[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Over the years there have been threads advocating "change" to stone armor, and thankfully they've been ignored by the devs. Hopefully yours will gain no traction as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thankfully they listened to the "Poo Armor" threads.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here here.
[ QUOTE ]
(QR)
Here are issues I think exist with Stone:
Out of granite, the set performs at best at the same level as the baseline Fiery Armor build (no pools) only trading the Fire superiority for Psi superiority, Psi being less common type than Fire.
To do this, Stone requires 7 powers, 8 if you want the taunt aura. Each power uses a minimum of 3 slots, Earth Embrace uses 6. Thats 7 powers+24 slots.
Fiery Aura uses 4 powers to do so, and 3 slots them all for exception of Healing Flames, that it six slots. This is, mind you, if he wants to cover cold to it's max, if he neglects cold he uses 3 powers. I also can have the taunt aura.
So fire armor gets, tops, 4 powers and 15 slots to do the same mitigation as stone out of granite, plus it gets all those cool tools like endurance drain, Fiery Embrace, bonus damage aura and Burn.... OK ignore burn.
The point? Stone out of granite performance is sub par at best without any single bonuses and requires insane amount of effort to build without any true rewards. On the other hand, it suffers additional penalties that prevent it from running hover or combat jump for additional defense, plus a horrendous mobility penalty that includes the forced de-toggling of status protection to actually do any non-tp movement.
And then Granite.... Granite who's people complaints are not it's penalties but on the other hand how easy it is to get over most if not all the penalties without having to sacrifice survivability.
Whoever says that set has no issues in face of people noting them is the child trying to talk to adults, either that or he just has vested interests and is afraid of stone being reviewed as it would, as a minimum, mean measures set so that Granite's penalties can't be worked around.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem that I see with this argument isn't so much that the armor doesn't have issues. I think there are a few. I would like to see some of the penalties outside of granite reduced, specifically the run speed in rooted reduced at least by half. And despite the fact that you reduce me down to a child talking to an adult (and you wondered why people take offense at your suggestions....) I actually don't have that much of a problem with SOME of Granite's penalties being insurmountable...note that I say some.
Here's the issue. WP tankers can get pretty close to Stone survivability with NONE of the issues of a stoner. Invulns can too, even outside of their t9's, especially when it comes to smashing/lethal damage, with again, none of the penalties. With IO's. SO if these armors can get pretty close to a Granite tanker's survivability while having none of the issues a Granite tanker has (specifically mobility/recharge issues, the cosmetic ones are really neither here nor there) then the reverse should be at least a little bit true. A granite tanker shoudl be able to build to surmount some percentage of their issues.
In addition, the level of commitment to IO's that a granite tanker has to go to is somewhat....understated on these boards. It's not a trivial amount. I'm not saying it shouldn't be balanced, but I am saying that not every stoner goes around with 65%+ recharge 30%+ runspeed and 70%+ damage (and I'm pretty sure that last part's impossible). It's especially non-trivial to build from at least 1 - 49. At 50 you really have nothing better to do, but you're still spending 200 million + to get a build on the level of "eliminates all penalties".
Then there's the "A kin eliminates the penalties of a granite tanker". Boo freaking hoo. An FF defender/controller eliminates almost all survivability problems on a FA tanker. Does that mean that FA tankers are the tankers with the least problems and the most viability? Ha! People tend to forget about things when making that argument.
I'm willing to have it be "a little bit harder" in granite to surmount the issues, but I think anyone who argues that they should be completely insurmountable in the face of how awesome granite is is an child talking to an adult.
Yes, I have a vested interest in the status quo. I've put almost 2 years and probably over a billion influence into my stoner now with all the build changes and all the SO's and IO's and respecs and what not. But you have a vested interest in changing it because you don't enjoy the set. Because powers 1 - 8 aren't what you like to see in a set. I frankly reject that mode of thinking. The set is fairly balanced. It's just you don't particularly like the way it's balanced.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm so full of it and so blinded by the fact that I really do enjoy my character (even outside of granite) that I'm an idiot and an immature gamer.
Also, for the record, I'm not completely against granite's numbers being taken down somewhat. I wouldn't mind if it were something like 17% Def/40% resistance, as long as you lowered the penalties assocated with rooted and raised some of the other powers to make them more viable outside of granite. But the numbers on that would be very carefully tweaked.
"Be a beacon?"
Blue Mourning: lvl. 50 Katana/DA
Bree the Barricade: lvl 50 Stone/Axe
Last Chance for Eden: lvl 50 Fire/Kin
Myra the Grey: lvl 50 Bots/Traps
1 Minute to Midnight lvl 50 Spines/DA
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do I think they're necessary? No, not really, but I think it makes for a good discussion and may bring out better ideas from the community at large.
[/ QUOTE ]
I would like to again mention one of the first points I made when opening this topic thread. This is about having a conversation to see if an armor set that I do like very much, can be made better. Some believe it can be, others not so much. It's nice to read some of the different thoughts and ideas that folks have thrown out. Even to the level of detail that Starsman went to.
I appreciate the feedback, even if at times I feel like I need to clean off the bottom of my shoe. 
[/ QUOTE ]
Over the years there have been threads advocating "change" to stone armor, and thankfully they've been ignored by the devs. Hopefully yours will gain no traction as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ignored or just put aside until they have time to change stone armor? People thought the same about energy melee, until it came to for Castle to adjust it.
Dirges
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Technically the sky doesn't have a color.
And in other news, the world isn't flat either.
/popcorn
[/ QUOTE ]
Shame on you for throwing in logic! 
[/ QUOTE ]It's also incorrect.
The atmosphere when separated from the world around it, viewed without a context, may have no discernable colour, but that's not 'the sky.' The sky is the name we give for the thing that hangs over our head, classically blue in colour during the day time. Ancient Greeks didn't actually think the sky was blue - because, apparently, they didn't have a word for 'blue', and instead referred to things by function rather than descriptor (which sounds suspiciously odd to me since it Plato means 'broad', indicating that some places they overlapped). Instead they called the sky a 'brass'. In turn, this was because they felt the daytime sky provided a distorted reflection, such as a brass mirror provided. And all of this stuff, while quite interesting, completely fails to grasp the point I was trying to make and which seems to be more and more readily discarded in favour of chasing nonsense:
Provide proof in the form of numbers rather than trying to spearhead unsubstantiable vocal support.
[ QUOTE ]
Post Deleted by Moderator_08
[/ QUOTE ]Not at all. You grade what is said on its merits. I repeat myself because you demonstrate that you don't actually understand what's being said. However, in this case you're just trying to clamber up Mount Cleverest and act as if you've somehow defeated the idea that you need a better claim than 'lots of people want changes' if you want to persuade the developers of this game.
You don't know from demeaning. No, I repeat myself because I am trying to help. If you want to actual create change in this game, you need to have some better rationale, some better proof that the change is necessary than 'lots of people want it.' Look at Starsman and Acemace. They provided information. They sorted through numbers. They checked and they tested and they used math. Provide a real incentive for the developers, and don't try and lie behind the Johnny Butane defence, because it's as empty as it ever is when he uses it.
Ah, and because you used your attempted quip at the end, your logic bears up perfectly?
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is many of those people simply do not have the patience to try and speak over you. Make no mistake your the one spouting white noise.
[/ QUOTE ]Just because you don't understand things, nor want to understand things, does not make them noise. I offer the simple idea of making it so this thread can be productive, can offer information to the developers that will actually affect change, because just providing a forum thread of supposed-support and lots of 'this guy I know agrees with me' is going to do nothing to the developer's perspective. If they already think there's a problem with Stone Armour (and I can see no evidence to indicate they do), then a therad might fortuitously provide them with a useful tool to add to the game. On the other hand, if you want to convince the actual people who can effect change that there is a problem, you're going to need some of that pesky evidence thing. The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(QR)
Here are issues I think exist with Stone:
Out of granite, the set performs at best at the same level as the baseline Fiery Armor build (no pools) only trading the Fire superiority for Psi superiority, Psi being less common type than Fire.
To do this, Stone requires 7 powers, 8 if you want the taunt aura. Each power uses a minimum of 3 slots, Earth Embrace uses 6. Thats 7 powers+24 slots.
Fiery Aura uses 4 powers to do so, and 3 slots them all for exception of Healing Flames, that it six slots. This is, mind you, if he wants to cover cold to it's max, if he neglects cold he uses 3 powers. I also can have the taunt aura.
So fire armor gets, tops, 4 powers and 15 slots to do the same mitigation as stone out of granite, plus it gets all those cool tools like endurance drain, Fiery Embrace, bonus damage aura and Burn.... OK ignore burn.
The point? Stone out of granite performance is sub par at best without any single bonuses and requires insane amount of effort to build without any true rewards. On the other hand, it suffers additional penalties that prevent it from running hover or combat jump for additional defense, plus a horrendous mobility penalty that includes the forced de-toggling of status protection to actually do any non-tp movement.
And then Granite.... Granite who's people complaints are not it's penalties but on the other hand how easy it is to get over most if not all the penalties without having to sacrifice survivability.
Whoever says that set has no issues in face of people noting them is the child trying to talk to adults, either that or he just has vested interests and is afraid of stone being reviewed as it would, as a minimum, mean measures set so that Granite's penalties can't be worked around.
[/ QUOTE ]
The problem that I see with this argument isn't so much that the armor doesn't have issues. I think there are a few. I would like to see some of the penalties outside of granite reduced, specifically the run speed in rooted reduced at least by half. And despite the fact that you reduce me down to a child talking to an adult (and you wondered why people take offense at your suggestions....) I actually don't have that much of a problem with SOME of Granite's penalties being insurmountable...note that I say some.
Here's the issue. WP tankers can get pretty close to Stone survivability with NONE of the issues of a stoner. Invulns can too, even outside of their t9's, especially when it comes to smashing/lethal damage, with again, none of the penalties. With IO's. SO if these armors can get pretty close to a Granite tanker's survivability while having none of the issues a Granite tanker has (specifically mobility/recharge issues, the cosmetic ones are really neither here nor there) then the reverse should be at least a little bit true. A granite tanker shoudl be able to build to surmount some percentage of their issues.
In addition, the level of commitment to IO's that a granite tanker has to go to is somewhat....understated on these boards. It's not a trivial amount. I'm not saying it shouldn't be balanced, but I am saying that not every stoner goes around with 65%+ recharge 30%+ runspeed and 70%+ damage (and I'm pretty sure that last part's impossible). It's especially non-trivial to build from at least 1 - 49. At 50 you really have nothing better to do, but you're still spending 200 million + to get a build on the level of "eliminates all penalties".
Then there's the "A kin eliminates the penalties of a granite tanker". Boo freaking hoo. An FF defender/controller eliminates almost all survivability problems on a FA tanker. Does that mean that FA tankers are the tankers with the least problems and the most viability? Ha! People tend to forget about things when making that argument.
I'm willing to have it be "a little bit harder" in granite to surmount the issues, but I think anyone who argues that they should be completely insurmountable in the face of how awesome granite is is an child talking to an adult.
Yes, I have a vested interest in the status quo. I've put almost 2 years and probably over a billion influence into my stoner now with all the build changes and all the SO's and IO's and respecs and what not. But you have a vested interest in changing it because you don't enjoy the set. Because powers 1 - 8 aren't what you like to see in a set. I frankly reject that mode of thinking. The set is fairly balanced. It's just you don't particularly like the way it's balanced.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm so full of it and so blinded by the fact that I really do enjoy my character (even outside of granite) that I'm an idiot and an immature gamer.
Also, for the record, I'm not completely against granite's numbers being taken down somewhat. I wouldn't mind if it were something like 17% Def/40% resistance, as long as you lowered the penalties assocated with rooted and raised some of the other powers to make them more viable outside of granite. But the numbers on that would be very carefully tweaked.
[/ QUOTE ]
Normally I agree with most of what Starsman has to say because he does his research and formulas etc. I have to disagree with him on this now.
The comparison to fire armor and stone armor pre-granite is not valid. My stone armor without granite was more survivable than my fire armor tank. add tough and weave to both and the stone pulls easily further ahead. Stone does have to take more powers... but it is better.
I recall Castle saying he thought stone armor was balanced, I dont recall when...
The argument of stone armor not being balanced because of IO's is a week argument at best. If I lower the recharge by dropping 3 crushing impact sets from my stone tank and adding 3 sets of kinetic combat I can have 46% defense to S/L with rock armor and weave and not have to worry about the recharge penalty of granite.
I added 3 sets of kinetic combat to my invuln scrapper (and I have 4 sets of reactive armor and a couple of other small S/L bonuses) and I can get 40-46% S/L on it. (My spines/vuln completely out performs my fire/ice tank in survivability now)
Does this mean I think invuln scrapper is fine? No, without IO's I had to stop playing it because it felt like a blaster with mez protection.
IO's make my stone/fire run faster, decrease the -rech penalty, and make it where I dont have to have a pocket kin. And after I get the three spare sets of kinetic combat it will be even better. I am not in granite unless in large teams or versus AV's.
IO's also make my spines/vuln a beast. I want to play it in a large team and TF but have not had the time lately. I herd up to the aggro cap on +3's without an issue. When I get the chance I will do the scrapper challenge again and see how well it does.
IO's have helped my fire/ice... but it still needs support if it is the only tank on a large team on a hard difficulty. IO's have greatly improved my stone/fire. IO's have also made my ice/stone into an awesome tank. It was really really good before IO's were introduced. Heck... it was really good even before the defense fix
Adding tough/weave to a stone armor tank minimizes the reliance on granite. I add tough/weave to each of my tanks to help with mitigation.
And for the record... I do not have teleport on my stone/fire either. I went for the non-traditional build. Air Sup and fly... it works for me.
I do wish the graphics for granite could be modified... but I wish that fore fire, ice, and dark as well....
In short, I think stone armor is fairly balanced as is. I wish my fire/ice tank could be three-fourths as good in stead of half as good. My ice/stone is friggin awesome. I am still holding judgement on my shield/fire tank. My shield/fire scrapper is great so the tank should be as well...
YMMV---IMOIce Ember
[ QUOTE ]
Normally I agree with most of what Starsman has to say because he does his research and formulas etc. I have to disagree with him on this now.
The comparison to fire armor and stone armor pre-granite is not valid. My stone armor without granite was more survivable than my fire armor tank. add tough and weave to both and the stone pulls easily further ahead. Stone does have to take more powers... but it is better.
[/ QUOTE ]
When you account for Healing Flames, Fire Shield, Plasma Shield and Temp Protection, the effective regeneration rate and alpha absobtion levels of fire are as follow:
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>S 72.5% 2298.4%
L 72.5% 2298.4%
F 90.8% 6849.3%
C 36.6% 995.5%
E 50.9% 1287.5%
N 50.9% 1287.5%
T 36.6% 995.5%
P 07.8% 684.9%
</pre><hr />
While out of Earth Embrace, a stone tanker that runs every single power (but granite and earth embrace) is:
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>S 74.2% 1143.8%
L 74.2% 1143.8%
F 43.8% 524.5%
C 43.8% 524.5%
E 57.7% 697.7%
N 57.7% 697.7%
T 07.8% 320.0%
P 85.8% 2077.5%
</pre><hr />
While inside of Earth Embrace:
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>S 83.8% 2210.3%
L 83.8% 2210.3%
F 64.6% 1013.6%
C 64.6% 1013.6%
E 73.4% 1348.3%
N 73.4% 1348.3%
T 60.1% 898.7%
P 91.1% 4014.4%
</pre><hr />
Comparatively speaking, Stone stands by Fire Arura:
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
Alpha Tolerance Regeneration (sustainability)
0.02 0.16 (0.50) (0.04)
0.02 0.16 (0.50) (0.04)
(0.52) (0.29) (0.92) (0.85)
0.20 0.77 (0.47) 0.02
0.13 0.44 (0.46) 0.05
0.13 0.44 (0.46) 0.05
(0.79) 0.64 (0.68) (0.10)
10.00 10.68 2.03 4.86
</pre><hr />
Parenthesis numbers are where Fire is superior. Stone does have a minimal superiority in alpha abortion either in or out of Earth Embrace, but fire has a similar superiority on sustainability unless the stone is inside earth embrace, and this assumes that earth embrace is used to maximum potential by not being activated before a fight and only used to heal.
So optimally or not, both sets overall have similar performance with drastically different build requirements.
If you are curious, superior Alpha Tolerance means you are better at tanking, while superior sustainability means you are better at soloing. Off course, if the difference is minor it makes little difference.
I won't get into IOs at all while discussing base performance, though. Specially since I also have capped smash/lethal defense on my fire tanker.
The only post I have seen from Castle in respect of stone was actually about granite and how, at the moment, his only grudge with it was how easy it was to bypass the penalties, specially with IOs but not excusively through it.
As for a previous post, the damage debuff is -30, not -70. Assault alone can lower that to -19.5 and in normal play that translates to an actual 9.75% damage debuff if no rage, soul drain, blinding feint or build up spamming are used.
Sorry about the pacifier line, I couldn't help myself. It did give me a chuckle though.
In all reality, I think I do understand what you're trying to say. You think what is being discussed doesn't work, isn't feasible, and would ruin what you believe is a perfectly good set. Anybody who thinks there is an issue is off base and you're concerned that even talking about it could cause irreparable harm to Stone Armor if the dev's stopped to listen. Pretty much end of story unless I'm mistaken. Please, correct me if I'm wrong on that.
I think you fail to see that I'm not beating down the dev's doorstep. I'm not advocating that what I said was any sort of end all be all for Stone armor. I'm not saying I have "the answer" at all. Heck, I said that it probably wasn't even necessary. All I was interested in was a dialog. The reason behind what I started with was to get that dialog going. Nothing more. Nothing less. A philosophical discussion so to speak. I was just curious to hear what everyone had to say and see if there were issues that did require the same type of dedication and number crunching that Starsman and Acemace have done.
I will repeat myself here. The only thing that I would truly be interested in changing is strictly cosmetic. Allowing the Granite form to scale with the character size. That's it. That's all. But again, I'm interested in seeing if people think it's necessary or is it just some silly thing that I would like and no one else really cares about.
Throwing darts at the board to see if something sticks.....
Come show your resolve and fight my brute!
Tanks: Gauntlet, the streak breaker and you!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PapaSlade
Rangle's right....this is fun.
|
[ QUOTE ]
Acemace 
[/ QUOTE ]
Oops. Fixed. 
Throwing darts at the board to see if something sticks.....
Come show your resolve and fight my brute!
Tanks: Gauntlet, the streak breaker and you!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PapaSlade
Rangle's right....this is fun.
|
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry about the pacifier line, I couldn't help myself. It did give me a chuckle though.
In all reality, I think I do understand what you're trying to say. You think what is being discussed doesn't work, isn't feasible, and would ruin what you believe is a perfectly good set. Anybody who thinks there is an issue is off base and you're concerned that even talking about it could cause irreparable harm to Stone Armor if the dev's stopped to listen. Pretty much end of story unless I'm mistaken. Please, correct me if I'm wrong on that.
[/ QUOTE ]Massively wrong.
I think that the main reason I don't try Stone Armour is knowing that Granite is unrelated to the character I put in it. That's my reason for not giving the set more of a spin myself.
I also think that if there are real problems in the set, that need addressing and the attention of developers, that you need to approach the problem with something other than lots of people have said. That stance will not convince, that stance will not pull weight. You need to be more stringent in your arguments if you want them to be implemented.
I look at Stone armour, and it looks pretty balanced to me. I've not crunched the minute numbers, but I also think fire armour is fine and Burn works out alright - those are visceral feelings rather than hard proofs. I can't say to you that these sets are fine because then it's just my visceral feeling against your own visceral feeling. In essence, we'd be dealing with two meaningless uncomparable ideas. Instead, we need to find common ground, like numbers or actual play situations or the way the game works to understand one another.
That is why I take issue with 'lots of people have complaints.' Sure, lots of people do. Some people want a pony every time they log on.
[ QUOTE ]
I think you fail to see that I'm not beating down the dev's doorstep. I'm not advocating that what I said was any sort of end all be all for Stone armor. I'm not saying I have "the answer" at all. Heck, I said that it probably wasn't even necessary. All I was interested in was a dialog. The reason behind what I started with was to get that dialog going. Nothing more. Nothing less. A philosophical discussion so to speak. I was just curious to hear what everyone had to say and see if there were issues that did require the same type of dedication and number crunching that Starsman and Acemace have done.
[/ QUOTE ]
Throwing darts at the board to see if something sticks.....
Come show your resolve and fight my brute!
Tanks: Gauntlet, the streak breaker and you!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PapaSlade
Rangle's right....this is fun.
|
If you want your dialogue to have any impact beyond a bunch of guys in a forum yakking at one another to no actual avail, then don't try and support yourself with the words of people who aren't there and aren't speaking.
[ QUOTE ]
I think that the main reason I don't try Stone Armour is knowing that Granite is unrelated to the character I put in it. That's my reason for not giving the set more of a spin myself.
[/ QUOTE ]
Whoa, check me if I am wrong but did you not make a snarky comment about my providing feeback on a set that I pld. (you missed the part when I had said I had also tried in the past to play one up but gave up in the late 20's)
Before I go on I would also like to add that I played as normal from 38 to 50 on the stone armor brute, and I have two level 50 tanks and 3 other level 50 brute's as well. I think I have a fairly good working knowlege of the armor sets. *edit* also adding that the stone brute and my second kinetic are the ONLY toons I have ever pld. Ive done the content numerous times, it is not like I am an AE baby with no vet rewards and several 50's. I pld that brute because I wanted a stoner but didnt want to have to have a pocket kin to play through the low levels. The second kin character got pld because I was bored and made it to help another 50 some month friend level up.
Now you come out and say that you have not really given the set a try. You definately have me confused now.
If you were suggesting a change that might make the set more appealing to you I would understand your presence in this thread. However you seem to be very much against any changes to the set, a set that by your own admission you do not play.
So why are you even posting on the subject? If you do not play stone armor, and you do not want any changes, why are you here?
Your posting in this thread has contributed nothing to the discusion. It has only served to derail the thread and now you admit to this.
I think you have be back at confused, so never mind go about your mad post count bumping.
*readies fire extinguisher*
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that the main reason I don't try Stone Armour is knowing that Granite is unrelated to the character I put in it. That's my reason for not giving the set more of a spin myself.
[/ QUOTE ]
Whoa, check me if I am wrong but did you not make a snarky comment about my providing feeback on a set that I pld. (you missed the part when I had said I had also tried in the past to play one up but gave up in the late 20's)
Before I go on I would also like to add that I played as normal from 38 to 50 on the stone armor brute, and I have two level 50 tanks and 3 other level 50 brute's as well. I think I have a fairly good working knowlege of the armor sets. *edit* also adding that the stone brute and my second kinetic are the ONLY toons I have ever pld. Ive done the content numerous times, it is not like I am an AE baby with no vet rewards and several 50's. I pld that brute because I wanted a stoner but didnt want to have to have a pocket kin to play through the low levels. The second kin character got pld because I was bored and made it to help another 50 some month friend level up.
Now you come out and say that you have not really given the set a try. You definately have me confused now.
If you were suggesting a change that might make the set more appealing to you I would understand your presence in this thread. However you seem to be very much against any changes to the set, a set that by your own admission you do not play.
So why are you even posting on the subject? If you do not play stone armor, and you do not want any changes, why are you here?
Your posting in this thread has contributed nothing to the discusion. It has only served to derail the thread and now you admit to this.
I think you have be back at confused, so never mind go about your mad post count bumping.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I believe he said that if one wants a set to change, they must provide numerical evidence to support their claim. Not that he is against the change in and of itself. There is a difference.
"the reason there are so many sarcastic pvpers is we already had a better version of pvp taken away from us to appease bad players. Back then we chuckled at how bad players came here and whined. If we knew that was the actual voice devs would listen to instead of informed, educated players we probably would have been bigger dicks back then." -ConFlict
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I believe he said that if one wants a set to change, they must provide numerical evidence to support their claim. Not that he is against the change in and of itself. There is a difference.
[/ QUOTE ]
The thing that ignited all this was Talen_Lee's post saying:
[ QUOTE ]
I find myself direly amused by people who make Stone Armor characters, get them to a high level range, then decide they don't want what they knew they were getting into.
[/ QUOTE ]
And subsequently saying:
[ QUOTE ]
Post Deleted by Moderator_08
[/ QUOTE ]
And off course at one point making an analogy that was seen as just not fitting and once everyone called him on it (by disecting the analogy mostly) he replied:
[ QUOTE ]
Post Deleted by Moderator_08
[/ QUOTE ]
The first post alone would be enough to ignite a flame war, the second would guarantee an ongoing back and forth argument with at least one person and the third... well I won't get into how far that one goes.
The fact that the OP himself has not posted numbers does not means that other posters that complain about the set have not seen these numerical issues or posted about them in the past. I know I have, and I'm feeling all my posts are being bypassed here during this argument about no one posting numbers...
This thing is still going on?
I just noticed my previous numeric comparison had a minor error: It is comparing base + Tough + Weave. Both sets had it, though: Fire and Stone.
The difference is a bit more pronounced on both directions without Tough and Weave, meaning Stone looks even more superior in the alpha and Fire even more superior in sustainability, but neither by a huge margin. Here is the corrected relationship chart:
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
Alpha Tolerance Regeneration (sustainability)
0.23 0.57 (0.41) 0.14
0.23 0.57 (0.41) 0.14
(0.57) (0.32) (0.92) (0.85)
0.25 0.98 (0.47) 0.02
0.07 0.46 (0.50) (0.04)
0.07 0.46 (0.50) (0.04)
(1.00) 0.82 (0.68) (0.10)
99.99 99.99 1.12 3.10
</pre><hr />
[ QUOTE ]
I just noticed my previous numeric comparison had a minor error: It is comparing base + Tough + Weave. Both sets had it, though: Fire and Stone.
The difference is a bit more pronounced on both directions without Tough and Weave, meaning Stone looks even more superior in the alpha and Fire even more superior in sustainability, but neither by a huge margin. Here is the corrected relationship chart:
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
Alpha Tolerance Regeneration (sustainability)
0.23 0.57 (0.41) 0.14
0.23 0.57 (0.41) 0.14
(0.57) (0.32) (0.92) (0.85)
0.25 0.98 (0.47) 0.02
0.07 0.46 (0.50) (0.04)
0.07 0.46 (0.50) (0.04)
(1.00) 0.82 (0.68) (0.10)
99.99 99.99 1.12 3.10
</pre><hr />
[/ QUOTE ]
In terms of balance, wouldn't this argument point towards FA getting buffed instead of stone though? An FA should probably have a better survivability than a stoner outside of granite in most areas, or at least in my mind they should (and my mind is a weird place).
To tell you the truth, though I know what the numbers respresent, I'm not entirely sure what the numbers are actually based on, probably because I missed that class....but still; I think it makes the vast majority of people reading this thread unsure as to what, exactly, your numbers mean.
"Be a beacon?"
Blue Mourning: lvl. 50 Katana/DA
Bree the Barricade: lvl 50 Stone/Axe
Last Chance for Eden: lvl 50 Fire/Kin
Myra the Grey: lvl 50 Bots/Traps
1 Minute to Midnight lvl 50 Spines/DA
The reason I , and I would imagine others, do not quote numbers when we make suggestions is it usually just fans the flames. Not to mention that when it comes down to it any numbers I suggest wouldnt be used anyway. If we can convince the devs that something needs to be done then great. They won't use our numbers anyway so I won't waste my breath.
*readies fire extinguisher*
[ QUOTE ]
To tell you the truth, though I know what the numbers respresent, I'm not entirely sure what the numbers are actually based on, probably because I missed that class....but still; I think it makes the vast majority of people reading this thread unsure as to what, exactly, your numbers mean.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here is what the numbers mean:
There are two columns, Alpha Tolerance and Regeneration (Sustainability)
Alpha Tolerance is simply the stacking of resist+defense+HPBuffs. Debuffs are not accounted as they are not applied before the alpha. The higher this number the nastier of an alpha you can take in. Capped resist and Capped Defense would yield 99% Alpha Tolerance.
Sustainability is what has been labeled by many in the past The Immortality line, basically, the amount of DPS that cant overcome your Regen therefore you are immortal. I use it a bit different as a margin of sustenance as it also means that slightly over it will kill you very very slowly. Due to this, if you can survive a foes alpha, you will be able to live longer without resting than the other guy, should your Sustainability be higher. This equates faster solo leveling due to less downtime.
In addition, a set with high Sustainability benefits more from buffers while a set with high Alpha Tolerance benefits better from healers.
The numbers on the last block are just a division of the Fire and Stone results like so:
SAT = Smashing Alpha Tolerance
Relationship = StoneSAT / FireSAT -1
If the relationship is negative, fire is superior. If the relationship is positive, stone is superior. If the relationship is zero, both tie up. Off course, the closer to zero the more insignificant the difference is.
[ QUOTE ]
In terms of balance, wouldn't this argument point towards FA getting buffed instead of stone though? An FA should probably have a better survivability than a stoner outside of granite in most areas, or at least in my mind they should (and my mind is a weird place).
[/ QUOTE ]
As to Fire, that set is meant to be the weakest defensive set precisely designed to be so due to its amount of offensive tools. A set should not match Fires low survivability unless it has huge utility/damage tools. Shields base build also matches fire but again, it has many powers that are considered utility or damage oriented that can be skipped on in favor of additional survival tools from pools.
The fact that the base stone build only matches this level of survivability without utility or damage boosts and such an insane investment is the true issue. The set should be much higher than that. As for the granite fixes stone issues the set should work without Tier 9s. The tier nine for armor sets is always meant to be a utility situational power with penalties or drastic pre-requirements built in (like death.) Granite cant even claim to be open to interpretation there since it is so obvious it was meant to be full of penalties that even a blind man could see it.
Thats not to note no single power set should suck until it gets its 9th power. Regardless whether Granite is meant to be as is or not, the base Stone build should be much more survivable than it is, or bring a lot more utility and damage. Damage would require replacing powers and that wont happen. Utility MAY be possible but nowhere near enough to justify the low level it suffers now.
[ QUOTE ]
Multiple granite forms to choose from would be nice, but otherwise the powerset is fine. I still use the defensive toggles on my stone tank for soloing, so they're not made obsolete by granite. IO sets also partially compensate for the granite penalties.
[/ QUOTE ]
I understand that in general you like Stone Armor the way it is and don't want to see any changes/nerfs. But if nothing else, would you still like to see multiple Granite forms, or Granite scaling to your toon size?
In all likely hood, you're correct in saying that this thread will go into the dustbin of the CoH Forums. Deservedly or not, I'll leave that up to others to discuss if they want to.
Personally, I think the ideas mentioned here take an interesting and different look at the power set. Do I realistically think such changes are viable? Nope, but that's ok. I'm quite sure if any changes to the set where made they would be at most minor tweaks. Considering there is no unanimous voice saying "yes, please change this" like the desire to change Granite armor's look from that of the Poo Man, it's doubtful such changes will come from this thread.
There you have it. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.
Throwing darts at the board to see if something sticks.....
Come show your resolve and fight my brute!
Tanks: Gauntlet, the streak breaker and you!