After reading this post I went and tested it by slapping around Nosferatu with Gloom and Haymaker in AE, watching damage tics in a window dedicated to "damage inflicted" as to see any potential change that would be due to the -res going off, and indeed Reactive's -res doesn't seem to work anymore, at least on the 75% dot 25% -res version.
Quote:
I would think the stack limit was still 6 during the rain bug, because Sleet (15s duration) could wipe out +1 or +2 lieutenants by itself. That means it had to do about... Well, I don't feel like checking the exact figures, but I believe lieuts have about 900 hp, so 2 stacks wouldn't have done it, even with Sleet adding -30% res in there and the -res from Reactive adding another -10%.
| Yeah, all I know is that the consensus seemed to be 5-6 stacks coming out of the Beta, and then there was that 1-2 week period when Reactive turned any Rain power into a nuke -- so either the stack limit was much higher at some point by design, or the stack limit didn't function at all in Rain powers. |
Quote:
Seems the DoT itself only lasts about four seconds. The DoT flag or whatever you'd call it lasts for 10.3 seconds on the target. Or at least that's how I interpret the entries in the Mids' database combined with my own personal experience using Reactive (the dot certainly finishes a lot sooner than 10 seconds). Unfortunately, the info in-game seems to want to give you a useless description of the auto-power on the player that grants the DoT. I'm sure there's a way to get at the info for the power that affects the target, but I don't know where |
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
It depends on whether the things you are typically shooting at will live, on average, at least ten seconds or more. If they don't, some of the DoT isn't realized. Against a pylon, or an AV, or even a Boss, most of the DoTs you stack you'll get full value for. They will speed up the time to defeat. But in a typical mission with mostly minions and Lts, the resistance debuff might speed you up more. That's something these calculations don't really look at.
My guess is the DoT is almost always better than the res debuff, but that's more of a feeling informed by the numbers than a conclusion based on the numbers. |
So it could be that you can't stack the DoT more than twice for 10.3 seconds, but the DoT itself appears well-suited for bursty situations (against low-HP targets, using AoE attacks, which are generally less spammable than single-target attacks). Then again, I'm counting way more than ten DoT ticks over a ten second period in my combat log, so maybe it is a max of two stacks over 4.3 seconds:
Code:
10-10-2011 11:30:57 HIT Traditionalist Commander! Your Dominate power had a 95.00% chance to hit, you rolled a 93.24. 10-10-2011 11:30:58 Your Reactive Interface continues to burn for 14.85 points of fire damage! 10-10-2011 11:30:58 You Dominate Traditionalist Commander for 86.04 points of Psionic damage! 10-10-2011 11:30:58 Your Reactive Interface continues to burn for 14.85 points of fire damage! 10-10-2011 11:30:58 Your Reactive Interface continues to burn for 14.85 points of fire damage! 10-10-2011 11:30:58 Readying Brawl. 10-10-2011 11:30:58 You activated the Brawl power. 10-10-2011 11:30:58 HIT Traditionalist Commander! Your Brawl power had a 95.00% chance to hit, you rolled a 53.70. 10-10-2011 11:30:59 Your Reactive Interface continues to burn for 14.85 points of fire damage! 10-10-2011 11:30:59 You Brawl with Traditionalist Commander and deal 18.28 points of smashing damage! 10-10-2011 11:30:59 Your Reactive Interface continues to burn for 14.85 points of fire damage! 10-10-2011 11:31:00 Your Reactive Interface continues to burn for 14.85 points of fire damage! 10-10-2011 11:31:00 Your Reactive Interface continues to burn for 14.85 points of fire damage! 10-10-2011 11:31:00 Brawl is recharged. 10-10-2011 11:31:00 You activated the Brawl power. 10-10-2011 11:31:00 Brawl missed! 10-10-2011 11:31:00 MISSED Traditionalist Commander!! Your Brawl power had a 95.00% chance to hit, you rolled a 98.84. 10-10-2011 11:31:01 Your Reactive Interface continues to burn for 14.85 points of fire damage! 10-10-2011 11:31:01 Dominate is recharged. 10-10-2011 11:31:01 Your Reactive Interface continues to burn for 14.85 points of fire damage! 10-10-2011 11:31:01 You activated the Dominate power. 10-10-2011 11:31:01 HIT Traditionalist Commander! Your Dominate power was forced to hit by streakbreaker. 10-10-2011 11:31:02 Your Reactive Interface continues to burn for 14.85 points of fire damage! 10-10-2011 11:31:02 Your Reactive Interface continues to burn for 14.85 points of fire damage! 10-10-2011 11:31:02 Your Reactive Interface continues to burn for 14.85 points of fire damage! 10-10-2011 11:31:02 You Dominate Traditionalist Commander for 86.04 points of Psionic damage! 10-10-2011 11:31:02 Brawl is recharged. 10-10-2011 11:31:03 Your Reactive Interface continues to burn for 14.85 points of fire damage! 10-10-2011 11:31:03 You activated the Brawl power. 10-10-2011 11:31:03 HIT Traditionalist Commander! Your Brawl power had a 95.00% chance to hit, you rolled a 18.25. 10-10-2011 11:31:03 Your Reactive Interface continues to burn for 14.85 points of fire damage! 10-10-2011 11:31:03 Your Reactive Interface continues to burn for 14.85 points of fire damage! 10-10-2011 11:31:03 You Brawl with Traditionalist Commander and deal 18.28 points of smashing damage! 10-10-2011 11:31:04 Your Reactive Interface continues to burn for 14.85 points of fire damage! 10-10-2011 11:31:04 Brawl is still recharging. 10-10-2011 11:31:05 Brawl is recharged. 10-10-2011 11:31:05 You activated the Brawl power. 10-10-2011 11:31:05 HIT Traditionalist Commander! Your Brawl power had a 95.00% chance to hit, you rolled a 94.83. 10-10-2011 11:31:05 Your Reactive Interface continues to burn for 14.85 points of fire damage! 10-10-2011 11:31:05 Dominate is recharged. 10-10-2011 11:31:05 You Brawl with Traditionalist Commander and deal 18.28 points of smashing damage! 10-10-2011 11:31:06 Your Reactive Interface continues to burn for 14.85 points of fire damage! 10-10-2011 11:31:06 You activated the Dominate power. 10-10-2011 11:31:06 HIT Traditionalist Commander! Your Dominate power had a 95.00% chance to hit, you rolled a 91.85. 10-10-2011 11:31:06 Your Reactive Interface continues to burn for 14.85 points of fire damage! 10-10-2011 11:31:06 Your Reactive Interface continues to burn for 14.85 points of fire damage! 10-10-2011 11:31:07 Brawl is recharged. 10-10-2011 11:31:07 You Dominate Traditionalist Commander for 86.04 points of Psionic damage! 10-10-2011 11:31:07 You activated the Brawl power. 10-10-2011 11:31:07 HIT Traditionalist Commander! Your Brawl power had a 95.00% chance to hit, you rolled a 83.40. 10-10-2011 11:31:07 Your Reactive Interface continues to burn for 14.85 points of fire damage!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
In reply to the OP:
Sets that can increase base damage do equally well on either, with maybe a slight edge to brutes. The main example would be street fighting. This allows them to get more benefit from fury.
Sets that rely on increasing damage, gain more benefit from being on scrappers. Super strength, for example, would be better on scrappers than brutes because the effect of adding +damage is diluted because fury and Rage both add +damage. This means that sets like DM, KM, and SS are worse on brutes (or will be), sets like claws and dual blades are closer, and sets that only have BU or no damage increase are about the same.
Faster sets tend to favor brutes, because they get more fury generation. Sets like claws, DB, etc.
On a defensive side, shield is better on scrappers and everything else is better on brutes. The sets that have the most difference are willpower, regeneration, fire, electric, invulnerability, and stone (if scrappers get it). Primarily defensive powersets, like super reflexes or energy aura, are roughly equal, however.
TW/Elec Optimization
Quote:
Ms. Arcanaville,|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
If you're talking about the most recent change to Fury, it would be difficult to argue that it did that except under the most extreme circumstances. In lots of other situations it actually *increased* Brute damage.
And what "yet another Brute Nerf" are you talking about specifically? There have been exactly none to my recollection but even if you count the Fury change as a nerf, what was the other one? |
I was indeed referring to the overall reduction of the Brute maximum damage cap and the tweaking to drag down how much Fury one could generate. I understand how those changes made it easier for some to generate and keep Fury going, but I felt it was a "nerf" because I truthfully believed that the changes were unneeded.
I'm OK with numbers and analytical thought, but debating you on figures is like bringing a knife to a gun fight, so I'm not going there with you.
Too many entrenched Scrappers and Tankers thought Brutes were a threat somehow. Because a Brute "could" outdamage a Scrapper (in an optimal team with +Damage Buffers) and be as tough as a Tanker (again in an optimal team with sufficient buffs and/or recharge for the proper Power Sets) that they either had to be adjusted downward, or Scrappers/Tankers needed buffs.
The point I made back then, as I did in this post, was that Brute "balance" compared to Scrappers/Tankers only became an issue when Brutes ceased being a Red Side exclusive. Brute "balance" wasn't an issue in Co-op missions. It wasn't a problem in CoV, as a Brute was a hybrid Scrap/Tank. It was only a big issue when they were brought Blue Side.
This has always been a sore spot with me because I thought that Scrappers and Tankers never should have existed as seperate ATs anyway. If you rememeber way back when Jack was in charge (shudder.....) they toyed with giving Tankers what we now know to be Fury. It was nixed because it was deemed overpowered for a Tank to get a scaling Damage buff.
IMO, Brutes are what Tankers and Scrappers should have been in the first place. The Brute is a perfect AT to represent the Comic Book "Brick". Much moreso than either a Tanker or a Scrapper.
So, I tend to get hypersensitive about "Brute vs. Scrapper/Tanker" threads. People that get the "revelation" that Brutes are unbalanced vs. Scrappers/Tankers usually don't know that this Dead Horse has been beaten so much that we're down to 2 hooves and a bit of Mane and Tail.
Quote:
There is a certain logic to this: so long as there was no way to actually choose between Scrappers and Brutes, the value proposition between the two of them wasn't directly comparable. They then only needed to serve the limits of overall performance balancing metrics, and both are close enough to each other that if one was performance balanced, the other was likely to be also.|
Originally Posted by JulioThom70
Too many entrenched Scrappers and Tankers thought Brutes were a threat somehow. Because a Brute "could" outdamage a Scrapper (in an optimal team with +Damage Buffers) and be as tough as a Tanker (again in an optimal team with sufficient buffs and/or recharge for the proper Power Sets) that they either had to be adjusted downward, or Scrappers/Tankers needed buffs.
The point I made back then, as I did in this post, was that Brute "balance" compared to Scrappers/Tankers only became an issue when Brutes ceased being a Red Side exclusive. Brute "balance" wasn't an issue in Co-op missions. It wasn't a problem in CoV, as a Brute was a hybrid Scrap/Tank. It was only a big issue when they were brought Blue Side. |
However, this isn't just a question of jealously, as it was sometimes portrayed in beta, nor is it a simple matter of now potentially being on the same teams. Now that it is actually possible to choose between the two as a free choice, without any other real restrictions between those choices in a lot of ways (the exception being unshared powersets) good game design demands a much more carefully engineered relationship between the two. The notion that brutes are "fine" is not relevant to this issue. It wouldn't be so if people said things were fine about something you wanted to change, it should not be relevant if its said about something you want to keep the same. Its that simple.
Quote:
| This has always been a sore spot with me because I thought that Scrappers and Tankers never should have existed as seperate ATs anyway. If you rememeber way back when Jack was in charge (shudder.....) they toyed with giving Tankers what we now know to be Fury. It was nixed because it was deemed overpowered for a Tank to get a scaling Damage buff. |
But as to Scrappers and Tankers, I've generally also been of the opinion that Scrappers and Tankers, and as a logical extension Brutes, should all have been the same archetype, for the simple reason that the original premise behind the Scrapper/Tanker dichotomy was actually false from the start. Jack felt that there was a spectrum of things that had both personal toughness and fought in melee range, and they tended to be either focused on defense or focused on offense, thus the two archetypes. Even by his own perspective, that's false in the sense that type of distinction as he portrayed it doesn't exist in that way in the game he was helping to design. Because our MMO has character progress you can't just say if X has more defense than Y, X focuses on defense more than Y. In the game, X has more defense than Y if X is just more developed: higher level or more powers or both, for example. A level 40 Scrapper has a lot more personal protection than a level 12 Tanker, both because of levels and because of more defensive powers better slotted.
So the real question was is there a strong dichotomy in the comic book genre between things that have more offense than they have defense and vice versa. And actually, while such things exist, they tend to be the exception to the rule, not the general rule. Most comic book things tend to have about a balanced amount of personal offense and defense. Think about a comic book melee fighter taking on a near duplicate of itself. Do you expect the fight to a) end in two seconds with one obliterating the other instantly or b) end with the two trading blows for the entire comic with neither actually noticing the other? Neither: you tend to expect one to fight the other and eventually for one to wear the other down and win, most of the time on a moderate time scale.
Since the majority of the time comic book characters are fairly balanced between offense and defense (especially around melee fighters: if they weren't fights would tend to be boring between enemies of similar power) making one archetype that "focused" on defense and one that "focused" on offense is not really a particularly good idea. Especially because the scrapper archetype cheats the definition and is actually a balanced one anyway.
Tankers only exist because the original dev team felt we needed to have an MMO tank class. Brutes exist because the devs felt CoV needed a balanced melee archetype but didn't want to exactly copy Scrappers.
Stalkers are a totally different animal. They are actually an experiment to make a melee blaster in concept.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
With respect, I'm talking about more than Claws. Or rather, I'm talking about other posters talking about sets other than Claws. Specifically, I'm talking about how in thread after thread, some people say and many people imply alllllllllll Brute combinations do more damage than Scrappers (at least Scrappers other than Shield.)|
Originally Posted by JulioThom70
If I hear this one more time......
Brutes have ALREADY BEEN "fixed" to do less damage than Scrappers and more than Tankers. Brutes are already tougher than Scrappers and weaker than Tankers. If Claws is an outlier that allows Brutes to come even to (or a teensy bit more than) Scrapper damage doesn't justify yet another Brute Nerf! |
Or else they're expressing their thoughts badly -- one thing I see is people springboading from a discussion of Brute Claws to make it sound like ALL Brutes are better, but maybe they just got excited and oversold their case.
It may not be true -- it may be just rah-rah cheerleading for a favorite AT -- but again and again I see people implying Brutes are better than, or equal to, Scrappers for offense and defense, and are thus markedly superior.
If that's true, a nerfcall might be in order. If it's not, maybe being clearer about the differences* would help everyone understand.
*i.e., not exaggerating
If we are to die, let us die like men. -- Patrick Cleburne
----------------------------------------------------------
The rule is that they must be loved. --Jayne Fynes-Clinton, Death of an Abandoned Dog
Ok, more on the Reactive thing.
I logged a Pylon run with my Tanker (who has Reactive Total Radial, the T3 DoT proc). In 771 seconds (from 5:00:53 to 5:13:44) of combat, I ended up with:
- 427 successful attacks
- 1588 Reactive DoT ticks
That gives me 0.51 successful attacks per second, and 2.05 DoT ticks per second (or about 0.41 procs per second). Hard to say anything definitive (or maybe I'm just not equipped to say anything definitive) about how the DoT stacking limit works, but it's pretty clear that the Reactive DoT is allowed to stack more than twice per 10 seconds.
It could still be limited to two DoTs per 4.3 seconds (or whatever the duration of the actual DoT is). But that would put the DoT's max ST DPS contribution at 31ish, up from 13.39.
If anyone's interested, the log is posted here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
Quote:
Actually, after talking it over with Arbiter Hawk, I believe Synapse and I were both wrong in how this effect works. There is new tech in the Interface DoT specifically that I did not take into account, and the net result of all of that is that apparently the DoT can stack up to eight times total. That's eight times total from all players that possess it, no matter the form of the DoT. Meaning, if I slot core and another player slots radial, we have different chances to proc the Dot. But we have the same DoT, and we're combined limited to eight stacks on a single target. If the entire team was interface slotted, the entire team would be limited to eight simultaneous DoTs combined from all reactive sources.|
Originally Posted by Obitus
Ok, more on the Reactive thing.
I logged a Pylon run with my Tanker (who has Reactive Total Radial, the T3 DoT proc). In 771 seconds (from 5:00:53 to 5:13:44) of combat, I ended up with:
That gives me 0.51 successful attacks per second, and 2.05 DoT ticks per second (or about 0.41 procs per second). Hard to say anything definitive (or maybe I'm just not equipped to say anything definitive) about how the DoT stacking limit works, but it's pretty clear that the Reactive DoT is allowed to stack more than twice per 10 seconds. It could still be limited to two DoTs per 4.3 seconds (or whatever the duration of the actual DoT is). But that would put the DoT's max ST DPS contribution at 31ish, up from 13.39. If anyone's interested, the log is posted here. |
The fact we don't see very many ticking at one time in testing is because we were all assuming we'd see a 10 second DoT, so there's plenty of time to stack up the DoT in 10 seconds. But because its only 4.3 seconds long, its actually not easy to consistently get more than 2 DoTs running. You're seeing slightly more than two, because you're probably getting between two and three DoTs to fire within that 4.3 second window.
What's more, I'm not quite sure yet if the DoT will actually be a 75% chance to run a full DoT. Thinking about it, its possible that we aren't getting a 75% chance to *have* a DoT, we might be getting a DoT with a 75% chance to proc *each tick* of the damage. I'm in the process of engineering some test to try to confirm all of this, and I'll post when I have more information.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
Yeah, wasn't sure if that extra 0.05 tick per second was just wonkiness of some kind. In retrospect the Tanker probably wasn't the best option because he has relatively slow attacks and because I basically have to stop and attack very little for ten seconds every time Rage crashes.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Actually, after talking it over with Arbiter Hawk, I believe Synapse and I were both wrong in how this effect works. There is new tech in the Interface DoT specifically that I did not take into account, and the net result of all of that is that apparently the DoT can stack up to eight times total. That's eight times total from all players that possess it, no matter the form of the DoT. Meaning, if I slot core and another player slots radial, we have different chances to proc the Dot. But we have the same DoT, and we're combined limited to eight stacks on a single target. If the entire team was interface slotted, the entire team would be limited to eight simultaneous DoTs combined from all reactive sources.
The fact we don't see very many ticking at one time in testing is because we were all assuming we'd see a 10 second DoT, so there's plenty of time to stack up the DoT in 10 seconds. But because its only 4.3 seconds long, its actually not easy to consistently get more than 2 DoTs running. You're seeing slightly more than two, because you're probably getting between two and three DoTs to fire within that 4.3 second window. What's more, I'm not quite sure yet if the DoT will actually be a 75% chance to run a full DoT. Thinking about it, its possible that we aren't getting a 75% chance to *have* a DoT, we might be getting a DoT with a 75% chance to proc *each tick* of the damage. I'm in the process of engineering some test to try to confirm all of this, and I'll post when I have more information. |
I remember there being some discussion when Reactive first came out about whether each successive tick of the DoT has a chance to fail (a la Inferno or whatever), and my (foggy) memory is that that idea was shot down shortly after Beta. Things change, though, and god knows I've been wrong before. Will have to do some more messing around later.
Anyway, thanks. Appreciate the clarification.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
There might be something I'm missing, but you can attack just as much during Rage crashes, you'll do 1 damage but procs and reactive still have the same chance to go off and to do the same damage.
I remember reading someone saying the DoT had a chance to go off but didn't stop the dot if it failed ; as in, the first tic could go off, the second tic could not happen, and then the third tic could go off again. Never bothered to test it myself, but it should be easy enough with the tier 1.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sailboat
With respect, I'm talking about more than Claws. Or rather, I'm talking about other posters talking about sets other than Claws. Specifically, I'm talking about how in thread after thread, some people say and many people imply alllllllllll Brute combinations do more damage than Scrappers (at least Scrappers other than Shield.)
Or else they're expressing their thoughts badly -- one thing I see is people springboading from a discussion of Brute Claws to make it sound like ALL Brutes are better, but maybe they just got excited and oversold their case. It may not be true -- it may be just rah-rah cheerleading for a favorite AT -- but again and again I see people implying Brutes are better than, or equal to, Scrappers for offense and defense, and are thus markedly superior. If that's true, a nerfcall might be in order. If it's not, maybe being clearer about the differences* would help everyone understand. *i.e., not exaggerating |
Ok enlight me why is there a "nerfcall" in order? Becous brute players can overcome the weaknes of the class and and be as good or even better than the scrappers in certain builds? Hmm I think I missed the part where it's says "Every other class Is forbidden do be equal or in certain situations better in melee than the scrappers. If they are NERF THEM!!!!"
Quote:
Endurance |
Originally Posted by Nihilii
There might be something I'm missing, but you can attack just as much during Rage crashes, you'll do 1 damage but procs and reactive still have the same chance to go off and to do the same damage.
|
That build is end-sustainable running a single-target chain for a good few minutes, but only if I stop attacking during Rage crashes. (My theory when designing the build was that I could just use Taunt during those down periods.)I was just rambling; probably shouldn't have mentioned it because I was spamming Jab during the breaks in Rage during that run anyway. Jab-spam is probably pretty close in terms of average attack speed to my normal chain.
Quote:
| I remember reading someone saying the DoT had a chance to go off but didn't stop the dot if it failed ; as in, the first tic could go off, the second tic could not happen, and then the third tic could go off again. Never bothered to test it myself, but it should be easy enough with the tier 1. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
Ok, so if it's 75% chance of 13.36 damage per tick, 5 ticks over 4.3 seconds, max stack 8 ...
That's
.75 * 13.36 * 5 / 4.3 ~= 11.65 each
.75 * 13.36 * 8 * 5 / 4.3 ~= 93 dps max
.75 * 13.36 * 3 * 5 / 4.3 ~= 35 dps - for the builds tested.
Add in the the debuff for previously reported 195 raw
195 * .04 = 8 dps
Then the total reactive T4 would be 35 + 8 = 43 dps.
Which fits better with reported results for 30 to 40 dps. I'm more than willing to dismiss reported results, especially ones not tested precisely. However, I'm even happier if what we calculate matchs more closely with reported results.
That would in turn mean, it's highly unlikely you would ever want anything other than radial as you would need an absolute buzz-saw to saturate that solo. But Caltrops, Rain of Fire, Damage Aura's and such would in-fact saturate it, if they had not been modified not to do so. That actually makes sense. It would also fit better with the pet builds getting some extreme results that they appear to sometimes, but not reliably, get.
Quote:
If they're better in all respects than Scrappers, what sense does that make? Good game design requires that choices can be made between differing elements, not between "this element is better in every way" and "this element is weaker in every way but exists so you can make the mistake of choosing it."|
Originally Posted by sati44
Ok enlight me why is there a "nerfcall" in order? Becous brute players can overcome the weaknes of the class and and be as good or even better than the scrappers in certain builds? Hmm I think I missed the part where it's says "Every other class Is forbidden do be equal or in certain situations better in melee than the scrappers. If they are NERF THEM!!!!"
|
That's not really something you can argue about, it's just true.
If we are to die, let us die like men. -- Patrick Cleburne
----------------------------------------------------------
The rule is that they must be loved. --Jayne Fynes-Clinton, Death of an Abandoned Dog
Quote:
Except they aren't.|
Originally Posted by Sailboat
If they're better in all respects than Scrappers, what sense does that make?
|
I don't have time at the moment to give you all of the reasons why.
In general, Scrappers do more damage, and Brutes are slightly more resilient.
There are some very specifc combinations where one AT or the other might have a truly superior advantage compared to the exact same combination on the other AT.
But for the average player, in the typical way this game is played - no brutes are not better in all respects than Scrappers.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sailboat
If they're better in all respects than Scrappers, what sense does that make? Good game design requires that choices can be made between differing elements, not between "this element is better in every way" and "this element is weaker in every way but exists so you can make the mistake of choosing it."
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Stalkers are a totally different animal. They are actually an experiment to make a melee blaster in concept.
|
I would say failed experiement.
When something good happens to me, I can never enjoy it....
I am always too busy looking for the inevitable punchline...
BEHOLD THE POWER OF CHEESE!
Quote:
So I expect a huge nerf is in oredr for corrs seeing how many people are saying they are better in every way than defs. Next stalker players will demand a huge nerf for the scrasp (And every player will demand a nerf for the ill/rad conlroler combo|
Originally Posted by Sailboat
If they're better in all respects than Scrappers, what sense does that make? Good game design requires that choices can be made between differing elements, not between "this element is better in every way" and "this element is weaker in every way but exists so you can make the mistake of choosing it."
That's not really something you can argue about, it's just true. |
). Most players don't even bother to test the numbers behind the AT's, and many of them are just brut or scrap fanboys. What is a bad game design is when the devs start to listen to this type of people.
"OMYGODZ AT x can be is better or equal to my AT? <NEEERDRAAAGE> NERF IT NOWZ!
ps. everyone who playes AT x shoud DIE!"
I read posts written by experienced players (no fanboys) concerning this topic and I was left with the impression that Brutes and Scrappers are both as good and can both do equaly good dmg. Not that onle AT is superrior to another. What is important is tha the play a bit differently.
Quote:
If you read his earlier post where he first mentions a 'nerfcall', he actually says that either:|
Originally Posted by sati44
So I expect a huge nerf is in oredr for corrs seeing how many people are saying they are better in every way than defs. Next stalker players will demand a huge nerf for the scrasp (And every player will demand a nerf for the ill/rad conlroler combo
). Most players don't even bother to test the numbers behind the AT's, and many of them are just brut or scrap fanboys. What is a bad game design is when the devs start to listen to this type of people. "OMYGODZ AT x can be is better or equal to my AT? <NEEERDRAAAGE> NERF IT NOWZ! ps. everyone who playes AT x shoud DIE!" I read posts written by experienced players (no fanboys) concerning this topic and I was left with the impression that Brutes and Scrappers are both as good and can both do equaly good dmg. Not that onle AT is superrior to another. What is important is tha the play a bit differently. |
1) More good information should be spread
or
2) If they really are imbalanced, a nerfcall might need to be had.
This is the exact opposite of saying that because nebulous amount of X category people say Y, Z action must automatically be taken. He was merely speaking in the hypothetical, and he is absolutely right in that hypothetical.
I did read it thank you. I don't need you teling my what I did and what I didn't read. Ok? Ok.
1) Good info is beenig spred by pople that know what they are talking about as I started in my post
2)
Quote:
As far as i know beeing equal is not the same as beeing superior. So in his opinion a nerf is in order whan some of the players say "my AT is as good as your". If one AT is equal to the other or better in certain power combanations it is imbalanced and should be nerfed? Great logic.|
but again and again I see people implying Brutes are better than, or equal to, Scrappers for offense and defense, and are thus markedly superior. If that's true, a nerfcall might be in order. If it's not, maybe being clearer about the differences* would help everyone understand. |
Quote:
|
Am I right in believing that Brutes are intended to be sturdier than Scrappers but do less damage, so that they are effectivley in between Tanks and Scrappers on a continuum? Because if that's true, and if, as some assert, Brutes actually do more damage than Scrappers, shouldn't we expect some sort of Brutewide nerf to get them to where they are supposed to be? |
Quote:
I've only had a chance to do some preliminary tests, but I can confirm that the DoT is not cancel on miss (if it misses, the rest of the ticks can still fire). So the description is a bit off: its not a 75% chance for a five tick DoT, its a five tick DoT with a 75% independent chance for each tick to fire (or whatever the percentage happens to be).
|
Originally Posted by Nihilii
I remember reading someone saying the DoT had a chance to go off but didn't stop the dot if it failed ; as in, the first tic could go off, the second tic could not happen, and then the third tic could go off again. Never bothered to test it myself, but it should be easy enough with the tier 1.
|
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
It's not hard to see that his meaning is: better than or equal to the scrapper in one field, outright better than in the other. Given that he explicitly uses the word 'superior.'
|
Originally Posted by sati44
As far as i know beeing equal is not the same as beeing superior. So in his opinion a nerf is in order whan some of the players say "my AT is as good as your". If one AT is equal to the other or better in certain power combanations it is imbalanced and should be nerfed? Great logic.
|
You wrong. What he's saying is that some % of player says that the brutes are better and some say they are just equal to scraps.
My point is the whole time people give good or bad argument that brutes are better or that scrappers are better. He is basically saying that there is some law that forbids the brutes to be better. So no discussion if it's true or not - brutes are not allowed to be better and if the are the devs should nerf them.
I don't give a dam if one AT is better that the other. I personaly don't like scrappers but that's me. I don't have a problem with them beeing better in the end. But I find it ridiculous to say that one AT can't be better because this is the law of the game.
Quote:
That's not what he's saying. He's not saying it should be, he is saying it is. He doesn't care if there is a rule that brutes are better. His argument is this:|
Originally Posted by sati44
You wrong. What he's saying is that some % of player says that the brutes are better and some say they are just equal to scraps.
My point is the whole time people give good or bad argument that brutes are better or that scrappers are better. He is basically saying that there is some law that forbids the brutes to be better. So no discussion if it's true or not - brutes are not allowed to be better and if the are the devs should nerf them. I don't give a dam if one AT is better that the other. I personaly don't like scrappers but that's me. I don't have a problem with them beeing better in the end. But I find it ridiculous to say that one AT can't be better because this is the law of the game. |
1. Brutes have more HP and higher Resist caps that scrappers
2. Brutes do equal or more damage than scrappers at the top levels of performance
3. Damage and survivability are the only "jobs" of brutes and scrappers
Therefore: if 1, 2, and 3 are true the conclusion is that brutes are better than scrappers at "everything" and scrappers have no reason to exist.
Apparent Unstated premise #4: All ATs must have advantages and/or disadvantages that balance out in order to have a reason to exist.
Conclusions/Opinons drawn from the above (not to be confused with his arguments even though he voices them in the same sentence): If the devs don't balance the ATs it is because they want people to be able to make gimpy choices. Brutes need to be nerfed.
Note: This is not my position, but I am also not opposed to it. It just seems you're not understanding Sailboat's (and to a lesser extent everyone on that side of the fence). So I figured I'd try to clarify.
My position is that I haven't seen nearly as many psychotic AV soloing brutes as I have scrappers, so it seems scrappers are "close enough for government work". And I don't know the math well enough to understand the differences, so I'm waiting for a definitive statement from Arcannaville and/or Nihili and will trust them 'cause I know they know what they are talking about.
"Hmm, I guess I'm not as omniscient as I thought" -Gavin Runeblade.
I can be found, outside of paragon city here.
Thank you everyone at Paragon and on Virtue. When the lights go out in November, you'll find me on Razor Bunny.
Quote:
The above argument hasn't worked very well in the Scrapper/stalker debate.
|
Originally Posted by GavinRuneblade
That's not what he's saying. He's not saying it should be, he is saying it is. He doesn't care if there is a rule that brutes are better. His argument is this:
1. Brutes have more HP and higher Resist caps that scrappers 2. Brutes do equal or more damage than scrappers at the top levels of performance 3. Damage and survivability are the only "jobs" of brutes and scrappers Therefore: if 1, 2, and 3 are true the conclusion is that brutes are better than scrappers at "everything" and scrappers have no reason to exist. Apparent Unstated premise #4: All ATs must have advantages and/or disadvantages that balance out in order to have a reason to exist. Conclusions/Opinons drawn from the above (not to be confused with his arguments even though he voices them in the same sentence): If the devs don't balance the ATs it is because they want people to be able to make gimpy choices. Brutes need to be nerfed. Note: This is not my position, but I am also not opposed to it. It just seems you're not understanding Sailboat's (and to a lesser extent everyone on that side of the fence). So I figured I'd try to clarify. My position is that I haven't seen nearly as many psychotic AV soloing brutes as I have scrappers, so it seems scrappers are "close enough for government work". And I don't know the math well enough to understand the differences, so I'm waiting for a definitive statement from Arcannaville and/or Nihili and will trust them 'cause I know they know what they are talking about. |
When something good happens to me, I can never enjoy it....
I am always too busy looking for the inevitable punchline...
BEHOLD THE POWER OF CHEESE!
What happens if we increase fury by 10% (although 85% is a very generous assumption without surrounding yourself with enemies) and increase criticals to 12%? (i.e. the AT specific sets)
The point of showing the numbers, though, was to show the actual change will be relatively small. The reason why is that an increase in critical rate from 10% to 12% increases damage effectively from 1.1 to 1.12, which is an increase of 1.12/1.1 = 1.018, or about 1.8%. Which is how much that would increase damage if all of your damage was subject to criticals, but its not because a portion of your damage is the DoT stream, which doesn't crit. So the net change is slightly less than 1.8% more damage.
I should point out, though, that people chase invention set damage buffs, and those are usually smaller in magnitude. The critical boost is going to be equivalent to somewhere in the neighborhood of +3.5% damage strength, more in some builds. That's halfway between a red and purple tier damage set bonus (3% and 4%).
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)