Fix Defense in Three moves: Version 2.0
By
Another_Fan,
Posted on: 2008-02-20 18:43 in Player Guides
<QR>
I think the only thing that is going to convince the Dev's that defense needs to be looked at is Data-Mining. If the Data-Mining shows that defense is not working as intended then it will need to be "fixed".
What uses defense? SR Scrappers and....FF Defenders and EA Brutes......am I missing anything?
"I'm not scared of anyone or anything Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?"
Jack Hawksmoor, The Authority.
[ QUOTE ]
No, you're not understanding.
Even without the proposed Elusivity, if there is ever a case where a player/power has multiple *Accuracy* (not Anti-Accuracy) modifiers, then they would stack multiplicatively. That's the way it is *right now*.
[/ QUOTE ]
You know, you're right, I'd forgotten about this -- the best example being rank and level accuracy modifiers. I'll just polish off this tasty crow while I finish writing this post...
I don't think that this really alters my basic point with this which was that this would still represent a major programming change, regardless of whether or not it could potentially leave the existing balance intact. Still, though, I should've remembered this...
[ QUOTE ]
I think you keep saying 'additive' when you mean 'multiplicative.' Because you are arguing against multiplicative stacking... right?
[/ QUOTE ]
Nope. My beef with Arcanaville's suggestion isn't that it includes multiplicative stacking, it's that it retains the additive stacking as well. In principle, you could get the same thing I want using Arcanaville's equation, but the problem is that it also still allows for the possibility of the current broken system. As a matter of practice, I don't believe that the necessary balance changes will occur if the old mechanics are left in place, so I'd prefer that they be removed.
It's not that I don't think that Arcanaville's suggestion isn't an improvement over the current system: it's that I don't think it goes far enough. My concern is that if they "fix" defense -- which is a pretty big if -- they sure aren't going to do it more than once, so I'd like to make sure that they do it right (and by "right," I mean "my way").
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, your point about the need for the formula to be simple and elegant just simply doesn't hold water. Simple mechanics doesn't necessarily lead to balanced or deep or fun mechanics. In fact, I'm sure you can think of mechanics that are extremely simplified and then imagine just how inadequate that would be to combat mechanics.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're sort of affirming the consequent here. I'm claiming that good mechanics should be as simple as possible. I never said that all simple mechanics are good: that would be self-evidently absurd.
[ QUOTE ]
If you want to make that point that simpler is better, then, you've made the point. No need to keep hammering away at a tweak to a mechanic you think is already broken for being already too complex. Start your own thread in forum suggestions asking the Devs to simplify their already-too-complex Chance to Hit formula; or, start your own thread in Players Guide with your fix to defense: "My Simple Chance to Hit Formula Fix." Don't blame Arcanaville for the current complexity or for wanting to add in an obviously (once it's pointed out) missing part of that complex equation. If the complex equation is going to stay, her suggestion makes complete sense. If you don't like the complexity of the equation, take your beef to the Devs.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not "blaming" Arcanaville for anything -- I'm quite confident that the ToHit equation would've been much better if she'd designed it in the first place. (Seriously.) I just don't think this particular idea of hers is a good one. The reason I keep posting is just that I don't feel like I've yet done a good job of laying out my reasons for why I don't like it. Hopefully, I'll rectify that soon, and then I'll stop harping on stuff.
[ QUOTE ]
What uses defense? SR Scrappers and....FF Defenders and EA Brutes......am I missing anything?
[/ QUOTE ]
Ignoring sets where it's not a significant part of their mitigation:
Invulnerability
Stone Armor
Ice Armor
Energy Armor
Ninjitsu
Super Reflexes
Force Fields
Cold Domination
Regen (one power)
Willpower
Empathy
So it's a pretty broad problem.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
The only thing about Arcana's idea that I find somewhat troubling is the question of how do you type Anti-Accuracy?
Because it seems like a much bigger job if you have to create Sm, Le, Fire, Cold, Eng, Neg, Psi, Toxic, Melee, Ranged, AoE typed Anti-Accuracy. Like Pippy said, it's at least as hard of a job as creating Toxic Defense.
And if you don't type it at all, then it's basically the cousin of base defense and you can be darn sure the devs will never give any character much more than 10% of it except in highly situational powers like PFF.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
<QR>
Okay, I've spend a good deal more time thinking about this.
I think that in this thread, I've succumbed to the temptation to make the perfect the enemy of the good. The combination of ToHit and Resistance is, from a mathematical standpoint, irretrievably broken and this proposal won't change that. Changing everything to multiplicative stacking also won't change that. Nothing short of redesigning the combat mechanics from the ground up is going to fix the problems, and that simply isn't going to happen.
Arcanaville's system does, however, enable designers to reduce the impact of the flaws in the system, and, as she points out, might not be completely impossible to implement.
So I withdraw my objections and apologize for wasting everybody's time.
There! I'm sure Arcanaville will sleep better at night knowing I agree with her now! 
[ QUOTE ]
So I withdraw my objections and apologize for wasting everybody's time.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you wasted anyone's time, Pippy.
Even though I'm fully supportive of the idea, I think it's good that Arcana has to defend her points; it means that other people that might have the same issues as yourself will get to see them answered, and it also allows for discussion of the mechanics of her idea.
[ QUOTE ]
If I were actually working for NCNC, I might feel more of a need to refrain from allowing design concerns to enter consideration of the mechanics. Since I'm not, I don't particularly see a reason to draw a distinction between the role of a game mechanic implementor and a game designer -- neither one of those is a role I can actually play unless I'm on the payroll.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're still missing the point of this entire suggestion. One element to this exercise was to illustrate my thought-process when communicating suggestions to the devs. It was a guide to fixing defense, but subversively, it was also a guide to the devs. As players, we often tend to treat "the devs" as if they were one single monolithic entity, when that is the farthest thing from the truth.
The truth is that game development as a structure, and different people are involved in different things at different times. Asking for the way tohit works to be changed fails to recognize that not only is that a massive undertaking, its a massive undertaking that crosses developmental lines. Your version asks for the code team to change the game engine, and the powers designers to rebalance the powers in the game, all at once. That's a huge undertaking, before even factoring in testing.
I think my way is better than your way for a lot of design reasons, which I articulate in the OP. But my way has another advantage over your way that is more significant: mine is possible, yours is impossible, when you factor in the practical realities of game development.
That's a pretty big advantage, most of the time.
[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 ]
If there is ever the case that there is more than one Accuracy modifier (not even sure if it would ever happen, but if there were to be more than one Accuracy modifier) then it would stack multiplicatively.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe so, and that's basically what Arcanaville is talking about adding, but the fact remains that as it now stands, every single attribute that can stack with itself does so additively.
[/ QUOTE ]
Accuracy factors from different sources stack multiplicatively. Since accuracy has two different stacking "rules" already coded into the game engine, it would not be difficult at all to make Elusivity-like accuracy factors stack multiplicatively.
The four kinds of "accuracy" that exist are Critter Rank Bonuses, Level Rank Bonuses, Attack Intrinsic Accuracy, and Accuracy Strength modifiers (enhancements, set bonuses). Only one of them has any possibility of stacking with itself in the first place (Accuracy Strength modifiers), and it currently stacks additively. Whether Elusivity stacks linearly with each itself, or multiplicatively with itself, is a relatively small balance concern, because it will *always* stack multiplicatively with conventional defense. So there's always going to be an opportunity to design around those mechanics by proper use of both defense types. The examples in the OP do not reuire a particular stacking system for Elusivity/Anti-Accuracy most of the time.
[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 ]
The only thing about Arcana's idea that I find somewhat troubling is the question of how do you type Anti-Accuracy?
Because it seems like a much bigger job if you have to create Sm, Le, Fire, Cold, Eng, Neg, Psi, Toxic, Melee, Ranged, AoE typed Anti-Accuracy. Like Pippy said, it's at least as hard of a job as creating Toxic Defense.
And if you don't type it at all, then it's basically the cousin of base defense and you can be darn sure the devs will never give any character much more than 10% of it except in highly situational powers like PFF.
[/ QUOTE ]
It only really works if its typed. I'm presuming that any attempt to implement this will be a typed implementation.
I don't know if adding Elusivity/AA is as difficult as adding toxic defense. It might be. But since Elusivity/AA solves a lot more problems than toxic defense does, it might be considered worth it. After all, the I7 changes themselves were only done, I believe, after they exhausted all other possible ways to solve the problem, and it became the defacto only solution left, hard or not.
[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 ]
<QR>
I think the only thing that is going to convince the Dev's that defense needs to be looked at is Data-Mining. If the Data-Mining shows that defense is not working as intended then it will need to be "fixed".
What uses defense? SR Scrappers and....FF Defenders and EA Brutes......am I missing anything?
[/ QUOTE ]
Castle has said publicly in the past that he thinks the way defense stacks (and other things) causes headaches for him and the other powers designers, and makes it difficult to make certain thigns work the way they want them to. So Castle at least is aware that a problem of some kind exists, and its a problem generally of extremes.
This suggestion, in effect, tames extremes.
[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 ]
Nothing short of redesigning the combat mechanics from the ground up is going to fix the problems, and that simply isn't going to happen.
[/ QUOTE ]
That Other Game might encourage the NCNC team to consider expanding the mechanics, though. And expansion can be just as good as rewriting if its done correctly, because there's no law that says you have to use the old stuff after the new stuff is up and running in the long term. Think of it like building a set of extensions to your house that you then move into, and then proceed to tear down the parts of the original structure you don't need anymore. Its not as simple as building a new house from scratch, but it does have the advantage of always providing a place to sleep at night.
It also means we don't have to decide what we want to keep, and what we want to change, all at once today.
[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 ]
I don't think you wasted anyone's time, Pippy.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that either.
[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 ]
Whether Elusivity stacks linearly with each itself, or multiplicatively with itself, is a relatively small balance concern, because it will *always* stack multiplicatively with conventional defense. So there's always going to be an opportunity to design around those mechanics by proper use of both defense types.
[/ QUOTE ]
I post very infrequently, so I hope I won't get hammered just for being the "new guy". I have long respected the work Arcanaville has put in to understanding, explaining, and suggesting corrections to the game mechanics.
As for this thread, personally I agree with several points Pippy has made, but ultimately, as Arcana said, it comes down to what has any chance of being implemented.
So... with my disclaimer that I definitely like the look of the proposed solution, and I am not seeking to tear it apart with nitpicks:
Whereas Arcana stated that it is a minor balance issue how Elusivity self-stacks, I believe that it matters very much how the proposed Elusivity stacks with itself. If it stacks multiplicatively then all is peachy and stacking multiple sources will provide further benefit but at a self-limiting pace.
However, if it were set up to stack additively from multiple sources then it would risk creating a new "magic number" akin to 45% defense. Stacked additively, you have a multiplier term which can theoretically reach zero and that tends to devalue all other terms in the equation. Yes...you could create an artificial "floor" for the Anti-Accuracy term in the combat hit equation or declare that Power set designers need to consider stacked Elusivity as cautiously as stacked defense. But I believe that multiplicative combination of multiple Elusivity sources would solve all of those concerns before they were created.
In any case... thanks for updating and reposting this, Arcanaville. It is an awesome insight into the problem of all or nothing protection from Defense based sets. 
[ QUOTE ]
As for this thread, personally I agree with several points Pippy has made, but ultimately, as Arcana said, it comes down to what has any chance of being implemented
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep. This is pretty much what won me over in the end too.
Also, there is one thing to consider with multiplicative stacking that I am a little bit uncomfortable with: It works very well with keeping you away from the 45% "magic number" problem. It's a bit less successful when you apply it to the problem of debuffs.
Suppose that we did things my way and moved everything to (multiplicatively stacking) Elusivity. In such a scheme, you could make the first-order approximation that 1 point of defense is equivalent to 2 points of Elusivity. (You shouldn't do this while balancing; I'm just using this for my example since it works in this case and the math's easy.) In that case, the -7.5% def debuffs from, say BS or katana becomes -15% Elusivity.
In the absence of other defense or elusivity, a single debuff will result in a 15% proportional increase in your chance to be hit: if you're fighting even minions, instead of a 50% chance, it would be 1.15*50%=50%+7.5%=57.5%
Now suppose you've got four of them stacked on you. For defense debuffs, that's going to give your enemies a 60% increase in their chance to hit; if it's elusivity, the bonus is 1.15^4-1=75%. For even con minions, it's the difference between being hit 80% of the time and 87% of the time: not a huge difference in this case, but once you start looking at the potential interactions with defense, elusivity, and the respective debuffs you could potentially have in each, etc.
It's not a show-stopper by any means, but it's definitely something that would need to be considered quite carefully.
[ QUOTE ]
Whereas Arcana stated that it is a minor balance issue how Elusivity self-stacks, I believe that it matters very much how the proposed Elusivity stacks with itself.
[/ QUOTE ]
Its explained in the OP, but I'll elaborate on this point in more detail.
The reason why its less important how Elusivity/AA stacks with itself is because it very rarely *will* be stacking with itself, in my proposal. In my proposal, the two types of defense ("normal" and E/AA) aren't going to be given out randomly. They have distinct conceptual meanings. E/AA is designed to be resistant to tohit buffs, and have more stable performance in the presence of tohit buffs, similar to resistance buffs. The powers I *specifically* want to be E/AA are intrinsic powerset defense powers that buff the caster. Thus, SR defenses, EA defenses, granite armor defenses - these things are definitely candidates for E/AA-style defense.
However, external buffing powers, and optional power pool defenses, are *not* intended to be proof against tohit buffs. Those powers are intended to follow the model of "move/countermove" and those kinds of defensive powers are intended to be directly offset by tohit buffs. This allows insights to offset lucks, tohit buffs to offset defense buffs (in PvP and PvE).
If you buy into my way of partitioning defense powers, then the only time you'll have Elusivity stacking with Elusivity is in the specific case that a particular powerset has two or more self-defensive powers that stack with each other. And in a single powerset, you can always "work the numbers out" to come out to the right value in the end, regardless of how they stack up.
External buffs will still be conventional defense, and still "suffer" the same problems as now, but that's a much less problematic situation, because buffs aren't balanced around the *ally* having a particular permanent level of protection. *Self* protection sets are.
So for example, SR would have a certain amount of E/AA in its toggles and passives, and the amount will be such that whether E/AA stacks additively or multiplicatively, the numbers work out in the end. If SR takes a power pool defense, that's guaranteed to be conventional defense, which means its protection would *always* stack multiplicatively with whatever net total E/AA defense SR has, so power pools cannot "overstack" with SR.
The tricky situation is FF, because dispersion bubble buffs self *and* allies. But there, it works out fine if DB is E/AA, and bubbles are conventional defense (and I mention that situation in the OP), because once again, its not difficult to design those three powers in just the right way.
If you were going to convert *everything* into E/AA, you'd basically have to make all E/AA defense factors stack multiplicatively. But in the specific suggestion I lay out in the OP, that's less important. Nice to have, but not a must have.
[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.)
I've supported this idea for as long as I've known of it and everything I would say about it has already been said, except for one thing. I can no longer keep quiet about it.
Instead of Defense and Anti-Accuracy/Elusivity, name them Defense and Defence.
Aw yeah.
's doesn't make things plural.
[ QUOTE ]
Instead of Defense and Anti-Accuracy/Elusivity, name them Defense and Defence.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which of course will be shortened in powers descriptions to +Def and +def.
[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.)
... thus complying with the precedent for cryptic power descriptions!
's doesn't make things plural.
Well it took me a while to actually take time to read this, i sort of gazed many times, nodded, thought it was a great idea, and kept off walking but now i actually have something to say about this, not about the mechanic itself but about how I would use the tool if it was in my power.
First:
I would implement caps just like with resistance. If a scrapper is not allowed to have 90% resistance i think he also should not have 90% elusiveity, so scrappers would be capped at 75% elusiveity/antiaccuracy (defense itself can always take you beyond that.)
Same for all other ATs, basically only tankers and brutes would be able to get 90% anti accuracy.
Second: SR/Ninjitsu
I would make Ninjitsu and Super Reflexes both have their toggles provide "Elusivity" and passives provide Defense. This would allow for passives to be boosted to a point of true significance so independently they are strong, while they would not be that powerful once stacked on top of the toggles because they would not stack directly.
Defensive Tier 9s:
These would grant pure defense, no Elusivity/Anti-Accuracy.
Third: Force Fields
Similarly, I think i would make Dispersion Bubble Elusivity and not defense.
[ QUOTE ]
So basically, this proposal would decrease the efficiency of To Hit Buffs? ( I am not very great at maths )
If To Hit Buffs really get lowered i am concerned that i will have a very very hard time when fighting enemies that heavily use To Hit Debuffs. Nerva Spectral Demons and stuff like that are a real pita once you are debuffed. The only char i have who seem to hit them reliably is my SS tanker with Rage on.
I find it really irritating that my scrapper attacks that are slotted with 3 Acc SOs simply cannot overcome To Hit Debuffs while my tanker is nailing them just fine with only Rage and 21% global IO accuracy running.
If To Hit Buffs are to get nerfed then i strongly suggest that To Hit Debuffs potency also be looked at.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll take a stab at it C-F, since none of the folks who ACTUALLY understand this stuff responded. 
The proposal does nothing to change the efficiency of to-hit buffs. It would have no effect on how to hit debuffs work on your character. It introduces a new mechanic: 'anti-accuracy' which, if provided in a power, would affect the degree to which to-hit buffs increase the chance of hitting a critter or player using that power.
I don't know if the spectrals have any inherent defense other than their incredibly annoying to-hit debuffs, but unless they were given anti-accuracy powers in addition to whatever they have now, your fights with them would be unchanged.
There would be no requirement that any critters defenses change if this suggestion were implemented, as conventional defense (what we have now) would still exist, and still be coded into everything that it's coded into now. It would take a intentional adjustment for any creature to be given access to anti-accuracy. Presumably, if done at all, this would only be done for a particular thematic or challenge purpose to a limited number of critters. I could, for example, see EBs get anti-accuracy instead of traditional defense from their powers (or be given anti-accuracy powers from the player sets) to increase the difficulty when facing them. I could see it, I could hardly predict it.
Did that make sense? And if so, was it in any way correct?
Forgive me if this was already asked, but would Def and Anti-Accuracy need separate enhancements? I suppose the Def enhancements could just be changed to buff Def in addition to the appropriate amount of Anti-Accuracy.
Also, could I propose the name Accufense? Or maybe Defensitron? The latter may have a bit more appeal....
[ QUOTE ]
I've supported this idea for as long as I've known of it and everything I would say about it has already been said, except for one thing. I can no longer keep quiet about it.
Instead of Defense and Anti-Accuracy/Elusivity, name them Defense and Defence.
Aw yeah.
[/ QUOTE ]
Heck, instead of either Anti-accuracy or Elusivity we could go with De-accuracy. Works with De-fense. Put de lime in de coconut and drink de bowl up, put de lime in de coconut and call me in de morning. 
Oh, and to Arcanaville's:
[ QUOTE ]
If I was designing the game system from scratch, I might have considered making positional and damage-oriented defense multiplicatively stack with each other (basically, both get to be used separately against all attacks). I could then invent something called the "precision buff" that would act like tohit buffs, and counter positional defense, say, and something else called "penetrator buffs: that would act like tohit buffs, but counter damage-oriented defenses instead. They would be the accuracy-based versions of the concept of "armor-piercing" except one of them would represent the intrinsic ability to compensate for a moving target, and the other would represent the intrinsic ability to negate physical deflection-based protections.
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting thing about this is that many superhero RPG game mechanics work just that way.
A guide to the deranged, degraded inhabitants of the forums.
If i was to make a game from scratch there would be no missing at all. "Defense" or superreflexibility or whatever would be based not around avoiding being hit but avoiding taking full damage randomly, in other words: in my game defense/avoidance would be a random resistance mechanic that could be countered by higher accuracy.
This random resistance would, in theory, be able to take things to zero damage in occasions, yielding the feeling of "now THAT missed me!!"
The possibilities of taking full damage or no damage at all would be there, both would be more or less common depending on your avoidance, but nor would there be a "never get hit" build in my game.
It would be SO nice if Defense worked similarly to this in PvP
[ QUOTE ]
Forgive me if this was already asked, but would Def and Anti-Accuracy need separate enhancements?
[/ QUOTE ]
I would assume that if this type of mechanic was ever added to the game, defense enhancements would be designed to boost both, much like +Heal enhancements currently boost +health, +heal, and +regeneration powers. None of those are connected to each other in the game, but because they are conceptually related, a single enhancement boosts all of them.
Its worth noting that Defense enhancements are already "composite" enhancements. They are specifically coded to boost BaseDefense, Smashing_Defense, Lethal_Defense, Fire_Defense ... you get the idea. Adding Elusivity/AntiAccuracy boosting ability would not be an especially weird feature to add to Defense enhancements.
[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 ]
If there is ever the case that there is more than one Accuracy modifier (not even sure if it would ever happen, but if there were to be more than one Accuracy modifier) then it would stack multiplicatively.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe so, and that's basically what Arcanaville is talking about adding, but the fact remains that as it now stands, every single attribute that can stack with itself does so additively.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, you're not understanding.
Even without the proposed Elusivity, if there is ever a case where a player/power has multiple *Accuracy* (not Anti-Accuracy) modifiers, then they would stack multiplicatively. That's the way it is *right now*.
[ QUOTE ]
As I've said, I think that additive stacking is mechanically poor, and is conducive to poor design, but that's where we are right now, and I wouldn't make any assumptions about the feasibility of changing it.
[ QUOTE ]
The current Chance to Hit mechanic already relies on human developers to manually balance each power. After adding Elusiveness, then the Chance to Hit mechanic will still rely on human developers to manually balance each power, only now, they'll have on more tool to tweak, one that is not as heavy-handed as additive Defense bonuses.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll discuss this more later, but my complaint isn't with the need for human input into balancing. It's that I don't think that giving them more tools to tweak is a good thing: ToHit is too complicated already. Rather, they should have different tools. Simpler tools. Tools that are less likely to cause things to break.
My point here was simply that a good set of game mechanics is one in which the game designers can do whatever they want (within reason, obviously) without causing pernicious behavior -- i.e., it should be robust. The current system -- and, I would argue, any system which includes additive stacking -- is just the opposite: there's a fairly narrow set of parameters which don't cause bad behavior.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hunh?
I think you keep saying 'additive' when you mean 'multiplicative.' Because you are arguing against multiplicative stacking... right?
Anyway, your point about the need for the formula to be simple and elegant just simply doesn't hold water. Simple mechanics doesn't necessarily lead to balanced or deep or fun mechanics. In fact, I'm sure you can think of mechanics that are extremely simplified and then imagine just how inadequate that would be to combat mechanics. Perhaps that's suited for Toon Town, not CoH.
If you want to make that point that simpler is better, then, you've made the point. No need to keep hammering away at a tweak to a mechanic you think is already broken for being already too complex. Start your own thread in forum suggestions asking the Devs to simplify their already-too-complex Chance to Hit formula; or, start your own thread in Players Guide with your fix to defense: "My Simple Chance to Hit Formula Fix." Don't blame Arcanaville for the current complexity or for wanting to add in an obviously (once it's pointed out) missing part of that complex equation. If the complex equation is going to stay, her suggestion makes complete sense. If you don't like the complexity of the equation, take your beef to the Devs.
Speeding Through New DA Repeatables || Spreadsheet o' Enhancements || Zombie Skins: better skins for these forums || Guide to Guides