[ QUOTE ]
Of course, lots of people like the new Defiance and power changes, myself included. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but don't think you know what's best for everyone.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it is only my opinion dont get me wrong.My opinion stems from the fact that i am keenly interested in PvP as well as from my experience with other MMO's and imho CoX devs could have done a lot better in this area with the type of game they got.Also excuse the angry tone but i love CoX PvP and hate to see it ruined.The devs still insist on not having an appointed Developer for PvP matters that the PvP community can address to like all other MMO's out there.
[ QUOTE ]
I often watch the 'high guilds' fights in GW, it sometimes take over 10 minutes before even 1 goes down, while everyone is just jumping around in rather small rooms nonstop hitting eachother. Yet less comparable, as you can change your build/setup within seconds.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well here lies a big issue. These games have some really well balanced game mechanics. In high end pvp fights in GW like you said no matter how much you buff you can get stripped off buffs,get silenced,get crippled etc etc
as well as there are shield types that grant you back hp for every hit when you reach an hp % (aegis shield i think is monk skill).
CoX lacks some crucial PvP mechanics that would balance it.A change in unresisted damage nullifies blasters out of PvP in teams.Taking an example of our SG pvp team with sonic buffer,thermal buffs blasters would be a joke.Suddenly all the spiking that goes on in PvP matches will be coming from energy tanks,fire controllers and ofc psi,sonic defenders will be MUST.
[ QUOTE ]
TG, shine a light on AoC regarding PvP
[/ QUOTE ]
It's totally different to what i seen in most MMO's today.sorry cant say much more but the PvP system is 10x better than anything out there atm and on top of that is totally complete from all aspects.
[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately the bleed-through effect of the PvE changes will possibly make Blasters WAY too overpowered compared with other damage dealing ATs in PvP (they were already arguably overpowered before the change, when teamed with toon(s) that can boost their survivability in PvP).
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll agree with this to a point - this is true for Zones (and in some cases Arena) until they come up against a comparable team either meaning Blaster+Others or another combination that works efficiently.
I have no huge problems with the new Defiance as I have yet to test it, I have some issue with the animation changes on Fire and Ice Blast - but I don't think lowering the unresistable damage proportion of Blasters in PvP is a viable way to tone it down if Blasters are overperforming in a team enviroment. It'll just hurt the less adept sets more than the high end ones IMO and that's a bad way to go and will possibly lead to even less diverse PvP teams.
[ QUOTE ]
Castle saying he would consider reducing the Blaster unresisted damage component was not a knock at Blasters, but an attempt to rebalance Blaster overall damage infliction in PVP.
[/ QUOTE ]
He is apparently very bad at math. If anything, the unresistable portion is PRECISELY the thing that is the balancing factor, since it only affects those targets that have resistance in the first place, NOT the squishies. If you increase blaster base damage, the thing that it affects are the squishies, NOT the targets with resistance, against whom the increased damage has LEAST effect.
This is why I was not very hot for across the board damage incrase for blasters, it doesnt really solve anything. It creates more problems such as this one that is under discussion.
Castle is thinking about turning blasters on their heads again when only a small adjustment is intended, something the devs are VERY good at. 
Goddamit we need that dev that specializes to pvp BADLY.
ps. AND GOODNESS GRACIOUS GREAT BALLS OF FIRE UNRESISTABLE ATTACKS ALSO WORK IN PVE
pp.s and somebody post what I say on US boards in case the devs have propably already forgotten that EU players cannot post there.
If i read the source topic, quite alot of the US players seem to agree to the fact blasters might get overpowered with the new defiance (that is, if the 60-70% dmg buff avarage is true).
Yet, if i look around at all the PvP of others games, i see 1 huge difference. CoX is mostly about low-gravity superspeed bouncing balls firing off random powers, sometimes you get hit by a rubberbander and before you can counterhit he is already 20-50ft away.
Has anyone ever did a supress-all-travel-powers match? Plain walk/jump (as of lvl1 ability) perhaps with both sides cap buffed (thermal/sonic) and just let 8vs8 clash into eachother pounding eachother head in.
50)Sinergy X/(50)Mika.
(50)MaceX/(50)Encore
Sign the petition, dont let CoH go down! SIGN!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Castle saying he would consider reducing the Blaster unresisted damage component was not a knock at Blasters, but an attempt to rebalance Blaster overall damage infliction in PVP.
[/ QUOTE ]
He is apparently very bad at math. If anything, the unresistable portion is PRECISELY the thing that is the balancing factor, since it only affects those targets that have resistance in the first place, NOT the squishies. If you increase blaster base damage, the thing that it affects are the squishies, NOT the targets with resistance, against whom the increased damage has LEAST effect.
[/ QUOTE ]
Whilst I can appreciate your frustration with the threat of any changes to your Blaster's PvP playstyle, I think that you're looking at the [potential] change from the wrong angle here Hammer:
Blasters apparently needed a change in PvE, so Blasters were changed.
PvE is the priority for the devs, since the vast majority of the game is in PvE.
PvP changes can occur due to bleed-through from PvE changes, rather than the other way around... as was pointed out earlier in the thread, few if any PvE changes have occured due to imbalances in PvP.
The Blaster changes might mean that Blasters need to be rebalanced in PvP... but the threat of causing imbalance in PvP will [u]not[u] prevent those changes in the first place.
The imbalance between Unresisted Damage and Allied Damage Resistance Buffs in PvP will be seen (and treated) as a seperate issue from any Blaster performance issues. One is a focus on a single AT's performance (Blasters), the other is a focus on a general gameplay mechanic (Resistance)
From what I can see the Devs (including Castle) are working on fixing things methodically, one at a time.
So, for example:
(i) They'll decide Blaster changes are needed because they're underperforming in PvE, they'll make changes.
(ii) They'll then decide that Blasters now overperform in PvP, and make changes that don't affect PvE.
(iii) They'll then decide that Resistance is now unbalanced in PvP, and make changes affecting only PvP.
(iv) They'll then decide.... etc.
MMORPGs are always progressively changing this way, resulting in both percieved nerfs and buffs alike.
In CoX we've been told straight-up that no PvE change will be made due to PvP imbalance, but not vice-versa.
[ QUOTE ]
ps. AND GOODNESS GRACIOUS GREAT BALLS OF FIRE UNRESISTABLE ATTACKS ALSO WORK IN PVE
[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, only applies when you attack other players.
The damage TYPEs such as fire/ice/energy/smashing have different and varied types of enemies that resist them more than others, but there is no "30% unresistable damage" component to attacks in PvE.
[ QUOTE ]
Goddamit we need that dev that specializes to pvp BADLY.
[/ QUOTE ]
Won't argue with that one, this would certainly be welcome! 
Unresistable damage isn't the same as a res debuff so 600 damage including an unresistable portion -vs- no res is the same as 600 completely resistable -vs- no res. This is fine.
If, with Newfiance and a reduction/removal of unresistable damage the 600 damage w/unresistable portion becomes 750 damage [u]compeltely[u] resistable I think there's a problem. It (as far as i can work out) means Blasters will do more damage against targets with no resistance and less damage against targets with resistance.
[ QUOTE ]
If, with Newfiance and a reduction/removal of unresistable damage the 600 damage w/unresistable portion becomes 750 damage [u]compeltely[u] resistable I think there's a problem. It (as far as i can work out) means Blasters will do more damage against targets with no resistance and less damage against targets with resistance.
[/ QUOTE ]
As far i checked redtomax info on the powers and their unresistable portion, i think it need quite alot data mining to find the exact breakpoint to get to your statement.
stupid but quicky example:
blaster does 100 dmg = 50resitable/50unresistable
Troller get hit, has 50% resist, means 75 damage (50% of 50 + 50).
Lets say they fire of a few pre-powers or whatever, so they gain 40% damage from defiance 2.0, unrestable get removed:
100+40 = 140 * 50% = 70dmg
if we take it with unresistable dmg, it will become (50+40% = 70 unresist, 70 *50% = 35, makes 105 total damage, this offcourse provided the unresistable damage is buffable too).
Thats nearly a 50% increase of the initial raw damage.
50)Sinergy X/(50)Mika.
(50)MaceX/(50)Encore
Sign the petition, dont let CoH go down! SIGN!
Getting it closer to the numbers and vs a controller's APP, assuming pure s/l means that even with an APP shield Blasters get an overall buff in more casual affairs:
Current:
100 (30% unresistable) = 45% of 70 resisted (meaning 38.5 received) + 30 = 68.5 damage.
Proposed - assuming no unresistable portion:
140 (all resistable) = 45% of 140 resisted = 77 damage.
That seems fine and dandy and an overall increase in a Res buff free enviroment, but lets crank it up a bit.
Now:
100 (30% unresistable) = 75% of 70 resisted (meaning 17.5 received) + 30 = 47.5 damage.
Then:
140 (all resistable) = 75% of 140 resisted = 35 damage.
At least that's my understanding of the way the game currently handles the resistable/unresistable portion of blaster damage etc... but hey I've been up ill for over a day now so I may be off. Also it doesn't take in to account different damage types and res % to said damage types. Still, theorycraft is a laugh. Also I may have broken the math.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If, with Newfiance and a reduction/removal of unresistable damage the 600 damage w/unresistable portion becomes 750 damage [u]compeltely[u] resistable I think there's a problem. It (as far as i can work out) means Blasters will do more damage against targets with no resistance and less damage against targets with resistance.
[/ QUOTE ]
As far i checked redtomax info on the powers and their unresistable portion, i think it need quite alot data mining to find the exact breakpoint to get to your statement.
stupid but quicky example:
blaster does 100 dmg = 50resitable/50unresistable
Troller get hit, has 50% resist, means 75 damage (50% of 50 + 50).
Lets say they fire of a few pre-powers or whatever, so they gain 40% damage from defiance 2.0, unrestable get removed:
100+40 = 140 * 50% = 70dmg
if we take it with unresistable dmg, it will become (50+40% = 70 unresist, 70 *50% = 35, makes 105 total damage, this offcourse provided the unresistable damage is buffable too).
Thats nearly a 50% increase of the initial raw damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
Given that Blaster's Current Unresistable Damage component is 30% of every attack, there's not really much difference with the changes unless we're talking about an enemy that's at or very near to the resistance cap.
Let's do a quick comparison here:
---------------------------------------------
A 50-damage attack, enhanced to 100 Damage. 30% unresistable
(Behaviour currently on Live)
Versus -30% resistance (RAD resistance debuff on a normal unbuffed toon)
= (1.3 * 70) + 30 = 121 Damage total
Versus 0% Resistance (Unbuffed, Undebuffed)
= (1 * 70) + 30 = 100 Damage total
Versus 30% Resistance (Buffed with Sonic Shields)
= (0.7 * 70) + 30 = 79 Damage total
Versus 50% Resistance (Buffed with Sonic and Thermal Shields)
= (0.5 * 70) + 30 = 65 Damage total
Versus 75% Resistance (non-Brute/Tanker/Kheldian Resistance cap)
= (0.25 * 70) + 30 = 47.5 Damage total
Versus 90% Resistance (Brute/Tanker Resistance cap)
= (0.1 * 70) + 30 = 37 Damage total
---------------------------------------------
A 50-damage attack, enhanced to 100 Damage, plus 12.5% ranged base damage. 0% unresistable.
(New Defiance with no 'Fury' + no "unresistable")
Versus -30% resistance (RAD resistance debuff on a normal unbuffed toon)
= (1.3 * 112.5) = 146.3 Damage total (UP by 25.3)
Versus 0% Resistance (Unbuffed, Undebuffed)
= (1 * 112.5) = 112.5 Damage total (UP by 12.5)
Versus 30% Resistance (Buffed with Sonic Shields)
= (0.7 * 112.5) = 78.8 Damage total (DOWN by 0.2)
Versus 50% Resistance (Buffed with Sonic and Thermal Shields)
= (0.5 * 112.5) = 56.3 Damage total (DOWN by 8.7)
Versus 75% Resistance (non-Brute/Tanker/Kheldian Resistance cap)
= (0.25 * 112.5) = 28.1 Damage total (DOWN by 19.4)
Versus 90% Resistance (Brute/Tanker Resistance cap)
= (0.1 * 112.5) = 11.3 Damage total (DOWN by 25.7)
---------------------------------------------
A 50-damage attack, enhanced to 100 Damage, plus 12.5% ranged base damage. 15% unresistable.
(New Defiance with no 'Fury' + half of current "unresistable")
Versus -30% resistance (RAD resistance debuff on a normal unbuffed toon)
= (1.3 * 95.625) + 16.875 = 141.2 Damage total (UP by 20.2)
Versus 0% Resistance (Unbuffed, Undebuffed)
= (1 * 95.625) + 16.875 = 112.5 Damage total (UP by 12.5)
Versus 30% Resistance (Buffed with Sonic Shields)
= (0.7 * 95.625) + 16.875 = 83.8 Damage total (UP by 4.8)
Versus 50% Resistance (Buffed with Sonic and Thermal Shields)
= (0.5 * 95.625) + 16.875 = 64.7 Damage total (DOWN by 0.3)
Versus 75% Resistance (non-Brute/Tanker/Kheldian Resistance cap)
= (0.25 * 95.625) + 16.875 = 40.8 Damage total (DOWN by 6.7)
Versus 90% Resistance (Brute/Tanker Resistance cap)
= (0.1 * 95.625) + 16.875 = 26.4 Damage total (DOWN by 10.6)
[Edit: Fixed Dammit!]
Pretty much - but the point being put forward by people like Mes, TG and Hammer (and myself I guess) is that it will cause a reduction vs high Res buffs which is really something PvP does not need.
Especially when coming to easier resisted attack types.
Note, he didnt take new defiance in account, a buff that starts running the moment you attack.
50)Sinergy X/(50)Mika.
(50)MaceX/(50)Encore
Sign the petition, dont let CoH go down! SIGN!
Unless it's a monumental buff I don't think I'll be as impressed in a res heavy enviroment as I might 1v1 or in a smaller fight.
See I'd love to test all this stuff out, but the patch is too broken for us to be let near it so I guess I'll wait til next week.
[ QUOTE ]
Pretty much - but the point being put forward by people like Mes, TG and Hammer (and myself I guess) is that it will cause a reduction vs high Res buffs which is really something PvP does not need.
Especially when coming to easier resisted attack types.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe at first glance, but assuming Castle cuts the unresistable portion in half (I can't see him doing away with it COMPLETELY) then it's going to be at worst an unnoticable nerf and at best (with "FrankenFury") a slight buff on those high-resistance encounters.
For anything less than a maximum-resistance Tanker at least, and IMO such Tankers should require more effort to take down anyway.
Consider a 50-damage attack, enhanced to 100 Damage, plus 12.5% ranged base damage. 15% unresistable.
Along with a 30% buff from "Blaster Fury" buffs (about 2-3 one-second-animation ST attacks)
(New Defiance with 30% +Damage from 'Fury' + half of current "unresistable")
Versus 75% Resistance (non-Brute/Tanker/Kheldian Resistance cap)
= (0.25 * 125.625) + 16.875 = 48.3 Damage total
Compare that to the same attack currently versus 75% Resists: 47.5 Damage total.
[Edit: Fixed Dammit!]
When Mael starts spitting out numbers i get seriously dizzy.Jeeeeez
(Desperately trying to avoid doing actual work here, it's Friday and I've been cloning laptops all morning... )
I would say,
go. Test defiance.
Seems to be up on the testserver
50)Sinergy X/(50)Mika.
(50)MaceX/(50)Encore
Sign the petition, dont let CoH go down! SIGN!
[ QUOTE ]
Note, he didnt take new defiance in account, a buff that starts running the moment you attack.
[/ QUOTE ]
I urge to read what I wrote in the previous post. Duh.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Note, he didnt take new defiance in account, a buff that starts running the moment you attack.
[/ QUOTE ]
I urge to read what I wrote in the previous post. Duh.
[/ QUOTE ]
Err? I replied to extremus...
50)Sinergy X/(50)Mika.
(50)MaceX/(50)Encore
Sign the petition, dont let CoH go down! SIGN!
[ QUOTE ]
I would say,
go. Test defiance.
Seems to be up on the testserver
[/ QUOTE ]
How is that relevant to the topic? I dont need to test it to know it is COMPLETELY INADEQUATE WHATEVER BUFF IT IS to counteract possible removal of unresistable portion. Get this to your head.
And Mael: I am not talking about MY playstyle, this will be universal across all blasters and would change team pvp for the worse with dead certainty.
What Im [censored] [censored] about is that it seems to take people months to understand what I can see right now.
And since my blaster was NEVER UNDERPERFORMING IN ANY WAY I am so angry you wouldnt believe on this STUPID NERF should the devs do it, and I have been here long enough to know that they will!
Dude.. forgot your pills?
50)Sinergy X/(50)Mika.
(50)MaceX/(50)Encore
Sign the petition, dont let CoH go down! SIGN!
Yeah so I tested the new Defiance against some Fake Nem's and War Hulks.
Ehh... it's not that great, sadly.
Are those maths correct? Surely, against a 0% RES target, you should get the same damage regardless of what the unresistable portion is?
[ QUOTE ]
Are those maths correct? Surely, against a 0% RES target, you should get the same damage regardless of what the unresistable portion is?
[/ QUOTE ]
Which you do if you read carefully.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would say,
go. Test defiance.
Seems to be up on the testserver
[/ QUOTE ]
How is that relevant to the topic? I dont need to test it to know it is COMPLETELY INADEQUATE WHATEVER BUFF IT IS to counteract possible removal of unresistable portion. Get this to your head.
And Mael: I am not talking about MY playstyle, this will be universal across all blasters and would change team pvp for the worse with dead certainty.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry Hammer, I just don't agree with you here.
If they completely removed the unresistable component and added nothing? Then yes, there'd be a considerable negative gap between a Blaster's current performance versus High-Resists and their performance after the changes versus High-Resists.
But that's not what they're talking about doing, the figures I listed above show that versus a toon with anything up-to-and-including-75% resistance (capped resists for most ATs) to the Blaster's damage output, the Blasters are likely to get a buff rather than a nerf out of this whole deal.
The Devs have already buffed the raw damage output of Blasters (through the base damage buff and "fury"). Now, if that change ends up making Blaster overperform in PvP, what can they do? They can't realistically reduce that raw output again without undoing the PvE Defiance changes... and they've told us they're not going to change PvE game mechanics anymore based on PvP issues. So that's not an option they'll consider.
If they decide it needs tweaked? In the absence of being able to change the raw damage, they'll scale back on the other advantages that Blasters get that only apply to PvP. That's where the "unresisted damage" and "toggle dropping" references come from. I don't think Castle is saying they're in the same class of PvP effectiveness, he's highlighting that those are things that they CAN adjust in PvP which will not affect PvE.
What I am a bit worried about though, is something that you highlighted earlier. Versus toons with high resistance, Blasters will be only slightly more powerful after the changes, but versus toons with NO resistance, Blasters will be vastly more powerful after the changes. We're talking about 40-50% extra damage output compared to what you're used to seeing. However I'll admit that this is only really less balancing in small team or one-on-one encounters, and CoX PvP isn't meant to be balanced that way... 
Is this changing? I don't know. Castle doesn't even know yet, apparently he needs to "Datamine" it lots.
Would all this be a big change? Yup. But only really for encounters versus unbuffed foes.
Would all this be a big Nerf? Nope. If anything it's a big buff (versus unbuffed foes).
Would all this be better than what we've got now in PvE? Almost certainly yes.
Would all this be better than what we've got now in PvP? I'd say yes, but only time will really tell.
As I said before, I'm slightly concerned about further unbalancing in small-team/solo encounters.
[ QUOTE ]
Problem is even now a Blaster, solo, has trouble dropping a buffed Squishy even if they're only relying on a self heal from range.
If all the damage gets reduced via resistance, it makes it all the harder. This is bad for balanced team fights IMO as it'll lean even more to the single digit kill fights that can be seen. It's less about who can get the most kills and more about which team drops the ball first because Res is such a big safety net when you throw in the odd heal.
[/ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't a Blaster have trouble "dropping a buffed squishy" though, if all the other damage-dealing ATs have equal or greater trouble dropping buffed squishies?
Or to put it another way: if Blasters were the only means of dropping buffed squishies, wouldn't it be worth allowing other damage-dealer ATs to do the same, albeit perhaps with SLIGHTLY less effectiveness?
PvP at present is all about movement. You don't move, and you're dead.
Stalkers, Brutes, Scrappers and Tankers are rarely if ever picked for their damage output on teams because they simply can't get close enough to the enemy to reliably leverage that damage output unless the enemy is slowed (Kin counterable), -jump/fly'ed (SS/TP counterable), or mezzed (CM/Clarity/etc counterable).
So at the moment you essentially won't see a PvP team without ranged damage dealers. Which pretty much equates to Blasters (for the raw base damage, damage type and unresistable damage output), Corruptors (damage type, buffing secondary and scourge) and Defenders (/Psi for the damage type and arguably /Sonic).
Nobody except a Blaster really has a chance of killing resistance-capped kiters. Psi damage toons such as /Psi Defenders are the sole exception because there are no allied Psi-resistance-granting shields.
There's only really two ways to affect this: stopping a toon that's at the resistance cap from kiting (they could then be dropped much faster... say through "-TP" powers and more -MaxRunSpeed/MaxJumpHeight powers) and raising the damage inflicted on them (giving the attacker "unresisted damage" or inflicting "resistance debuffs" on the kiter are the least-imbalancing methods of doing this).
Castle saying he would consider reducing the Blaster unresisted damage component was not a knock at Blasters, but an attempt to rebalance Blaster overall damage infliction in PVP. This may come with the side effect of making it generally harder in PVP to drop resistance-buffed kiters, but that's not the intention of the Defiance fix.
The Defiance rebalancing happened due to PvE, and changes were needed and welcome there. Unfortunately the bleed-through effect of the PvE changes will possibly make Blasters WAY too overpowered compared with other damage dealing ATs in PvP (they were already arguably overpowered before the change, when teamed with toon(s) that can boost their survivability in PvP). If with the new changes it becomes fairly pointless to bring any damage dealer other than a Blaster into PvP, Castle is looking at scaling down Blaster performance in PvP to compensate for the Defiance changes.
If the scaling down highlights more issues (such as no means to kill resistance-buffed kiters), that issue will need to be addressed seperately, AFTER any necessary Blaster rebalancing changes.