Quote:
It wasn't as extreme as you might think. I did some pretty comprehensive math for the Blaster primaries and that was worse because I forced myself to account for Defiance accurately rather than going with an arbitrary assumption of average Defiance contribution (even worse for Sonic Blast /shudder).|
Originally Posted by BurningChick
I'm not a math person, so I might be off, but calculating the permutations of defender performance seems rather daunting, so my hat goes off to you for doing it.
|
There are a bunch of permutations, but it's honestly not all that difficult. The contribution number I used was simply the factor by which the powerset decreased risk (survival contribution / offensive contribution, where survival contribution is the factor by which the set allows the team to survive longer and offensive contribution is the factor by which the set decreases fight duration). I had to ignore some things mainly because they were a bit too situational (like Lingering Radiation), but it was remarkably straightforward to determine the overall contributions. The most complicated part was simply deriving assumptions for team makeup (I generally assumed a teammates to be Blasters because they're the most "team neutral").
Quote:
main issues I have sonic are: Sonic Siphon isn't an AoE, Sonic Dispersion probably be a better power if it traded status protection for some regen (leaving status to Clarity), and Sonic Repulsion being utterly retarded of a power.
|
Originally Posted by Biospark
I dont know how much help Forcefield really needs (not that I wouldnt be happy to see something go it's way), but Sonic Resonance is downright BAD!! Maybe at level 50 and IOed out it turns into something really nice, but I could not get thru the 20s on that powerset. I would rather solo an Empath !
 |
Quote:
So you're saying that you can leave out powers like LR and, I'm assuming, Fearsome Stare, use a stilted team makeup, and still come up with an accurate model?|
Originally Posted by Umbral
I had to ignore some things mainly because they were a bit too situational (like Lingering Radiation), but it was remarkably straightforward to determine the overall contributions. The most complicated part was simply deriving assumptions for team makeup (I generally assumed a teammates to be Blasters because they're the most "team neutral").
|
Fascinating!
So ... what did you find?
Quote:
It's actually fairly easy to account for Fearsome Stare. I generally treat it exclusively as a tohit debuff, though it's not difficult to apply enemy rank differentiation (i.e. 1 out of every 10 enemies wouldn't be affected by it because you generally get 6 minions, 3 lts, and 1 boss in a 10 enemy mob) and then apply the fear affect as well (cut DPS roughly in half further reduced by the lower acc).|
Originally Posted by BurningChick
Fearsome Stare
|
The reason why I discount LR is simply because it's only really a useful power against hard targets like AVs, GMs, and so forth. The -rech and -spd doesn't really do much in the way of increasing kill speed or decreasing risk particularly because enemies normally have more attacks than they're using already so it doesn't really inhibit them. The powers I would choose to ignore were those that are useful only for a small subset of encounters and largely useless for a majority of play.
Quote:
| use a stilted team makeup, and still come up with an accurate model? |
Quote:
| So ... what did you find? |
So many points to discuss ... "Fix Force Fields" thread, how I've missed you.
First the minors-
(DrMike)
Quote:
Actually, you can do this at level 17, with three extra slots and L20 IO's. | From level 22, you're pretty much guaranteed to transform all your teammates experience at an investment of about 1/8th of your playtime. Unless they're all Tankers. |
(Turbo_Ski)
Quote:
| They've completely removed and replaced powers in the past that were widely considered redundant or underperforming, as is the case with Energize replacing Conserve Power when the set already had Power Sink yet lacked a heal. |
(Umbral)
Quote:
| The most complicated part was simply deriving assumptions for team makeup (I generally assumed a teammates to be Blasters because they're the most "team neutral"). |
Force Fields + N blasters = N tankmages.
Now on to my opinions on "how to fix FF"- yeah, most of you know 'em already...
the Bible for force fields pretty much says, in my opinion, "None shall be better at Defense. Knockback. " It's a nonreactive set, it's going to be a nonreactive set forever, and if you don't like it... there's a dozen other things to try out there. I used FF as an example, in another thread, of niche play. I think that's pretty much it.
My fix would not change the nonreactive part, because that's what's unique about FF. Love it or [as everyone does] hate it, that's what Force Fields IS. My fix would, however, involve burning the Cottage Rule to the ground.
I'd pick either Force Bubble or Repulsion Field and replace it with the Sonic equivalent of Dispersion Bubble [can't remember the name right now, tomax is down for me] but with one severe caveat: you can run EITHER dispersion Bubble or resisto-dispersion bubble, but not both at once. That way if you run into the team that has another force fielder/ice corruptor/six guys with Maneuvers/whatever, you can switch to providing AOE resistance.
(Other people might want to pick the phasing power, I'm fine with that. Just don't touch my Force Bolt and nobody has to get 65% of hurt.)
Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.
So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.
Quote:
If you're going to touch one of these, let it be Repulsion Field. It's unlikely Castle would transform it into another power altogether, so let's look at what the power does currently:|
Originally Posted by Fulmens
I'd pick either Force Bubble or Repulsion Field and replace it with the Sonic equivalent of Dispersion Bubble [can't remember the name right now, tomax is down for me] but with one severe caveat: you can run EITHER dispersion Bubble or resisto-dispersion bubble, but not both at once. That way if you run into the team that has another force fielder/ice corruptor/six guys with Maneuvers/whatever, you can switch to providing AOE resistance.
(Other people might want to pick the phasing power, I'm fine with that. Just don't touch my Force Bolt and nobody has to get 65% of hurt.) |
Repulsion Field:
End Cost:0.78s
Recharge:20s
Cast:2.03s
Effect: Knockback 6.2313 Mag
Radius: 9
Actiave: 0.5
Duration: 0.75
If you're a FFer, what are you typically doing? You're casting Insulation/Deflection Fields, toggling up your Dispersion Bubble and occasionally using Force Bolt, Personal Force Field and Force Bubble.
My own uses Repulsion Bomb as well as it recharges fairly quickly and has some nice secondary effects.
Suggestions, wacky and unpalatable as they may be:
- Make RF into an enemy based toggle. You could choose a target and essentially KB mobs surrounding that target. Would the primary target be KBd as well? Perhaps. Of course, at this point you would probably need the toggle to shut off after a set period or give it a limited range and so on.
- Make RF into a Wormhole variant. Likely to be unpopular, Wormhole is one of the ugly stepchildren among powers and though it has its uses, is a little too 'unpredictable' for many people. Essentially, this would phase out opponents, reinstate them in the knockback animations for a short period. No stun attached, of course.
- Reduce the KB of RF and add a slight ToHit Debuff to the power. Reasoning? The mob gets hit by a wave of knockback, is slightly offput and has trouble hitting you for another few seconds. This dovetails nicely into FFs primary role of defense as well.
- Make RF into a targeted AoE that sets a knockback "pool" on the ground add give the affected foes -Defense for a short period.
- Make RF into a semi-circular aura so that only foes directly in front and to the sides are affected. This is how it generally works out anyway, as players face foes and defeat them, so not sure how useful that really is, or even if this is feasible with current tech.
- Make RF into a "pet" power that can be placed and emits KB and a little -Defense. You could have the "pet" emit various stages of KB, strong then diminishing as it either fades or loses utility.
Still, it would be interesting to see which bubbles are skipped by the playerbase, or which are used seldom if at all. I'd gather most take PFF, Insulation/Deflection, Dispersion, Force Bolt (smattering of players) and Detention Field gets ignroed. Anecdotally, more players have been taking Repulsion Bomb of late and I see more with Force Bubble than Repulsion Field. Your mileage may vary.
Even with changes and tweaks though, it seems that Cold Domination offers survival tools + hefty debuffs and Sonic offers survival + some debuffs and so on. The Repulsion toggle on Sonic is another question mark though...
Questions about the game, either side? /t @Neuronia or @Neuronium, with your queries!
168760: A Death in the Gish. 3 missions, 1-14. Easy to solo.
Infinity Villains
Champion, Pinnacle, Virtue Heroes
Quote:
When correcting someone, it's a good idea to take extra care to verify that you're correct. Energize indeed replaced Conserve Power and Power Sink is still part of Electric Armor.| ... actually Energize replaced Power Sink, I think. Has all the Power Sink functionality plus the undersized heal. |
We're all guilty of saying "I think x" and being incorrect, but a little more due diligence should go into correcting someone.
Global = Hedgefund (or some derivation thereof)
Yup, Muphry's Law again. I was looking at Energy Armor the other day and mixed up Energy Drain and Energize.
Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.
So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.
Quote:
well the key problems with Force Bubble are that it's lackluster for a Tier 9 power slot and it's range is too dang big for a repel power, making it cumbersome and often counter productive.
|
Originally Posted by Neuronia
I'm fond of Force Bubble in its current iteration. It costs a heavy amount of End and can serve as a panic button or pseud-herding tool. Certainly though, it does have its negatives and this game really isn't friendly to hardcore repel/KB for various reasons (player dislike, teams not adapting, mobs getting stuck in walls/geometry, just too 'different').
|
I have to wonder if Repulsion Field should be slottable for slows and have a movement speed and recharge debuff. Coupled with slightly lower kb mag it could be used as a more nuanced version of Force Bubble. That said, Force Bubble should be slottable for kb.
I'd just add some Resistance to Force Fields.
FF used to be one of the few ways to experience the Defence softcap. Ice Tankers and SR scrappers loved you for completing their powersets.
Now they may just shrug and move on because they're soft-capped anyway.
Cold Domination provides almost as much +Def as FF, but with a whole bunch of extras. And the gap can be closed by any player with a few IO sets, even on a Blaster.
As a precedent, Super Reflexes has been given some resistance, in the form of its sliding resistance.
You could add some resistance to the bubbles, which would further concentrate the power of the set in three powers. 10% in each (S/L/Toxic in Deflection, exotic in Insulation and another 10% in Dispersion) would add 30% to temmates when slotted.
OR, add some resistance to Force Bubble, making it a truly useful Tier 9 power?
This also gives you a place to stick the Steadfast IO in without taking Tough (always a cruel irony of pure defence sets over mixed ones ) and stops the entire set from being ganked by Devouring Earth or Earth Thorn Casters.
While I'm at it, I'd add some Psi resistance to Sonic Resonance. Maybe to Clarity.
Neuronia's post gave me a wacky idea:
Change repulsion field into the exact opposite -- an attraction field!
Attraction Field would be a targeted AoE that would place an invisible pet on the target that pulsed an increasing mag of taunt in an increasing radius as well as have a minor increasing DoT. As with other gravity powers, there is a small slow secondary effect.
So when you hit a critter, the mobs around it are attracted to the invisible pet clinging to the critter but have nothing to attack. They start ticking off smashing damage of 1 then 2, then 4, then 8, then 10 (unenhanced at 50). Anyone that survives are slowed for a bit afterwards. The power would take Targeted AoE, Slows, and Taunt sets.
That would give the illusion that you increased gravity on the critter, drawing others in, and causing them all to take damage and have slowed movement afterward due to the increase in gravity.
50s: Inv/SS PB Emp/Dark Grav/FF DM/Regen TA/A Sonic/Elec MA/Regen Fire/Kin Sonic/Rad Ice/Kin Crab Fire/Cold NW Merc/Dark Emp/Sonic Rad/Psy Emp/Ice WP/DB FA/SM
Overlord of Dream Team and Nightmare Squad
Quote:
I would argue this a great deal, especially when you start factoring in the fact that FF only makes Blasters into gods because it can softcap them (which is pretty much the only substantial thing that FF brings to the table). It does almost nothing to increase group kill speed which I factor into the end value in the exact same way as I factor in survivability contribution.|
Originally Posted by Fulmens
Actually, they're not. You're going to overestimate the benefit of Force Fields a LOT with Blasters, because they've got the best synergy of anything except maybe kin and granite.
|
I'm also saying that I'm using Blaster equivalents rather than simply straight up Blasters. I'm assuming that the individuals on the team have no preexisting defenses and that any damage provided to the team is multiplied based off of an assumption of Blaster damage.
For survivability, this means the almost the exact same thing as if I picked defenders, corruptors, controllers, or any other AT that maximally benefits from survivability buffs (the very same fact which is balanced out by the fact that the tougher ATs have higher base and peak survivability) which allows me to say with a degree of certainty that Blasters form the rough "average" for survivability buff contribution comparison: higher hp than the other low ATs with no preexisting defenses to inflate the value of said buffs (because a Scrapper with a modicum of defense can softcap with Cold buffs which would inflate the contribution of those very shields because of increased effect). Similarly, Blasters are the "average" of damage because they exist on the same damage level as Scrappers, Stalkers, Brutes, Dominators, and EATs without bringing in the damage contribution mechanisms of Tankers, Corrupters, Defenders, Controllers, and Masterminds.
Blasters exist as an excellent baseline of performance for the various ATs: they have baseline survivability and functional damage right in the middle of the ATs and, because all that matters to buffs is your baseline survivability and functional damage (because that's what the buffs act upon) I can say with some reasonable assurance that Blasters work perfectly well as a "standard" ally to gauge the effects of buff/debuff sets upon.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Westley
|
Quote:
|
bi·as /ˈbaɪəs/ Show Spelled [bahy-uhs] noun, adjective, adverb, verb,bi·ased, bi·as·ing or (especially British) bi·assed, bi·as·sing. 2. a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice. |
Quote:
|
fa·nat·ic /fəˈnætɪk/ Show Spelled[fuh-nat-ik] –noun 1. a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics. |
EDIT: My thoughts will change the moment Westley gets off his high horse and admits FF isn't perfect, you know like he hasn't done in years of worshiping the set.
So the fact that I created and managed a list of possible change suggestions for the set for years doesn't count as admitting that FF isn't perfect?
Quote:
2. 3. and 4. more than counteract 1., in addition to your past posts on these forums when the FF is compared to any other support set as underperforming. I also notice you sidestepped coming out and just admitting it.
|
Originally Posted by Westley
So the fact that I created and managed a list of possible change suggestions for the set for years doesn't count as admitting that FF isn't perfect?
|
Quote:
... I'm not sure I understand this. I think I disagree. When you see "average" or "Baseline" I see "minimum". You're measuring Force Fielders in the context of the team they can help most, it seems like. |
Originally Posted by Umbral
I would argue this a great deal, especially when you start factoring in the fact that FF only makes Blasters into gods because it can softcap them (which is pretty much the only substantial thing that FF brings to the table). It does almost nothing to increase group kill speed which I factor into the end value in the exact same way as I factor in survivability contribution.
I'm also saying that I'm using Blaster equivalents rather than simply straight up Blasters. I'm assuming that the individuals on the team have no preexisting defenses and that any damage provided to the team is multiplied based off of an assumption of Blaster damage. For survivability, this means the almost the exact same thing as if I picked defenders, corruptors, controllers, or any other AT that maximally benefits from survivability buffs (the very same fact which is balanced out by the fact that the tougher ATs have higher base and peak survivability) which allows me to say with a degree of certainty that Blasters form the rough "average" for survivability buff contribution comparison: higher hp than the other low ATs with no preexisting defenses to inflate the value of said buffs (because a Scrapper with a modicum of defense can softcap with Cold buffs which would inflate the contribution of those very shields because of increased effect). Similarly, Blasters are the "average" of damage because they exist on the same damage level as Scrappers, Stalkers, Brutes, Dominators, and EATs without bringing in the damage contribution mechanisms of Tankers, Corrupters, Defenders, Controllers, and Masterminds. Blasters exist as an excellent baseline of performance for the various ATs: they have baseline survivability and functional damage right in the middle of the ATs and, because all that matters to buffs is your baseline survivability and functional damage (because that's what the buffs act upon) I can say with some reasonable assurance that Blasters work perfectly well as a "standard" ally to gauge the effects of buff/debuff sets upon. |
Any team where there are individuals with significant personal Defense, or people providing significant team Defense, or significant enemy Acc Debuffs, is going to see Force Fields underperform dramatically. That's not EVERY team, but it's certainly a LOT of teams.
Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.
So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.
Quote:
I didn't take those assumptions based exclusively off of how the FF handles everything. I chose those assumptions because I believed they would work for any set that I chose to put through the grinder (and I actually made those assumptions before I put any powersets through said grinder in the first place). The challenge, then, if you disagree with that assumption, is to find a different reasonable assumption that better fulfills the needed role without being ridiculously complicated (which is one of the reasons why I went with only a single AT rather than generating an arbitrary roster), otherwise you're just partaking in pointless complaining. If you have a problem with using assumptions that assume that targets have more than what can readily be demonstrated to be "standard" (i.e. 95% +dam and that's about it), do you have the same problems with survivability models that don't assume that there will be buffs on the team or insps used (such as every survivability model that has ever been put forward)? I can assume, whenever I play a support toon, that anyone I team with is going to have absolutely jack and squat. Some people may defy that assumption, but, because of the sheer breadth of options out there, it's impossible to accurately generate an "average" without making that average completely useless (what is the average of a set of 300 0s and 100 50s? is it 12.5, even though that value is substantially different from either of the actual values?): it will either be a composite that doesn't apply to anyone or it will be just like mine and just not care if anyone brings anything else to the party above and beyond baseline assumptions.
|
Originally Posted by Fulmens
... I'm not sure I understand this. I think I disagree. When you see "average" or "Baseline" I see "minimum". You're measuring Force Fielders in the context of the team they can help most, it seems like.
|
Quote:
It would be nice if you had this in your sig...
|
Originally Posted by Westley
|
Quote:
Actually the challenge of any model is to accurately represent the expected play experience. Your model does not accurately represent my play experience. | The challenge, then, if you disagree with that assumption, is to find a different reasonable assumption that better fulfills the needed role without being ridiculously complicated (which is one of the reasons why I went with only a single AT rather than generating an arbitrary roster), otherwise you're just partaking in pointless complaining. |
Rad debuffs, to give an example you mentioned, have a HUGE effect on the fight. You don't have a good answer for how to model them (neither do I), therefore you model them by, in effect, assuming they have zero effect on the fight.
I don't have a good model, but I wasn't the one who claimed to be able to produce one. My criticism need not be constructive to be accurate and useful.
Mini-guides: Force Field Defenders, Blasters, Market Self-Defense, Frankenslotting.
So you think you're a hero, huh.
@Boltcutter in game.
Here are my 2 cents on the defender modelling concepts.
The way in which I would (and have been working on for awhile now) create the comparison models would be to actually create SEVERAL models for each powersets like so.
Create a survivability contribution factor of ONLY the defender powerset ignoring contributions from your secondary or other team contributors for each condition.
A) Solo (Basically determining the amount of increased self-survival to yourself)
B) One Team-mate with 0% Defense and 0% Resistance. (Baseline contributory survival increase)
C) One team-mate with soft-capped defense and 0% resist
D) One team-mate with 75% resistance and no defense
E) One team-mate with 22.5% defense and 37.5% resist.
I would do these models assuming S/L incoming damage with caveats for any set which contributed differently to other damage types. I would categorize the contributions with 3 SO level enhancement of the PRIMARY effect that people will slot for that power. This last one was a hard one to consider. My initial instinct would be to analyse with "Un-slotted" power numbers because there is quite a variety of slotting options for defender powers and I imagined a endless discussion of "how-to-slot" every power in these sets. But I knew that the "unslotted" model would immediately be subjected to criticism because it DIDNT take slotting into consideration.... catch 22
After all 5 of these models were done, list them for each set showing the contributory values side-by-side under each different condition. In this manner you would see the FF set (as an example) how its contribution varied based on team-mate starting values.
The only thing left to decide on my models is how (if possible) some aggregate of each condition could be numerically calculated. I am not certain whether a simple average of the contributory values displayed next to the self-defense values portrays an accurate conclusion.
Any thoughts ?
BIOSPARK :: DARKTHORN :: SKYGUARD :: WILDMAGE
HEATSINK :: FASTHAND :: POWERCELL :: RUNESTAFF
Quote:
Where did I say that I discounted the Rad debuffs? The only debuff I discount from Rad is Lingering Radiation and that's because it's largely useless except against the targets that actually respond to -regen in a noticeable manner. I fully account for RI, EF, Choking Cloud, and EM Pulse. Don't attempt to put words in my mouth just because I said "Lingering Radiation" and you think that means "all radiation debuffs".
|
Originally Posted by Fulmens
Rad debuffs, to give an example you mentioned, have a HUGE effect on the fight.
|
Quote:
That's no so much creating a model as it is simply creating a spreadsheet that allows you to change the assumptions you're going to be operating off of freely. Simply allow for variables that you can use to assign outgoing damage from individual teammates, incoming damage to individual teammates, and baseline stats for various teammates.|
Originally Posted by Biospark
The way in which I would (and have been working on for awhile now) create the comparison models would be to actually create SEVERAL models for each powersets like so.
|
The problem is in determining what fair point of comparison to use in order to actually gauge the comparative effectiveness of the various sets. You get into the whole issue of "it's too complicated to be useful" and that's exactly the problem: unless you're actually willing to compromise some accuracy by operating under some specific assumptions, you're never going to determine anything worthwhile.
This entire discussion reminds me of a joke I hear one time:
There is a farmer with a sick chicken but he has no idea what's wrong with it, so he calls his 3 friends from the university: a biologist, a chemist, and a physicist. The biologist gets there first, takes some blood and tissue samples from the chicken and tells the farmer that he has no clue what's wrong with them. The chemist does the same and similarly gets no answers. The physicist observes the chickens for a bit, begins doing some calculations, and then tells the farmer, with a grin plastered to his face, "I've got it, but it only works for spherical chickens in a vacuum.".
I'm saying that there's no way to account for all of the feathers and other fiddly bits involved in chickens so we should just assume that they're spherical and in a vacuum because it's not like we're trying to get a number that can pinpoint and quantify discrepancies in performance (at least, I'm not). The entire point of such a number would be to find out, without a reasonable doubt, that there are outliers of performance within the sets in question.
cottage rule.
blame this rule right here.
The same cannot be said of some of the support/control powers ;-)