I just wish they'd match up the resist bonuses as they did with the defense bonuses.
And then scale the resist bonuses appropriately, considering that 2% resistance has roughly the same value as 1% defense.
Comrade Smersh, KGB Special Section 8 50 Inv/Fire, Fire/Rad, BS/WP, SD/SS, AR/EM
Other 50s: Plant/Thorn, Bots/Traps, DB/SR, MA/Regen, Rad/Dark - All on Virtue.
-Don't just rebel, build a better world, comrade!
Actually, more resist bonuses is what I wouldn't prefer, at least not a LOT more.
Def can cap, res generally can't. I'm not saying that's right, but I don't think adding extra resistance in a huge way is the right answer either.
I don't really think that a bunch of res capped tanks is great design.
Ok, there's probably a little room to move up in that regard too, but maybe not much.
The cake is a lie! The cake is a lie!
What you would probably see under my solution is tanks that cap S/L resist, which can be done with some tanks by taking Tough anyway. Even with major changes to resist IO bonuses, you won't see too many tanks trying to build their way from 35% cold resistance to the cap.
But you might see some Fire tanks trying to shore up the hole in their resistances to cold damage, and that's not a bad thing.
Just my opinion, of course.
Comrade Smersh, KGB Special Section 8 50 Inv/Fire, Fire/Rad, BS/WP, SD/SS, AR/EM
Other 50s: Plant/Thorn, Bots/Traps, DB/SR, MA/Regen, Rad/Dark - All on Virtue.
-Don't just rebel, build a better world, comrade!
Getting 20% resistance to S/L through IOs should be as trivial as getting 10% defense to S/L.
Most AT cap at 75-85% resistance, whereas defense caps at 45% for all. So defense still wins.
Defense cracks under defense debuffs, Resistance gets hit by every debuff thrown at them. I'd call that even.
Quote:
I can't really agree with this... imagine how many tanks could effortless cap their resistances to a lot of different things (or Brutes). People could just be so ridiculously tough it would be unreasonable.
|
Originally Posted by Tormentoso
Getting 20% resistance to S/L through IOs should be as trivial as getting 10% defense to S/L.
Most AT cap at 75-85% resistance, whereas defense caps at 45% for all. So defense still wins. Defense cracks under defense debuffs, Resistance gets hit by every debuff thrown at them. I'd call that even. |
Quote:
That's not the only way to correct the imbalance. Defense set bonuses could be (and I'd propose should be) reduced in either availability or magnitude.
|
Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
I can't really agree with this... imagine how many tanks could effortless cap their resistances to a lot of different things (or Brutes). People could just be so ridiculously tough it would be unreasonable.
|
Quote:
I like that squishy characters can get to become reasonably tougher than what was possible before. I just don't want to see every defence (resistance/defence/etc) being able to be capped.
|
Originally Posted by Dersk
That's not the only way to correct the imbalance. Defense set bonuses could be (and I'd propose should be) reduced in either availability or magnitude.
|
Quote:
The problem with a change like this would be that it'd invalidate a lot of high-end builds people have spent time on. I do agree, though, that they should have done it at an earlier stage, but right now it'd be just like ED all over again.|
Originally Posted by Dersk
That's not the only way to correct the imbalance. Defense set bonuses could be (and I'd propose should be) reduced in either availability or magnitude.
|
Making Resistance as abundant as Defense would also be a bad idea. If you could get to Resistance cap on most characters with some starting Resistance, you'd have hordes of ridiculously tough characters. The thing is, Resistance doesn't need outside Resistance Debuff Resistance because it is already a part of Resistance. Each point of Resistance you get adds a point to your RDR.
Then there's also the thing that at 90% Resistance (we're talking of tanks, right?) you're basically at the same level of survival as with 45% Defense, but you're not particularly weak to -Def or ToHit buffed enemies. The same amount of +ToHit that would totally invalidate a soft capped tank's Defenses would just make you take double the damage which isn't much if you're resisting 90% of it. You are also immune to "unlucky streaks" because two hits in a row from an AV won't take you down.
I guess that's part of why the devs gave us Defense instead of Resistance.
- @DSorrow - alts on Union and Freedom mostly -
Currently playing as Castigation on Freedom
My Katana/Inv Guide
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either. -Einstein
Quote:
Even if all defense set bonuses were scrapped it wouldn't be as bad as enhancement diversification, even if you're talking only in terms of ED's effects on survivability. Though, that is a bit of a complicated matter for comparison's sake considering the changes to defense calculations in i7. |
Originally Posted by DSorrow
The problem with a change like this would be that it'd invalidate a lot of high-end builds people have spent time on. I do agree, though, that they should have done it at an earlier stage, but right now it'd be just like ED all over again.
|
While I'm favorable to a form of diminishing returns on defense and resistance (i.e. two 50% defense buffs equate to 75% cumulative defense), the fact that the several additions of new IO sets repeatedly added new ways to increase a character's defense suggests the developers don't even see this as a problem. Until they see it as a problem, there's no need for a solution.
I also challenge the notion that the developers consciously gave us the amount of available defense bonuses deliberately and also deliberately gave us a smaller portion of resist bonuses. I'm sure each 3.13% defense buff is intentional, but blasters with 45% ranged defense or defense soft capped dark armor characters doesn't seem to me to be the goal.
To suggest that we are given defense bonuses so liberally because of how they are occasionally so thoroughly nullified requires the developers to both acknowledge and accept how devastating these effects are on characters whose mitigation is predominately based upon defense. That line of thinking conjures the notion that we got a lot of defense from the new PBAE sets because things like rularuu eyeballs and quartz pets rip though defense anyway. To the contrary, I'm not sure those in charge of such matters even fully realize the effects of those types of situations.
Quote:
I'm mostly referring to the kind of uproar the devs would get from the community if they did a change like this.
|
Originally Posted by Dersk
Even if all defense set bonuses were scrapped it wouldn't be as bad as enhancement diversification, even if you're talking only in terms of ED's effects on survivability. Though, that is a bit of a complicated matter for comparison's sake considering the changes to defense calculations in i7.
|
- @DSorrow - alts on Union and Freedom mostly -
Currently playing as Castigation on Freedom
My Katana/Inv Guide
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either. -Einstein
Quote:
I just want an insider leak so I can sell off my oblits and kinetic combats before the change.
|
Originally Posted by DSorrow
I'm mostly referring to the kind of uproar the devs would get from the community if they did a change like this.
|
Quote:
And this is different than defense cap how? |
Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
I can't really agree with this... imagine how many tanks could effortless cap their resistances to a lot of different things (or Brutes). People could just be so ridiculously tough it would be unreasonable.
|
Yes, defense CAP gets to avoid everything and crumbles at defense debuffs. Being at the Resistance cap is nice and all, but you're still going to get hit by every -to hit, -rech, -speed, -def, blind, etc, they throw your way. Against Carnies, Malta, Arachnos, Vanguard, Cimerorans, and others, it is just plain better to not get hit in the first place.
The way I see it, it breaks even. Any argument I've seen against more resistance bonuses fall apart because defense bonuses already do it.
To take a set that uses both: Invul, I'd still go for defense. My fire tank would love if he could stack worthwhile resistances to his armors...
I still stand behind my argument that getting decent resistance values should be as easy as defense, even if it means nerfing the defense IOs.
It sucks that no matter my powersets, the plan for becoming tougher is always MORE DEFENSE!
I'd like to have options. With the IO investment needed, it would be impossible to be capped to both outside of outliers. Squshies would have to pick a side, and for them defense would still be better.
(I do acknowledge that Resistance having innate Resistance debuff does throw a monkey wrench into my argument. On the other hand, I do think -defense in mobs is way overused.)
Quote:
My disagreement is in having both available.
|
Originally Posted by Tormentoso
And this is different than defense cap how?
Yes, defense CAP gets to avoid everything and crumbles at defense debuffs. Being at the Resistance cap is nice and all, but you're still going to get hit by every -to hit, -rech, -speed, -def, blind, etc, they throw your way. Against Carnies, Malta, Arachnos, Vanguard, Cimerorans, and others, it is just plain better to not get hit in the first place. The way I see it, it breaks even. Any argument I've seen against more resistance bonuses fall apart because defense bonuses already do it. To take a set that uses both: Invul, I'd still go for defense. My fire tank would love if he could stack worthwhile resistances to his armors... I still stand behind my argument that getting decent resistance values should be as easy as defense, even if it means nerfing the defense IOs. It sucks that no matter my powersets, the plan for becoming tougher is always MORE DEFENSE! I'd like to have options. With the IO investment needed, it would be impossible to be capped to both outside of outliers. Squshies would have to pick a side, and for them defense would still be better. (I do acknowledge that Resistance having innate Resistance debuff does throw a monkey wrench into my argument. On the other hand, I do think -defense in mobs is way overused.) |
I will concur that -defence is too common, and in too large an amount, since -defence carries the capacity for cascade failure while -resistance doesn't really. But all that really says to me is that defence-based powersets - like shields, sr, and yes, bane spiders - should have DDR, and that cascade failures are just one of the possible failings of characters who aren't necessarily built to take advantage of defence as properly.
Quote:
I'd echo those who suggest this math isn't ideal, and for a couple of reasons:|
Originally Posted by Tormentoso
Getting 20% resistance to S/L through IOs should be as trivial as getting 10% defense to S/L.
Most AT cap at 75-85% resistance, whereas defense caps at 45% for all. So defense still wins. Defense cracks under defense debuffs, Resistance gets hit by every debuff thrown at them. I'd call that even. |
1. Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't think capped resists or capped def are necessarily great design
2. There is more tohitbuff in the game than there is unresistable damage. If the DE had an emanator that made all their damage unresistable, maybe you'd have something.
3. As you've mentioned: Defence debuffs are more common/stackable/generally effective than res debuffs. Now: start throwing around some partially unresistable res debuffs and again, res moves closer to parity.
I'm not saying that in the current state of affairs, res beats out, or even equals def when it comes to stacking, but at the cap, it would have more serious issues than def has now.
And of course there will be stoners who do both. How can you possibly balance content for them and for everyone else?
I agree with you in feeling that res IO bonuses need more, I think quite a bit more... Thus the debuff resist suggestion.
The cake is a lie! The cake is a lie!
Because the cap for resist is different among different ATs I think it isn't actually a huge deal to boost the resists in IOs. Defense set stacking's real balance issue is that the defense softcap is the same for all ATs. If Castle could make any change to the game, I'd imagine the change would be different defense softcaps for different ATs and stacking buffs debuffs.
The real issue for boosting the resist numbers iis stacking def and resist io sets together. I think the devs definitely don't want to boost top level survivability, but maybe having different ways to get there would be OK for them. It'd probably have to involve a shakeup where they made sure there were no resist and defense bonuses in teh same set in order to make us choose.
Either way though I can't imagine buffing io set bonuses is even on the radar given the work being done on incarnates.
Active (Freedom): Setna (Ice/Psi Dom), Arram (WP/KM Tank), Tesmiel (Elec/SS Tank), Astredax (Robot/Dark Mastermind), Operative Vidali (melee fortunata)
Retired (Virtue): Gaav (Inv/EM Tank), Baqra (Fire/SS Tank)
Let me start by saying this is not my idea, it belongs to a guy I game with who doesn't regular the forums anymore.
His idea, and I agree with it, is that +res set bonuses could be fixed by taking the value of the +resist, cutting it in half (rounding up to 1 if below) and changing it to +resist(all) rather than +resist(type). it is pretty much not worth slotting to try and help resistance holes or dents. (don't include mez resistances in this change, just damage resistances)
Now we can bring our resistances up across the board (albeit slowly, to keep it from being broken).
Another way to keep resistances bonuses under control is with the rule of 5. Keep the values really limited.
If the only available bonuses for S/L resistance is 2%, 3%, and 5% (to pull random numbers), the maximum anyone can put together is 50% resistance to Smash/Lethal. And in order to do that, he'd have to have 15 powers slotted for these bonuses, leaving little room for other elements.
Quote:
The issue is not so much in seeing someone go from 20 -> 50% or something like that, but to see everyone who is at ~70% go to 90%, which represents taking only 1/3 of the damage now.|
Originally Posted by Tormentoso
Another way to keep resistances bonuses under control is with the rule of 5. Keep the values really limited.
If the only available bonuses for S/L resistance is 2%, 3%, and 5% (to pull random numbers), the maximum anyone can put together is 50% resistance to Smash/Lethal. And in order to do that, he'd have to have 15 powers slotted for these bonuses, leaving little room for other elements. |
20% is just 4 IO sets of 5% and that is really, really easy. The unique advantages of sets like Invulnerability than can cap without SOs is diluted very quickly when everyone else can do the same...
Quote:
And how is this any different from the current situation with Defense-based sets? Especially when those allow people to soft-cap to various damage types even when they start with next to nothing?
|
Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
The issue is not so much in seeing someone go from 20 -> 50% or something like that, but to see everyone who is at ~70% go to 90%, which represents taking only 1/3 of the damage now.
20% is just 4 IO sets of 5% and that is really, really easy. The unique advantages of sets like Invulnerability than can cap without SOs is diluted very quickly when everyone else can do the same... |
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
And how is this any different from the current situation with Defense-based sets? Especially when those allow people to soft-cap to various damage types even when they start with next to nothing?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
My disagreement is in having both available.
|
Quote:
So then just put them in similar sets. That way, you can't build for both realistically, and get high values for each.|
Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
This from the same thread
|
For instance, Kinetic Combat provides great S/L Defense. Make another melee set like it that provides 5% S/L Resistance as the only difference. Unless you have 10 melee attacks that you can spend slots on, you won't be able to max out both. Most builds that I've seen on these boards have maybe 6-7 attacks, so you could get 12.5% Defense, and 10% Resistance, but that's generally not too bad. And it would allow for Defense-based builds to slot more for resistance to put them more on par with current Resistance-based sets that can still soft-cap Defense.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
Quote:
It will be complicated to do so; some archetypes can soft cap positional defences relatively easily and some can do damage-specific instead. By making it a melee set you still have plenty of other ways of getting lots of defence.|
Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn
So then just put them in similar sets. That way, you can't build for both realistically, and get high values for each.
For instance, Kinetic Combat provides great S/L Defense. Make another melee set like it that provides 5% S/L Resistance as the only difference. Unless you have 10 melee attacks that you can spend slots on, you won't be able to max out both. Most builds that I've seen on these boards have maybe 6-7 attacks, so you could get 12.5% Defense, and 10% Resistance, but that's generally not too bad. And it would allow for Defense-based builds to slot more for resistance to put them more on par with current Resistance-based sets that can still soft-cap Defense. |
Regardless of the method you chose, creating additional avenues will further boost players, because more choice = more power.
I like having defence the way it is. You can soft cap but unless you are a class with inbuilt defence, you will suffer the full effects of defence debuffs. Resistance is a whole different ballgame...
Quote:
Right, but my point is this: if you find out how most people are gaining Defense now, and only use similar sets to put resistance in, you make the player have to choose between Resistance and Defense.|
Originally Posted by BunnyAnomaly
It will be complicated to do so; some archetypes can soft cap positional defences relatively easily and some can do damage-specific instead. By making it a melee set you still have plenty of other ways of getting lots of defence.
Regardless of the method you chose, creating additional avenues will further boost players, because more choice = more power. I like having defence the way it is. You can soft cap but unless you are a class with inbuilt defence, you will suffer the full effects of defence debuffs. Resistance is a whole different ballgame... |
Defense-based sets will be able to gain Resistance in the same way that Resistance-based sets can now gain Defense. Other ATs will have to choose between going Defense or Resistance, since they will be unlikely to be able to get both, if you do it right.
Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus
And yes, you can tell I'm Canadian by the way I spell... assuming I spell at all.
If this has all been said before, forgive me, I've been away for a bit.
I'm back after a break... and in the past I limited myself almost totally to def builds.OK, I did a /fire brute and a Dark brute, and sure I have a spines/regen scrapper from I5 or something, but at least so far as the age of IOs go, everything has been about def stacking. I just didn't think much about res... except perhaps on the Naylor arc... but that's another story.
Now I'm trying out an ele/ tank. I'm committed to getting to end game with him, and maybe in a few dozen levels, I'll have a totally different opinion, but it seems self evident that res bonuses are weak at best.
It also seems evident that simply increasing the numbers is a very bad idea. It'll just lead to some of the same scaling issues that def sets currently have.
I would instead suggest that +res IO bonuses be given another benefit
Just before I left, Def IOs were given a substantial buff, they were given read across to other, semi-related def types.
I propose that res IO bonuses be given read across to semi related debuff types. There's no glaring need to match every cold res buff to the same debuff res type, but as a general guidelines, some relationships would seem to make sense.
Some Ideas?
Energy: end drain resists, perhaps -recovery.
Negative: tohitdebuff, maybe -regen
fire: -recovery resists
cold: movement slows
toxic: maybe regen
psi: recharge debuffs
Smashing and lethal are a bit trickier.
I'd actually be inclined to give lethal defence resistance. There's not enough of it out there to seriously modify things anyway.
Smashing attacks? ok, forget debuffs, how about minor dissorient res, or even -knock?
A well, maybe in a while I'll IO my electric tanker to be so tough I'll look back on this suggestion and laugh
But I doubt it
Thoughts?
edit: I'm not suggesting that the % bonuses need to be the same, a wild guess might be about 2-4X the res bonus to start... or whatever works
The cake is a lie! The cake is a lie!