PvP IO and Purple drop

Clearly, you do not understand the word "quantitative". "Most" or "many" is not quantitative. You have provided absolutely zero quantitative defense of your position on whether PvPOs and Purples are harder to obtain as categories than pool C/D rares as a category. Instead you have chosen a single set and only at a single level, and then compared that to the cheapest of PvPOs.

As a reminder for you, the actual assertion, which you have not addressed, was not that there were no PvPOs (or purples) that cannot be had cheaper than any Pool C/D rare, but rather that as a category, PvPOs and Purples are harder to obtain, by the market or any other means, than the broad category of Pool C/D rares. Dealing with sets of numbers as a category calls for collapsing those sets of numbers to smaller, usually singular quantities, such as averages or medians.

This is very simple. If you want to prove anything in this argument, you need to provide qualitative data to back up the assertions which you made. You are the one taking a position that no one else posting in this thread so far has agreed with. The onus is on you to provide quantitative evidence. Come on, we're talking about concrete numbers here. Why won't you produce them?

With respect to this argument, all I have done is reiterate and carefully explain what, exactly was being said, since you appear to repeatedly try to redefine the argument to allow it to look like you're correct. Comparing a single Pool C set to only the cheapest of PvPOs, while providing no context for how many other PvPOs might outprice that Pool C rare, is clearly you trying to stack the deck. I am spending all this time typing trying to strip away those layers of misdirection. Other than that, I really can't say I've gone down a path at all. My only goal is to stand my ground and insist that you actually back up what you said.

I really wonder if you have played a softcapped character. I really wonder if you have played with a power with a traditional "godmode's" crash at the end. The way you have posted it here, you make it sound as if you can just, hey, pop that whenever you want some better stats, care free. But you don't use "godmode" clicks like that. You use them when you're in trouble, because you better be out of trouble (or willing to pop a chunk of inspirations) when they wind down, since they're taking your other shields down with them.

If you're sofcapped, you just don't get in the kind of deep crap that calls for a "godmode" click often at all. I know, I have softcapped characters. Even in the face of high-order defense debuffs, like you run into with Cimerorans, Shield Defense is one of the better sets for Defense Debuff Resistance, second only to Super Reflexes, because like SR, SD's DDR is enhanceable (and fairly significant).

The further you are from the soft cap, the more important an "oh crap" button becomes. Someone with 35% defense is getting hit 3x more often on average than someone with 45%. Taking a "godmode" on such a character could indeed transform thir overall performance, because getting in deep is going to happen more often. But what did such a build take that they don't already have OwtS? What else did they build for that they don't have it, but aren't softcapped?

So yes, OwtS's stats are great on paper, but if you don't need them except once in a blue moon, it's not reasonable to define them as transformative. Sure, in the case where you do get your +defense stripped off, the performance of a character with OwtS is going to be insanely better than a character without it for a whole two minutes. But how often do you think that happens?

I have an Invulnerability Scrapper. He's always had Unstoppable. I redid his build to be a whole lot better, including being either softcapped or within 0.5% of the softcap to all damage types with one foe in range of Invincibility. When I worked out that build, I dropped Unstoppable to make room for powers and IO sets that got me to the softcap, because being softcapped is just that good. In I19, I'll take Unstoppable again, and probably only put something in its base slot. It'll be nice to have for those once in a blue moon situations, but it won't be transformative to his overall performance.

Clearly you do not even understand your actual statements. I provided examples where the price a "Quantitative" measure of the difficulty to gain the IOs was more for stealth IOs than it was for pvp or purple sets.

I can appreciate your need to move the argument onto ground where you might have a chance of making a point, but here is your statement.

So what is the quantitative measure of "Not even remotely as hard". Just at a guess I wouldn't think costs more than 25%+ of the category is it.



One with the shield has a 60% endurance crash at the end of its run and a 30% endurance recovery boost while active. Your comparisons to traditional god mode powers may sound great to you but is completely off base. Also, just because you pop god modes in a reactive rather than a proactive fashion does not mean everyone does.

Its pretty obvious you are speaking from a lack of experience with using the power, having that kind of survivability boost available a 1/3 of the time is very significant and changes what you can do and the kind of challenges you can take on.

Your examples are not representative of the set of enhancements covered by the name "PvPOs". If you think that 1/4 is representative, I really don't know what else to say.

What you provided was an exception to a categorical statement. Given that the categorical statement is true for at least 3/4 of the objects in the category in question (your number) it remains a valid categorization.

My argument has never once moved. Any wandering around the field I have done is to try and pull you back towards the original goal posts. You either did not understand or did not accept the original meaning of the post, and you now refuse to accept that this led you to make invalid assertions.

Level Celerity Stealth Uniques are not all Pool A/B/C/D rares, nor are they representative of them as a category. 25% (your number) of PvPOs is not representative of PvPOs as a category. You presented a single example as though it made the categorical assertion false. What I've repeatedly asked you to do is to factually challenge the assertions made. If you think that you've provided a qualitative answer to the assertions made by claiming that one level (and only that level)of Celerity Stealth IOs is more expensive that one quarter of PvPOs, I don't what to tell you. Moreover You flatly refuse to respond a quantitative defense of the original assertion (you were the one that introduced the example of Stealth IOs) which was not just for Stealth IOs, but for all non-purple/PvPOs as a category.

Let me ask you a question. Is what you are trying to argue the notion that by showing that there's an exception, the original assertion was false?

So you just run around popping it for giggles? I don't think so; you need to have a reason to pop it. You can be proactive about popping it before piling into a dangerous fight, but that still means you're use it because you're either in trouble, or think you're about to be. You don't use a power like this "just because".

For those for whom activating OwtS is as valuable to their performance as you describe, they will have had it already unless they're n00bs (who aren't under discussion). This isn't just a function of the standalone benefits of the power, which are significant in absolute terms. The final benefit to a character has to be looked at in the context of the rest of the build. Remember - my context was for benefit to high-end, optimized builds. People just don't leave transformative things off of those kinds of builds. On a well-built, softcapped Shield Defense build, OwtS is going to be nice to have, but not transformative.

FWIW, I am quite familiar with what the power's stats are and what it does for the user. I actually think it's one of the best "godmodes" out there for a Defense-based powerset exactly because it layers other mitigation under that defense. That doesn't mean I think that a softcapped build is going to find it important to have except in edge cases. I can't understand why you don't see that this is why people skipped it to begin with. They knew they didn't need it most of the time, and that's exactly the kind of power that gets left off in a highly optimized build. That's why picking it up isn't what I'm calling transformative.

Let me help

So when you have two categories that overlap are they remote, or close ?






Have you ever run a /shield character ? Or are you just trying to say how you play is how everyone plays , "unless they're n00bs".

I don't know maybe you are having further trouble with English again or maybe you are just trying to use the language in a very strange way.

So a power that elevates a scrapper from scrapper levels of survivability to tank like levels of survivability is not a change in character, in your world ?

You keep trying to aim in your scope for tighter and tighter grouping, and you're shooting at the wrong target.

AS A CATEGORY, Stealth IOs are not remotely as hard to obtain as PvPOs. Level 15 Celerity Stealth IOs are not the entire category. They are an example. One example. They are harder to obtain than some PvPOs. There are easier Celerity Stealth IOs to obtain. There is an entire other set of Stealth IOs that is easier to obtain.

How about you explain a situation where you use OwtS when you are not in trouble or don't think you are about to get in trouble. Stop acting like there's an exception without stating what it is, so it can be examined in the light of day.


I am not the one with language difficulty here.

(a) A Scrapper at the softcap is already at Tanker-like survivability, because, considering their defense only, everyone at the softcap is at 90% average damage mitigation, regardless of AT.
(b) A Scrapper at the softcap rarely ever needs the extra mitigation provided by OwtS. I have stated this repeatedly. You are focusing only on the magnitude of the total mitigation when activated and ignoring how likely one is to need to activate it. Players who have min/maxed their build have looked at how likely they are to need the benefits of OwtS and (prior to I19) decided they could do without it. I know only one such character who has OwtS. Is it nice to have? Yes. Does it increase their survival potential. Probably. But if they need it only rarely once capped, and I am telling you, flat out, that they do, then adding something they will need only rarely is not transformative to the character. It does not, by definition of the fact that it is needed and used only rarely, transform the way that the character plays in general.

@macskull, @Not Mac | XBL: macskull | Steam: macskull | Skype: macskull
"One day we all may see each other elsewhere. In Tyria, in Azeroth. We may pass each other and never know it. And that's sad. But if nothing else, we'll still have Rhode Island."

Does bolding things make you believe things more ?

Just to let you try and understand what you are saying take a look below






Are A and B remote from each other as categories or are they quite close.

I understand perfectly what you have been trying to do and say, my failing would be in conveying back to you how foolish it sounds.

What you are trying to say is the equivalent, of saying the United States is far from Russia because Washington is distant from Moscow, when in fact they are 53 miles apart across the Bering Strait.




Do I need to go into why having mitigation factors in excess of 50% is so powerful and why taking 2.5% of incoming damage and having 20% more hitpoints is so potent.

In real life a tank only rarely takes a hit from a tank killing weapon incredibly infrequently especially when not involved in full scale warfare. By your logic a family sedan with a big gun would work just as well because the need to survive a hit comes up rarely.

What you are disregarding is having a god mode lets people take on greater challenges or deal with the ones they have in much better fashion. Then again I am trying to explain to someone that a "GOD MODE" is actually powerful to have.

No, it's done to try and draw your attention to the words that are suppose to have the emphasis, because you seem to have so much trouble understanding which words are the key ones in what I am saying.

If it sounds so foolish, why is it that the few poor souls still reading this thread are agreeing with me? I don't think it's because I have a fan club.

But lets address your set diagram. Yes, there is overlap in the costs. Simply because there are some Pool A/C/D recipes that are more expensive than some PvPOs doesn't invalidate the categorical statement.

"Cars on highways drive faster than cars on downtown streets." Could that statement be better qualified? Yes. "(Most) cars on (many) highways drive faster than (most) cars on (most) downtown streets" would be a more concise (and less categorical) statement. People who are familiar with downtown roads and highways will know that exceptions are possible, but they also understand and accept the broad truism of the statement, unless there is a context-specific reason to call out the exceptions.

You haven't given any such reason so far.

The fact that you either cannot understand or refuse to accept the relevant implied qualifiers in the statements at hand, and that you would go on to argue them on the basis of one recipe at one level, speaks volumes about how myopic and pedantic your way of interacting with people on the forum is. For someone making claims about my having trouble with English you seem pretty terrible at communication.

For me? No. I wondered if you really understood it since all those things are more easily true for a Tanker than a Scrapper, so the whole "Tank-like" reference is poor to begin with.

But none of that addresses how much extra mitigation you need when you have 90% mitigation from being softcapped.

This is a video game. The cost of "losing" is infinitely less. We can safely build for "most of the time" and know that "some of the time" can be covered by inspirations or whatever. I don't know about you, but I build characters who don't need to use inspirations something like 95% of the time, and then I cover the other 5% with an easily renewable resource that doesn't take a power pick.

Let me be blunt. I am inferring from this discussion that you suck horrifically at min/maxing. I think you do not understand how to do it. You can only see the power's stats, and don't understand how to map that to long-term play. I do. I don't just do this stuff in Mid's; I play the game with these builds too.

I play the game with other players many of whom share my passion for min/maxing characters. I review and discuss builds with them. They don't do things you (horrifically vaguely) talk about with their builds either. If it was just me, you might convince me that it was just me being weird, but it's not just me.

You just don't get it. I told you I know what the power does. I know what it does in practice. The point is that being softcapped without OwtS is better than not being softcapped with it. Is having both best of all? Of course! But if you don't need OwtS except once in a blue moon because being softcapped is so good, then it's axiomatic that adding OwtS cannot change the broad nature of how your character plays. "Transformative" means that your character plays very differently all of or most of the time, not just in edge cases.

But its not what you said

Now if we substitute in your qualifier your statement becomes

Moving on

Honestly you went how many posts because you couldn't admit you chose the wrong word ? Yet you still feel justified in lecturing on others inability to understand ?

The cost is time. When you are with a pug, or your finely crafted TF loses people near the end of a tf, and you need the scrapper to tank, or you just need that extra bit to win that is when it pays off.

Perhaps this never happens to you, all your tfs run perfectly, you never are on a pug, and never have problems. My hat is off to you. Your experience I would wager does not echo most peoples.

Edit: I appreciated the double appeal to majority.

Dude. The analogy statement about cars is not the same. It wasn't supposed to be so exact an analogy that it would remain valid if you substitute that word in it there. Sheesh.

Try this instead. "Cars on downtown streets do not drive remotely as fast as cars on the autobahn." True in general. Exceptions do exist. Very few people would argue the exceptions unless relevant in context. And yet, here we are...

Yes, because I stand by what I said. It was not even remotely (ha!) "the wrong word". Seriously, is that what you're making this yellow-brick-road argument about - that you disagree with my use of that word? If that was your gripe, could you not have just said so? I still wouldn't agree, but we sure could have saved a lot of space in the forum DB.

Try telling that to the guys who've soloed four AVs at once using softcapped builds. The one I'm thinking of was an Invuln, and I promise you he didn't pop Unstoppable. Sure, I understand that Invuln != Shields, but we've got evidence of Shielders doing stiff sufficiently ridiculous to believe they can tank most AVs on being softcapped alone.

It's not like I'm trying to convince you OwtS sucks. I'm just saying it's not as important as you think it is, even for the optimization goals you're citing. (Which I don't think are especially common, but that's not really relevant.)

It's definitely not the case that all TFs I'm on go perfectly. I don't pug much, to be sure, so pear-shaped TFs are not the norm for me, but they surely happen. I'm only saying that unless you're up against really hardcore content sans helpful buffs (left alone against Reichsman, or perhaps the ends of the LRSF or STF) Scrapper HP and 45% def will let you to-to-toe with most everything else.

Well, as for the first one we were talking about communication, and the only data I have about who's being successful is the few other posters poking their heads in here. I can't claim much validity in such a small sample set.

As for the builds, I think there's a subtle difference from appeal to majority here. The people I'm talking about (including me) actually play the builds and modify them when we see ways to improve them based on that play. Appeal to authority would be something like "nine out of ten players build this way, so this build must be good." But what I actually am saying is closer to "nine out of ten players have converged on this build through practice and peer review." Of course, I can't claim anything like nine out of ten players - all I have to go on is builds I see and anecdotes or media showing what they achieved. So the way you describe min/maxing is really pretty vague, but broadly, it sure doesn't sound like it would create the builds I usually see.

VS what you said

VS what I said

VS your reply

VS where you are now


You may be standing by the idea of your infallible correctness but you certainly aren't standing by what you said.

This coming from the same guy who responded last time that:

"We already know it's not possible, and we've got three years' worth of time and an entire subsection of these forums behind us."

Make up your mind.

both you and another fan are completely wrong. all you 2 are doing now is arguing for the sake of arguing. market manipulation is not a way to make money because it can not be done. in order for it to be done you would need to buy up all the supply everytime it hit the market leaving only your goods there. it is impossible to do.

another fan, you are comparing a lv 10-15 celerity stealth io's to the low end PvP io's. that is not a fair comparison at all. why don't you actually provide proof of what you speak? because you won't. you do not want to be proven wrong. stealth io's are trivial to attain. PvP io's are not. and the ones that everyone wants to use for PvP are very high priced. infact they are priced at about 4-5 times more then a lv 10-15 celerity stealth io on average.

both of you need to get a life and learn about what you are talking about.

Actually what I did was point out that a statement was not entirely accurate. I really didn't want to rehash the market manipulation argument, its gotten to the point that its like debating religion, especially when you have people that can't admit their positions have changed on the subject.

Between merits, hero villain merits, tickets, there isn't much point to debating the point anyway. Anyone can avoid the market as little or as much as they want to and IO out their toons in good time.

it's best to have some vague idea of what you're talking about before stepping to Mac.

Long term, profitable 'cornering' of a market is not possible in this game, or any game where supply is infinite and generated by people just logging in and playing.

there are various things you can do short term to 'manipulate' a market sector, but they are either extremely costly, or unsustainable, or both.

Great, another one who wants to restart the entire conversation.

Market manipulation exists, deal with it. Although I have no way of knowing if they are as successful as they claim or not, I know people who do it. They have done so for a long time, which leads me to believe they are successful enough to continue doing it. It still remains a fact that people do it, which completely eradicates your theory that it is impossible. Which makes you completely wrong.

I don't like the fact that it happens, but I accept that it does. Which is entirely different than saying it "cannot" happen.

I know a guy who does this thing, and he makes sooooo much money at it so it's totally true! is more comedy than proof.


Details, please.

=)

Speaking of people who don't have a vague idea of what they are talking about...

I never said someone can take a common salvage and put a price of $1 mill on it and keep there for as long as they liked. That's unrealistic. Which, apparently, you and Mac (who think only in extremes) seem to be suggesting I am saying. However, I did say I know people who are jacking up prices and they spend hours just sitting at WW to do it. Obviously they do not sit there 24/7. But they do it.

And as far as stepping to mac, who says I started this? I posted an opinion that drop rates should be higher and he replied by insults and sarcasm. He rolled the dice, I did not. I don't care who he is or you are. It's a forum for all of us players and we are all entitled to opinions. You may not like that concept, you may not like dissenting opinions, you might have already come to some sort of regular-forum-poster agreement on how you think something works, but none of that matters. You all need to deal with it and chill out.

Right after you show me some sort of verifiable proof that someone can not change the price of something on the market.

Educate yourself, I'm not you tutor. I've posted more than enough on this topic over the years to satisfy my own curiosity on the subject, and even if I hadn't many, many other market regs have documented their own experiments for the rest of us to hash over.

That's called 'peer review', which is the polar opposite of I know a guy who did something and made a lot of inf, therefor MANIPULATION!

The burden of proof is on you for making an argument you refuse to back up.

Au contraire, mon frere. "Peer review", (as you call it), is meaningless because it is not fact. It is a group of people who BELIEVE they understand it well enough to come to a consensus among themselves. Oh you certainly may have had some people who did different experiments, but a handful of experiments does not make a theory, a fact. It does not matter how many times you posted your opinion. Facts are facts and theories, regardless of how many agree with you, are only theories.

If I don't farm, but I say I know someone who farms, does that mean it's not happening or not a fact because you and 10 other people may deny it's happening?

I stated market manipulation as a fact since I have personal knowledge of people doing it. And you may rightly challenge that as a fact if you like, but you are not disproving it if you can not show contrary evidence, like FACTS. For instance, you can say "I know no one that can do it" and that may be a FACT. To say "It is impossible" is a THEORY that you believe. A theory is an explanation of facts, without any facts your theory doesn't hold water. That's where you, mac and a couple others are off base. You think you don't need facts because some others agree with you. That's nonsense. Your Peer Review claim is entirely a consensus OPINION, or at best a THEORY. Your peer review is not fact nor contrary evidence.

Since you obviously can't produce FACTS and have no proof to support your assertion that market manipulation is impossible, I will lower the bar for you. Show me some post by a red name that says market manipulation is impossible.

Where do we go from here?

Which has been shown wrong, and yet you never replied to that.

If you can see that Stealth IO for 555 in the recent history, it's not "going for 100M". The fact that someone is willing to pay 100M for a level 15 is not a statement about Stealth IOs in general.

Seriously, how is this hard for you to understand?

I am. Everything I have said is in defense of the quote you pasted above. Do you understand how people debate things in arguments? They go round and round, trying to say or show the same things in slightly different ways in order to explain or support their assertions. Given that, do you really expect me to have made all these posts and never once tried to re-state my position using different words? Are you honestly hanging your argument on the claim that I'm not standing by what I originally said because now I've tried to explain it by stating it in different ways or using analogies?

Are you on crack?

I'm saying the same thing. I'm pointing back to the original post and saying it was correct and sensible. I no longer even know what you're saying. You're like having a conversation with a cloud of cigarette smoke: indistinct and vaguely unpleasant.

Consider me done here.