 Emp/Dark Def
50 Eng/Elec Brute
50 Fire/MM Blast
My DeviantArt Page
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, here were some additional questions I had cross my mind: If someone does find that the fourth Damage SO in all attacks actually overcomes the sliver on a regular basis would that possibly change people's optimized slotting? Would it be better to slot a 4th Damage and overcome the sliver of life or to slot recharge and have to cast another attack?
It just seems to me that when playing a Blaster, and with the sliver of life issue, it may be beneficial to actually consider a fourth damage SO.
[/ QUOTE ]
If your entirely single target based maybe. But a single aoe some time during the fight should knick off that sliver of health and a bit more on every target it hits. 3 damage accuarcy is plenty, with tossing an aoe every once in awhile should take care of any sliver's of health.
[ QUOTE ]
I was reading the above quote and I had a thought: Is it possible to overcome the "sliver of life" by slotting a fourth Damage SO in all your attacks?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think so. That fourth damage SO equates to about 5% base damage. At level 50, we're talking about total focus doing an additional 10 points of damage. The "sliver" is ordinarily not *that* much of a sliver. But its difficult to be sure: even assault is only roughly +10% base damage, only twice the strength of that fourth damage SO.
[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 ]
Captain_Napalm:
I think the exponential nature of the equation is going to make that difficult. The problem is that if you add an integer on the "low end" (the 50% to 100% health zone, for example), it's going to inflate the "high end" (the 1% to 10% health zone), too, unless you overly complicate the equation with If/Then statements, though then you'd probably wind up with a "chunky" equation at the if/then statement point(s).
Knowing the equations themselves is good, but it still doesn't really resolve what we need to know. I know most of us say that Defiance "doesn't kick in until it's too late", that it "doesn't matter until we're almost dead". The real question is, however, what kind of average ToHit and Damage Buffs do Blasters, as an aggregate, get from Defiance in-game.
Unfortunately, we're not privy to that data, nor can we be. It's possible that, on average, our ToHit and Damage Buffs exceed Scrappers' damage from Criticals and the +12.5% more base damage they do. It's possible that, on average, ours do less. It's possible that the average completely makes up the difference, but not much more.
The thing is it doesn't take very many instances at the +350% Damage range to skew the average considerably upwards.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is specifically the problem with data mining. If the penalty for reaching +350% is having such low health that, win or lose, you're stuck resting before the next fight, then that bonus isn't just happening for free, but that +350% shot does, in fact, skew the average upward by a lot. The "average bonus" isn't a direct measure of the value of defiance: the more proper measure would be "increase in kill-speed" because that compares more closely to criticals. Unfortunately, that is extremely difficult to data mine effectively. The notion that data mining is always better than numerical analysis is not in actual fact true. Its only true when data mining produces a better signal than numerical analysis does. That doesn't happen consistently.
In fact, in this particular case, while data mining can *inform* analysis, I would consider it an abuse of data mining if it was used to determine the *actual* performance of defiance. It just doesn't work that way.
I can data mine the toss of a pair of dice, or I can calculate it. The calculations are better if the dice are fair. And this principle doesn't require probabilistic dependancies to hold for other more complex environments to run into similar situations.
[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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was reading the above quote and I had a thought: Is it possible to overcome the "sliver of life" by slotting a fourth Damage SO in all your attacks?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think so. That fourth damage SO equates to about 5% base damage. At level 50, we're talking about total focus doing an additional 10 points of damage. The "sliver" is ordinarily not *that* much of a sliver. But its difficult to be sure: even assault is only roughly +10% base damage, only twice the strength of that fourth damage SO.
[/ QUOTE ]
darn 
I had my fingers crossed that I had just stumbled upon the new slotting sensation of 2007...
...back to the drawing board for me. 
50 Fire/Kin Cont
50 Fire/Axe Tank
50 Spine/Inv Scrap
50 Eng/Dev Blast
50 Claw/SR Scrap
50 Emp/Dark Def
50 Eng/Elec Brute
50 Fire/MM Blast
My DeviantArt Page
Arcanaville:
You may think it "an abuse of data mining" to use it to determine actual performance, but I think you'd be fighting an uphill battle on that front with the Developers. We know from _Castle_'s posts that the Developers use datamining to determine quite a bit.
The problem with a straight numerical analysis is that it doesn't tell us anything, and all conclusions are pure speculation, pure theory.
The thing is there are factors here we can't know, that we're just not privy to. Uncovering the equation isn't an argument for nor against anything, nor can it be crafted into one. It simply is.
My guess is that the equation, as-is, probably produces an average Damage Buff overall on par with what Scrappers have, in the end. I have no way of knowing whether or not this is true--it's just a hunch. Unfortunately, it can neither be proven nor disproven, so it's just going to have to remain a hunch.
If I'm right, though, that explains why the Developers, in 18 months, have shown absolutely zero interest in changing Defiance.
40062: The World's Worst PUG
84008: Jenkins's Guide to Super-Villainy
230187: The Hero of Kings Row
No H8 - 08.04.10
@Circuit Boy - Moderator - Pride global chat channel
[ QUOTE ]
I think the exponential nature of the equation is going to make that difficult. The problem is that if you add an integer on the "low end" (the 50% to 100% health zone, for example), it's going to inflate the "high end" (the 1% to 10% health zone), too, unless you overly complicate the equation with If/Then statements, though then you'd probably wind up with a "chunky" equation at the if/then statement point(s).
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know, Arcana did it pretty well with the modified equation she posted.
Thanks for that, by the way, Arcana.
In my opinion, if Defiance is going to be linked to a Blaster's Life bar, we need some benefit earlier than we currently get it. Arcana's 2nd equation gives just that, without changing where we end up at the high end.
Thanks again Arcana for the time and hard work.
@Deadboy
[ QUOTE ]
You may think it "an abuse of data mining" to use it to determine actual performance, but I think you'd be fighting an uphill battle on that front with the Developers. We know from _Castle_'s posts that the Developers use datamining to determine quite a bit.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do note that datamining is not somehow inherently incomplete or prone to produce an inappropriately averaged number. It really depends on the data that's stored, and then the types of views of that data that are constructed. For example, a histogram of how often bands of defiance bonus occur would be a reasonable (though certainly not complete) thing for the devs to inspect, as opposed to a bulk average damage bonus. A more complete picture would include how often a Blaster died in a certain time interval after each defiance boost, or how often they rested. Duration views of defiance boosts would also be useful.
We don't really know what the devs' data or the massaging they do to it looks like. Now, I'll certainly agree with the notion that the it doesn't seem like they use very sophisticated data analysis, and they definitely seem to have had some problems in the past with their math, so I do tend to suspect them of oversimplifying the data.
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 ]
You may think it "an abuse of data mining" to use it to determine actual performance, but I think you'd be fighting an uphill battle on that front with the Developers. We know from _Castle_'s posts that the Developers use datamining to determine quite a bit.
[/ QUOTE ]
More than you realize.
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with a straight numerical analysis is that it doesn't tell us anything, and all conclusions are pure speculation, pure theory.
[/ QUOTE ]
It tells me a lot. Numerical analysis is not pure speculation. For example, my scrapper analyses come with hundreds of hours of playtesting their conclusions, under a wide variety of circumstances. They make predictions that are testable. My analysis of the SR passive resistances in particular, make non-intuitive predictions of their behavior that can be seen if tested for. My survivability analysis rely on certain unbreakable constraints on performance the game adheres to. And my discrete calculator allows me to see precisely what the genuine effects of many conjectured effects are, such as the efficiency of dark regeneration is relative to its survival power.
In any case, the debate of whether numerical analysis is actually effective or not is immaterial in this case, because no number in CoH is actually *set* by data mining. They are all either computed, or arbitrarily set by a designer. Data mining might suggest to a designer that a number is too high, or too low, but it doesn't give any guidence as to what it actually ought to be. And when there is a total absence of any numerical understanding of what is being balanced, and you attempt to replace understanding with data mining, you end up flailing around randomly. cf: Regeneration. Its never a good circumstance to be in.
[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.)
Excellent work. So, yeah, Defiance is working according to its design. That's fine. But that doesn't make me loathe it any less.
@Demobot
Also on Steam
[ QUOTE ]
...In any case, the debate of whether numerical analysis is actually effective or not is immaterial in this case, because no number in CoH is actually *set* by data mining. They are all either computed, or arbitrarily set by a designer. Data mining might suggest to a designer that a number is too high, or too low, but it doesn't give any guidence as to what it actually ought to be. And when there is a total absence of any numerical understanding of what is being balanced, and you attempt to replace understanding with data mining, you end up flailing around randomly. cf: Regeneration. Its never a good circumstance to be in.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly! This is the heart of the problem with analyzing any complex system. Often mathematical modeling will uncover truths that no amount of outcome-based data mining or gross averaging can ever reveal.
Nice work, btw.
[ QUOTE ]
Also, if I am just completely off my rocker with this line of thinking please tell me.
[/ QUOTE ]
Naw, thats normal. All of us blasters are off our rocker and make us abnormal. But if we are abnormal then does that makes us normal and the rest of the archtypes abnormal? 
[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that the equation, as-is, probably produces an average Damage Buff overall on par with what Scrappers have, in the end. I have no way of knowing whether or not this is true--it's just a hunch. Unfortunately, it can neither be proven nor disproven, so it's just going to have to remain a hunch.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hunch? Gut feeling? Assumption? Belief? Conjecture? Hypothesis? Presumption? Sneaking suspicion? Surmise? Theory?....Fusilier, we got a new member! Welcome to the Conspiracy club...*hands Circuit_Boy a T-shirt with "I am with the wierdo" printed on it*..Later we are going to prove that "magic bullets" made by the Illuminati are not flawed against undead zombies and are just as good as hollow point rounds. 
[ QUOTE ]
It tells me a lot. Numerical analysis is not pure speculation. For example, my scrapper analyses come with hundreds of hours of playtesting their conclusions, under a wide variety of circumstances. They make predictions that are testable.
[/ QUOTE ]
Arcana, can you help us with the "magic bullet" theory? Please? Your so good with numbers.
(being humorous in my entire post! )
[ QUOTE ]
Often mathematical modeling will uncover truths that no amount of outcome-based data mining or gross averaging can ever reveal.
[/ QUOTE ]
Even though Law is the work field that I will be going into, I have decided to also take courses on Math Modeling. I may dislike math and the monotanous repitition that is math, but I also see a huge benefit from learning it. If nothing else, I will be able to make better arguements on MMO forums! 
[ QUOTE ]
Excellent work. So, yeah, Defiance is working according to its design. That's fine. But that doesn't make me loathe it any less.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have a thought about that, something related to vigilence. I can't quite express it fully yet, but when the thought finally settles I'll post it here.
[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 ]
Math Modeling
[/ QUOTE ]
I see this and can't help but think,
'Oh, yeah, work it. Derive that function!'
It's interesting to actually see that Defiance is, literally, working as intended. Good Job on researching that Arcanaville.
However, the opaqueness at which it operates under is, at best, unhelpful to its cause. And the lagging nature of the Defiance bar just adds to that opaqueness. If it was more transparent it would be interesting to see if that would actually change things in the veiw of the player base.
But, none of that really matters, as my own cheif complaint about Defiance has always been the Hitpoints vs. Damage mechanics nature of it. Its counter-intuitive nature, where a high vulnerablity Archtype is drawn between doing more damage, and really what Blaster doesn't want to do more damage, and self preservation and the avoidance of debt.
In my veiw, Defiance doesn't work, because even though the programming code implemention is sound, the Reward, no matter how big it really is, simply does not balance with the Risk. And the counter-intuitive nature of Defiance, means you fight against your own Inherent Ability, and that's not a good feeling.
I thank you for bringing more transparency to Defiance, Arcanaville. I just still don't like Defiance.