My eyes are opened!
By
Arcanaville,
Posted on: 2009-05-17 17:19 in Archetypes and Powers General Discussion
[ QUOTE ]
(QR)
So tanker attacks should cost less because they do less damage than scrappers.
Yet, nobody is arguing scrapper shields should cost less because they give less protection than tankers.
Tanker bias, anyone ?
[/ QUOTE ]
Uhh... That's been the basis of my entire argument, Nihili.
I have a Spines/Invul scrapper and a friend of mine has a Claws/Regen. Before IOs were introduced into the game, we raced each other clearing a level 50 Family map. He went up one side, I went up the other. Then, when we finished, we reset and traded sides and raced again. Spawns were level 52. To pad up the number of foes, we had 6 teammates, but they remained at the door (not because they were PLing, but because it was a race between the claws and my spines)
Although his Claws scrapper can kill a boss a little faster then my Spines can. I cleared whole groups of foes nearly twice as fast. I would clear up my side and round the top and start clearing down his side meeting up with him as he was about 2 thirds up on his side.
Spine's AoEs and Cones simply make it tons better at dealing with large numbers of foes then Claws. While Claws can kill a boss a faster.
I'm not sure how you would work that into your balance suggestion.
"The one thing that can stop a full team of MasterMinds dead in its tracks... a doorway!" --Frogfather
/JRanger to your ideas and your baddly made "calculations"
Please stop trying to break the game with your "ameliorations".
"It's a scrapper. If he can't handle it, no one can." -BrandX
... What calculations? As for the rest, I'll think and say what I please. No one is making you read it.
Actually, if Scrappers get less benefit from defenses, I would agree that they should use less endurance from the shields. For example, Temporary Invulnerability is available to both Tankers and Scrappers. If it's going to cost the same endurance for both, they should both get the same benefit. Since that's evidently not how they want it to work, and scrapper invulnerability is less effective, they should pay less endurance.
An interesting post, Neo, and definitely something to consider in the long run...
[ QUOTE ]
... What calculations? As for the rest, I'll think and say what I please. No one is making you read it.
Actually, if Scrappers get less benefit from defenses, I would agree that they should use less endurance from the shields. For example, Temporary Invulnerability is available to both Tankers and Scrappers. If it's going to cost the same endurance for both, they should both get the same benefit. Since that's evidently not how they want it to work, and scrapper invulnerability is less effective, they should pay less endurance.
An interesting post, Neo, and definitely something to consider in the long run...
[/ QUOTE ]
It would seem that the logical extension of your argument to Neo's point is that AoE attacks should, like all powers, have a fixed effect/cost ratio. Thus the cost should vary with the number of targets hit. It should be less than the end cost for a single target attack of the same damage/effect, at least for all targets after the first, to account for the inefficiency of spreading damage, in general.
[ QUOTE ]
(QR)
So tanker attacks should cost less because they do less damage than scrappers.
Yet, nobody is arguing scrapper shields should cost less because they give less protection than tankers.
Tanker bias, anyone ?
[/ QUOTE ]I can only think of one instance where they did do this. Back when unyielding had the penalty. Brutes and scrappers got the full penalty but it was later scaled down. Thinking about this now shouldnt brute granite have less of a penalty since it gives less protection than tanker granite?
Bump and Grind Bane/SoA
Kenja No Ishi Earth/Empathy Controller
Legendary Sannin Ninja/Pain Mastermind
Entoxicated Ninja/PSN Mastermind
Ninja Ryukenden Kat/WP Scrapper
Hellish Thoughts Fire/PSI Dominator
Thank You Devs for Merits!!!!
Also I wanted to say I just cant play claws. The whole no build up thing drove me batty on this and dual blades. Thats why I can play dual blades on stalkers. I cant play claws on stalkers because they have no aoe (shockwave doesnt count because its scatters).
Bump and Grind Bane/SoA
Kenja No Ishi Earth/Empathy Controller
Legendary Sannin Ninja/Pain Mastermind
Entoxicated Ninja/PSN Mastermind
Ninja Ryukenden Kat/WP Scrapper
Hellish Thoughts Fire/PSI Dominator
Thank You Devs for Merits!!!!
Ultimo said:
[ QUOTE ]
I'll think and say what I please. No one is making you read it.
[/ QUOTE ]
... new! improved!
[ QUOTE ]
*** You are ignoring this user ***
[/ QUOTE ]
Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.
So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.
Heh, but in doing that post you learned that quoting an ignored user lets you see what they wrote.... 
[ QUOTE ]
Lethal Damage = fail at higher levels, especially redside. My claws stalker sort of tapered off into uselessness in the 20s against Longbow.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have a claws stalker in the late 30's and I'm calling bs on this statement.
It's a common claim, but I disagree with it strongly on anything with at least a Tanker's damage output. Anything below that and it starts to feel pretty painful. One of the last things you want to be is a lethal/smashing dealer on Defender or Dominator (out of Domination). It's viable, but I don't enjoy it very much.
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 ]
It's a common claim, but I disagree with it strongly on anything with at least a Tanker's damage output. Anything below that and it starts to feel pretty painful. One of the last things you want to be is a lethal/smashing dealer on Defender or Dominator (out of Domination). It's viable, but I don't enjoy it very much.
[/ QUOTE ]
Whenever Castle gets his Dominator changes in, Dominators will have a very nice base scalar, meaning better DPE. The only ATs that will be at a disadvantage somehow are Tankers and Defenders, because they have lower scalars and no extra damage capability from their inherent.
Not that it matters, but who is Fulmens ignoring? Me or FireWyvern?
Anyhow, back to the topic. Area effects attacks would use more endurance, but the amount would be standardized. To use Champions as an example, Area Effect (Radius) was a +1 modifier, which doubled the base cost (in points and endurance cost) of a power. Using that as a model, if Power Bolts did 50 damage, and used 5% endurance, then an AOE power that had the same attributes as Power Bolts (in terms of range and so on), and did 50 damage in an area, would use 10% endurance.
I'm not saying these numbers are what should be used, it's just an example.
[ QUOTE ]
Not that it matters, but who is Fulmens ignoring? Me or FireWyvern?
[/ QUOTE ]
Considering he quoted you, and then the introduction to the next quote was "New! Improved!"... I'd say it's a fair bet YOU are the one he ignored. But, if nothing else, he is taking your "No one is making you read it." advice to heart and making sure he never has to read it again. 
Although, he may be ignoring FireWyvern too, but didn't seem to make a post dedicated to the fact (that I've seen). *shrug*
"My inner mind has become a reality-cracking overgod. He torments me! Help!"
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tanker bias, anyone ?
[/ QUOTE ]I can only think of one instance where they did do this. Back when unyielding had the penalty. Brutes and scrappers got the full penalty but it was later scaled down. Thinking about this now shouldnt brute granite have less of a penalty since it gives less protection than tanker granite?
[/ QUOTE ]
Since Brutes have a lower damage scale, the damage debuff from Granite has a lower impact on them than Tankers. When you count Fury, it's even smaller. (15 Fury completely negates the damage debuff.) They'll still be slower, but each hit will deal considerably more damage.
Ex:
Tanker Seismic Smash in Granite - 261.3 dmg [edit: 308.8 dmg out of Granite, ~15% drop [~47.5 dmg lost]]
Brute Seismic Smash in Granite - 452.8 dmg (70% Fury), [edit: 497.4 dmg out of Granite, ~8.97% drop [~44.6 dmg lost]]
Sorry for the ambiguity. I am not, in fact, ignoring FireWyvern.
Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.
So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.
Had a thought about this thread last night that I figured I should share. I haven't read the thread in its entirety so this may have been brought up.
Take a couch potato and a marathon runner. Have them both run 2 miles. If they weigh the same and run at the same speed, they will burn the same number of calories.
Only one of them will be puking at the end of it.
Same goes for the game.
A blaster is a blaster because he is more efficient at turning energy into damage than a defender is.
A scrapper is more efficient at turning energy into damage than a tank is.
A tank is more efficient at using his energy to mitigate damage than a scrapper is.
This is why we have AT modifiers.
This is why a blast should have the same base damage, the same base end cost and the same base recharge.
DM Smite:
1.32 damage
6.864 end
6 second recharge
I just double checked and those values are constant amongst brute, scrapper and tank.
This is as it should be.
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
A blaster is a blaster because he is more efficient at turning energy into damage than a defender is.
A scrapper is more efficient at turning energy into damage than a tank is.
A tank is more efficient at using his energy to mitigate damage than a scrapper is.
This is why we have AT modifiers.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not disagreeing with the above, but I want to point out that it's only one way of looking at this.
We could just as easily have a system where the characters are equally effortefficient at producing an effect, but bit equally time efficient.
As an example, imagine that a Blaster can put forth the energy to blast through a 1' concrete block, but a Defender can only get through 8" of it in one shot. In order to get through the whole foot of conrete, the Defender has to use two blasts, because he just can't summon as much power for one shot.
Relating it back closer to your race analogy, both racers can run two miles, but one guy has to run slower. Yes, your analogy for miles/calorie is much better at relating your example to endurance, but I'm saying we could instead fix max calorie/sec. The slower runner could be less efficient at burning calories and turning them into speed, but if he was more efficient, he'd be faster.
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
The analogy could just go so many different ways.
In my eyes, even if the second runner has to run slower than the guy who does it often, he'd still be burning more endurance over time because the first runner is trained to do it.
The first runner is A) Faster (killing speed) B) Better Conditioned (Endurance Cost). In that sense, a scrapper/blaster should be better overrall at killing enemies, not just faster.
@Mojo-
Proud Member of Fusion Force.
[ QUOTE ]
Had a thought about this thread last night that I figured I should share. I haven't read the thread in its entirety so this may have been brought up.
Take a couch potato and a marathon runner. Have them both run 2 miles. If they weigh the same and run at the same speed, they will burn the same number of calories.
Only one of them will be puking at the end of it.
Same goes for the game.
A blaster is a blaster because he is more efficient at turning energy into damage than a defender is.
A scrapper is more efficient at turning energy into damage than a tank is.
A tank is more efficient at using his energy to mitigate damage than a scrapper is.
This is why we have AT modifiers.
This is why a blast should have the same base damage, the same base end cost and the same base recharge.
DM Smite:
1.32 damage
6.864 end
6 second recharge
I just double checked and those values are constant amongst brute, scrapper and tank.
This is as it should be.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is a huge difference here, though, specially about tankers: they are no couch potatoes, they are meant to actually be able to fight longer by virtue of surviving for longer periods of time. This is the only virtue they have coming to them in solo play and it's meaningless due to not having the endurance to back it up.
Wanted to add: two days ago (yesterday was busy to post) I made a calculator that would tell me exactly how far endurance takes each AT.
BillZBubba's example is actually nice for this, yea im inclining now to it because it is convenient for my case, sue me.
Here is the thing: his example notes that both racers will finish the race consuming the same 2 mile trip consuming the same calories (humanity's endurance.) The key here is: they both finish without additional calories influx.
Here is my case: The tanker will not finish the race the scrapper starts, he wont have enough endurance.
Example:
<ul type="square">[*]Parameters: Stamina 3 slotted.[*]Damage Per second: .92 ds per second (not arbitrary, this is the average of all melee sets)[*]Toggle Use: .78 (the lowest consumption a set has other than Willpower)[/list]
With these parameters both ATs will run out of endurance in 32.47 seconds.
<ul type="square">[*]The scrapper will kill 2 bosses and chip away 30% of a third. [*]The tanker will kill one boss and chip away 54% of the second.[*]The scrapper will kill 1 EB and chip away 6% of a second.[*]The tanker will just chip away 71% of the EB's hp.[/list]
AT this point both ATs need more endurance influx, unlike the racer example, the tanker can't finish the race the scrapper can.
A fun thing about my calculator is how it shows ME wrong, the 40% endurance buff I noted indeed was too high. 25% is the proper amount. Rerunning the same example but this time with the tanker having 25 extra base endurance:
<ul type="square">[*]The scrapper will kill 2 bosses and chip away 32% of a third. [*]The tanker will kill 2 bosses and chip away 33% % of the second.[*]The scrapper will kill 1 EB and chip away 6% of a second.[*]The tanker will kill 1 EB and chip away 7% of a second.[/list]
How long does the tanker takes to do this, though? 50.84 seconds. The scrapper still gets it done at 32.47 seconds. That's 57% slower. With THIS amount, both racers end the race. The tanker though, went so slowly he does not get to puke at the end of the fight.
This is not accounting how Build Up is much stronger for the scrapper and will provide one huge advantage to kill faster and be more endurance efficient. If the race included this (the equivalent of sprinting to gain advantage) the scrapper may finish a race that will become impossible for the tanker to finish, he will puke even without finishing (toggles crash, mob stuns/hold/whatever, tanker dead)
Final note: Higher end heavy secondaries, even if available for both ATs, are worse for the tanker because he fights longer.
... how about if the scrapper needs to run Tough to survive, while the Tanker can survive with just his unmodified defenses?
The problem with simple models is making sure you ignore the right things.
Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.
So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.
A: Most tankers actually take Tough and run it all the time, if I was to add the end cost to one i'd add it to both.
B: Most scrappers kill so fast they don't need it to survive.
C: Lets no go into side builds because IOs bring for free levels of defense that Tough can never match, for no endurance cost.
D: I humored you:
With tough running ONLY on the scrapper:
The Scrapper kills 2.1 bosses in 29.33 seconds (the new time to drain his end)
The tanker kills 1.54 bosses in 32.47 seconds (the time to drain his end)
The Scrapper takes the EB down to 96% of his HP, no kill.
The tanker takes the EB down to 71% of his HP, no kill.
Actually just realized something.... i averaged scrapper damage low, i'm dealing with bosses and EBs and still using a lower average of 2 minnions 1lt to calculate the benefit of criticals.
Fixing that error takes the EB to 99% to for the scrapper, using BU even once during the fight will make him finish without needing a single end redux enhancement or blue insp. The tanker, he still drains his blue with an EB that is still at 30% hp.
I formed my argument poorly.
Given that there are a tremendous number of possible differences (I have been known to solo tanks with only one or two of the four or five toggles running) and given that it's difficult to say what any given tank or scrapper loadout requires, in Endurance, to survive, how does one guarantee that one's model is correct?
(For example, it's near-impossible to get any significant amount of Defense from IO's without getting considerable EndRed as well. Look at what 6-slotting Touch of Death or Mako's gets you, for instance...)
Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.
So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.
(QR)
So tanker attacks should cost less because they do less damage than scrappers.
Yet, nobody is arguing scrapper shields should cost less because they give less protection than tankers.
Tanker bias, anyone ?