Note: someone spotted a bug with the Diminishing Returns calculations for Resistances, which I've fixed (the link is still the same), and I also accidentally moved the survival chart (the table from the far right) to a funny place: its now relocated to the top right of the spreadsheet.
Also, for those that want the simpler version, I've uploaded the older v5 of the spreadsheet (which predates Shields, Diminishing Returns, and all my wild restructuring) as:
http://www.peregate.com/arcanaville/files/a4a-v5.zip
Also, I forgot to mention that the updated spreadsheet has I13 versions of Invuln and Energy Aura, on top of the new Shields powerset.
Hopefully, not too many other glitches in there.
Edit: well, not totally clean yet: another off-by-one error for the psionic defense row. Corrected version uploaded
[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.)
All hail the Queen O' Maths!
Thanks!
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.
It may or may not be worth noting the new level factor pulldown breaks Open Office. (It changes D3, D4, and all the damage cells E193->AV243) to a red #N/A. I don't think OO likes the +X notation. If I change cells S269 to S276 from +X to just X, it works just fine.
Haven't got the time to fiddle with it too much, but it looks nice so far.
[ QUOTE ]
It may or may not be worth noting the new level factor pulldown breaks Open Office. (It changes D3, D4, and all the damage cells E193->AV243) to a red #N/A. I don't think OO likes the +X notation. If I change cells S269 to S276 from +X to just X, it works just fine.
Haven't got the time to fiddle with it too much, but it looks nice so far.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm, I'll try to see if I can figure out what's going on there. I should really test it under OO, but I hadn't gotten to that yet. Just a note that a couple more minor glitches were discovered last night, and I uploaded an updated version about eight hours ago or so.
Also, someone asked me to put the chart back that graphed the survival of the different archetypes. Problem is, I don't recall actually making such a chart. I might have played with one and uploaded it a while ago but none of my saved versions has that chart. If anyone else actually has a version with a chart, let me know. In any case, the next uploaded version will probably have a chart of some kind either way, since its a nice idea and doesn't cost a lot in complexity (I'll put it on a different worksheet), but I'm wondering how I could have forgotten something like that in the first place.
[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.)
Two problems with Shield:
1) You updated True Grit's MaxHP buff (7.5% -> 10%) for base Shield, but you didn't also increase that to 10% for the OwtS category. Speaking of which...
2) You didn't include OwtS's enhanceable 20% +MaxHP.
Misc Problem:
*) You haven't updated Stalker's base hp. It is no longer ~1017, now it's 1204.8.
Inquiry:
*) Right now, when the scalars are set to Stalkers, it adds Hide to VEATs and Kheldians. Intended, or oversight?
[ QUOTE ]
Two problems with Shield:
1) You updated True Grit's MaxHP buff (7.5% -> 10%) for base Shield, but you didn't also increase that to 10% for the OwtS category. Speaking of which...
2) You didn't include OwtS's enhanceable 20% +MaxHP.
Misc Problem:
*) You haven't updated Stalker's base hp. It is no longer ~1017, now it's 1204.8.
Inquiry:
*) Right now, when the scalars are set to Stalkers, it adds Hide to VEATs and Kheldians. Intended, or oversight?
[/ QUOTE ]
Fixed the two shield issues and the stalker health cap.
Hide is iffy, since the original intent of the sheet was to show what would happen if you ported a powerset to a different archetype (its originally a proliferation analyzer, not just a comparison tool). I'll think about that one, although it is trivial for anyone to knock Hide out of the Kheldian and VEAT columns if they think that's invalid.
Corrected version uploaded to the same link (the file is still called a4a-latest.zip, although the actual spreadsheet in the zip file usually has a different name as I make changes, in this case, its I13b5).
[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 ]
Hide is iffy, since the original intent of the sheet was to show what would happen if you ported a powerset to a different archetype (its originally a proliferation analyzer, not just a comparison tool). I'll think about that one, although it is trivial for anyone to knock Hide out of the Kheldian and VEAT columns if they think that's invalid.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I figured as much. The only reason I point it out is I don't really think any of the EAT sets are proliferable (sp?). I mean, how would you proliferate a White Dwarf? Besides, if you really wanted to compare the sets for proliferation, wouldn't you set the other values (def/res/hp/etc) to scale with the selected AT as well? Right now those are completely static. The only thing that changes is Hide's defense bonus.
I always looked at them as a "special case" for the purposes of the spreadsheet.
[ QUOTE ]
Damage Mitigation Spreadsheet
[/ QUOTE ]
But, but, but, where's the mitigation for Knockback listed??? 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Damage Mitigation Spreadsheet
[/ QUOTE ]
But, but, but, where's the mitigation for Knockback listed???
[/ QUOTE ]
When I figure out how to add fear, stun, and endurance drain into a mitigation spreadsheet in a relatively non-arbitrary way, knockback will be next on my list.
[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.)
Great Spread yummy stuffs Thank You Arcanaville .
Shields is looking good for PvE. Inv seems to have gotten better.... but what is wrong with WP and Dark Armor? why are they leaps and bounds ahead of the other sets?
So what's the skinny? How good is Invulnerability and Shields compared to everything else?
The best comics are still 10�!
My City of Heroes Blog Freedom Feature Article: "Going Rageless?"
If you only read one guide this year, make it this one.
Super Reflexes: the Golden Fox of power sets!
WARNING: I bold names.
[ QUOTE ]
Great Spread yummy stuffs Thank You Arcanaville .
Shields is looking good for PvE. Inv seems to have gotten better.... but what is wrong with WP and Dark Armor? why are they leaps and bounds ahead of the other sets?
[/ QUOTE ]
Dark Regen and High Pain Threshold would be my guess.
[ QUOTE ]
Great Spread yummy stuffs Thank You Arcanaville .
Shields is looking good for PvE. Inv seems to have gotten better.... but what is wrong with WP and Dark Armor? why are they leaps and bounds ahead of the other sets?
[/ QUOTE ]
Dark Armor's limit has always been that you're apt to run out of END and not be able to use Dark Regeneration - which is what makes the set look so good in the spreadsheet (despite the absence of active mitigation from OG and CoF). DA running at full power uses about 4 times as much END as Inv (unenhanced END use is 3.09 E/s vs. Inv's 0.76 E/s).
I'd guess WP stands out because Castle and crew haven't decided what form the nerfs should take. "Don't think of anything [...] clear your minds."
Kosmos
Global: @Calorie
MA Arcs in 4-star purgatory: Four in a Row (#2198) - Hostile Takeover (#69714) - Red Harvest (#268305)
Something else to keep in mind... look at the slotting for Dark Regen (cells U145 and U149). It's assuming 2 heal SOs and 2 rech SOs. That leaves 2 slots for acc and end reduc - which is very light on both. I think a more standard slotting for Dark Regen would be 2 acc/end/rech, dropping the heal enhancement entirely... at least until IOs.
Also, don't forget to change the level factor for WP. WP is stronger against even cons than up level foes because the purple patch starts to diminish RttC's tohit debuff. (Which, I might add, Arcana's spreadsheet assumes is fully slotted for tohit debuff. I don't think I've ever seen a build with RttC's regen and tohit debuff at the ED softcap.)
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I've ever seen a build with RttC's regen and tohit debuff at the ED softcap.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm at 49.3% for ToHit debuff.
I might get a little bit closer after a respec, but I'm not sure if I'll ever reach 56%...
I need a larger monitor...
Kheldian Nova forms are missing the 15% Resistance to Energy/Negative.
[ QUOTE ]
It may or may not be worth noting the new level factor pulldown breaks Open Office.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sitting with a somewhat old version of OO at the moment (2.0.2), so I'm not sure if this is an issue with newer versions. But...
For the cells with options (<power> On/Off, #target select), the actual selection button shows up in the cell to the right of the cell you are choosing an option for.
For Health/Tough On/Off and Shield Allies #targets, this means that the selection button shows up in Column E.
However, Column E is also the first column with powerset info (Shields), so when I scroll right to look at other powersets, I can no longer get the selection buttons for Health/Tough On/Off and Shield Allies #targets. So, in order to change those options, I need to first scroll to the far left.
It's a bit annoying when you're looking at a powerset further to the right.
Do you also get this behavior on your version of OO?
I'm currently at work, so no access to OO. The version of Excel installed (11.8211.8202 SP3) has the same problem, though. You can get around it by manually typing a value in.
I'll check OO when I get home, but I don't remember it being an issue.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm currently at work, so no access to OO. The version of Excel installed (11.8211.8202 SP3) has the same problem, though. You can get around it by manually typing a value in.
I'll check OO when I get home, but I don't remember it being an issue.
[/ QUOTE ]
It happens on my version of OO (latest), as well as Excel 2003. It's kind of bothersome, when I'm scrolled all the way to the right to look at the survivability table.
Global @Diellan - 5M2M
Mids' Hero/Villain Designer Lead
Virtue Server
Redside: Lorenzo Mondavi
Blueside: Alex Rabinovich
Got a Mids suggestion? Want to report a Mids bug?
[ QUOTE ]
Something else to keep in mind... look at the slotting for Dark Regen (cells U145 and U149). It's assuming 2 heal SOs and 2 rech SOs. That leaves 2 slots for acc and end reduc - which is very light on both. I think a more standard slotting for Dark Regen would be 2 acc/end/rech, dropping the heal enhancement entirely... at least until IOs.
Also, don't forget to change the level factor for WP. WP is stronger against even cons than up level foes because the purple patch starts to diminish RttC's tohit debuff. (Which, I might add, Arcana's spreadsheet assumes is fully slotted for tohit debuff. I don't think I've ever seen a build with RttC's regen and tohit debuff at the ED softcap.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Some values are admittedly judgement calls. In many cases, I simply applied what I considered the highest credible (non-invention) slotting values. Since even common IOs can push the slotting (even with generous endurance reduction) higher than those values, I thought it wasn't too extravagant. And one concession to complexity here is that all assumptions revolve around level 50 comparisons, where things like slot count and power availability aren't issues. Its definitely not a completely fair way to compare powersets anywhere lower than that. So its more of a mitigation potential comparison than a direct mitigation comparison.
I didn't put a lot of thought into what value to slot RTTC tohit debuff with, to be honest.
Of course, the reason its a spreadsheet and not just a table of numbers is because I'm assuming that most of the people interested in such a thing would not hesitate to modify the numbers to reflect their own analysis assumptions.
[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 need a larger monitor...
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, even on my 24" monitor, its a bit ridiculous.
[ QUOTE ]
Kheldian Nova forms are missing the 15% Resistance to Energy/Negative.
[/ QUOTE ]
Will fix this and upload new version when I get a chance (probably late this evening).
[ QUOTE ]
For the cells with options (<power> On/Off, #target select), the actual selection button shows up in the cell to the right of the cell you are choosing an option for.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that was a problem in the original spreadsheet, and I put a buffer column into the sheet to prevent that from being a problem. Then I reintroduced the problem when I compacted the options selectors into multiple columns. What I think I'm going to do is move the "sandbox" column to column E, and then move the window pane lock to column E, so left-right scrolling will keep the sandbox at the left, and with it guarantee that the pulldowns whose controls are visible in that column (in this case, Health, Tough, and Shield Allies) are always visible. Its the quickest hack that I think will have the lowest probability of disrupting anything.
[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 ]
Great Spread yummy stuffs Thank You Arcanaville .
Shields is looking good for PvE. Inv seems to have gotten better.... but what is wrong with WP and Dark Armor? why are they leaps and bounds ahead of the other sets?
[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't wonder why Ice was twice as effective as everyone else at the 30 second point 
.
The Spreadsheet makes a number of assumptions (which it has to) which may or may not reflect the situation in-game. If you set the number of foes in range X, those enemies are there for the entire period rather than dropping one by one or standing at-range.
It also doesn't take into account items no one has come up with a good way to simulate. What effect do damage auras like Blazing Aura have? End Drain effects in Electric Armor? Mezz effects in Dark Armor?
So caveat calculator, er something .
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the cells with options (<power> On/Off, #target select), the actual selection button shows up in the cell to the right of the cell you are choosing an option for.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that was a problem in the original spreadsheet, and I put a buffer column into the sheet to prevent that from being a problem. Then I reintroduced the problem when I compacted the options selectors into multiple columns. What I think I'm going to do is move the "sandbox" column to column E, and then move the window pane lock to column E, so left-right scrolling will keep the sandbox at the left, and with it guarantee that the pulldowns whose controls are visible in that column (in this case, Health, Tough, and Shield Allies) are always visible. Its the quickest hack that I think will have the lowest probability of disrupting anything.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like a good solution.
Having the sandbox there would be nice even if it didn't fix something else.
Just noticed...
The summary table shows the values for nonpositional Psi, not the relative composite values.
The latest version of my "Every melee mitigation set for every melee archetytpe" spreadsheet is now uploaded to the peregate ftp site (thanks again for the hosting there) and available for download with the following link:
http://www.peregate.com/arcanaville/...a4a-latest.zip
I will try to use this guide thread to post updates and such to the spreadsheet, but first a couple of warnings:
1. Real Life (tm) has intruded quite a bit for me recently, and I'm unable to spend as much time as I would like analyzing CoH numbers (lots of end of year crunch things, many of them requiring travel). So I've been stalled trying to update the spreadsheet as much as I would like to. As a result, it might have typos or other spreadsheet errors, although I've tried to ensure it doesn't have too many really bone-headed goofs. However, I would appreciate it if anyone that finds a problem lets me know, so I can correct the spreadsheet for a future version.
2. I was trying to see how much stuff I could jam into it. I think this is the limit before it implodes into a black hole or starts to call Cenobites. If its too complex for some, I apologize for that. I'm currently thinking of a way to present the information and all of its options better. Better might not be Excel any more. But if you think I went overboard, you're probably right.
3. I've restructured the spreadsheet so that things like computational and lookup tables are at the bottom, not the top anymore. When there were just a few, it made sense for them to be at the top, where it was easy to tweak the numbers. Now, there's just too many: you're *only* looking at tables and not actual powersets if they stay on the top.
4. Reminder: spreadsheet might not work correctly if you open it read-only. It warns about that due to the way I created the spreadsheet, but you probably want to open it read-write so you can play with it.
And now, some info on the new features:
1. I've added Shields. I *think* the Shields numbers are correct, based on (relatively) recent forum discussions, but of course it seems everything about I13 is fluctuating quite a bit.
2. I've added support for diminshing returns in the spreadsheet. There's a pulldown that turns DR calculations off and on, for Strength, Cur, and Res attributes. I *think* that works correctly, and I *think* I have the latest DR parameters in the spreadsheet. But this required a lot of structure changes to the spreadsheet, and this is probably the area I have the highest chance of messing up somewhere.
3. There's also support for a "PvPmode" pulldown that at the moment, mostly turns on the PvP resistances per archetype. It does *NOT* specifically incorporate Elusivity calculations yet. I specifically and deliberately kept "PvPmode" and "Diminishing Returns" separate, even though at the moment DR only occurs in PvP. This is NOT because I have any knowledge of DR being ported to PvE: everything I know currently says that isn't going to happen for the foreseeable future. I did it mostly to allow myself to better see what DR was doing to the numbers separately from any other effect, just for my own benefit.
4. There are two ally pulldowns: one for Kheldians and one for Shields. The Kheldian one increases the number of team mates that buff Kheldian resistance, and the Shields one is mostly for its own ally-tapping power, and can be set separately.
5. There is an experimental "Defense Debuff" parameter, where you can see what happens when the archetypes are exposed to defense debuffs or a particular value. Instead of a pulldown, there is a fill in the blank for the global defense debuff value. Set to zero to turn off. Each archetype also has a value for defense debuff resistance, which is based on the *maximum* debuff resistance they could theoretically have. I consider this experimental for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the point that differing values for defense can *avoid* non-autohitting debuffs, which means this is an interesting data point, but not a directly fair across the board comparison. But it can help inform judgement.
6. There is a better implementation of the purple patch scaling, so it properly scales both player effects on foes downward, and foe attack effects on the player upward, with increasing level. There is still no rank scaler, sorry (meaning, powers that affect different ranks differently aren't supported yet: think warshades). Use the appropriate pulldown, and the two separate values will update themselves automatically (don't type numbers in there unless you have a specific reason to do 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.)