Quote:
Heh, I probably would have stopped posting if people didn't contest every post I made. |
Originally Posted by JustBling
What you're complaining about is the alleged performance of the sets at a level of investment that the vast majority of players will never experience. I'm not even sure if your allegations are accurate, or to what degree fire has "greater survivability". The inability of the devs to balance around such numbers is less an indictment of class balance, and more of a shining example that some people will complain about everything.
You knew Hami-O's were broken. Your earlier performance as shield was the result of an exploited mechanic. Only now you point out the alleged disparity between shield and other armors. This isn't about the actual powers or sets at all. It's about you and your anger, which should be more self-directed, as it was you that took advantage of a broken mechanic for however long it was relevant. Any wasted investment in the character that this change "ruins" is your fault. Maybe you should have been in the forums a few weeks before this change was announced, pointing out that fire is way better than shield at ridiculously high levels of investment. The fact that you weren't doing so makes you appear simply petty. Edit: To be honest, I'm not sure if my response is "I'm sorry you feel that way" or "cry moar pls" regarding your character. |
This change affects top-end builds. End of story. Most of the characters I make eventually get a top-end build. I have an TW/Elec brute with a similar build, and a upcoming crab spider that will also be expensive. Influence is easy to get, so it doesn't bother me much.
And yes, only now I point out disparities between shield and other armors because that is how much I think a nerf to DDR affects shield . Before, shield was a top set for scrappers and tankers because you could have enough of everything; softcap defense, minor resists with a resist T9, some health, and added offense. Now it loses quite a bit of ground to other sets at the high end and at the lower end is already significantly less powerful because of the nature of defense and resistance in this game (40% is actually only half as effective as 45%, just like 70% DDR is only 1/6th as effective as 95%).
I know many people don't have the funds to invest in high influence builds. But this change won't affect those people because they probably couldn't afford HOs in the first place. Maybe you see me as a dirty exploiter who abused a cheating mechanic to gain power greater than normal players could see. I tell you that I did not choose DM/SD because it was the best powerset in the game. I could name at least 10 powerset combos than could do all my character could do and more. Having 95% DDR is no different to me than ElA having great end drain resist; defense sets should have very high levels of DDR.
If I wanted to exploit the game, I wouldn't have made a single target specialist that relied on large mobs to achieve the best levels of damage. An SS/Fire Brute, Bots/Traps MM, Crab, Ill/Rad controller, Mind/Fire dom, Sonic/Traps corrupter etc. could all exploit the game more than my scrapper ever could. This change is mostly just an annoying nerf, but unfortunately is enough to dissuade me from continuing playing a character. Luckily, I've already achieved most of my goals with that character. What is does is make HOs even less desirable for the only group of players that still commonly use them.
TW/Elec Optimization
All right, as someone who does do excessive things with expensive builds, let me chime in and say that while I understand that any reduction in effectiveness is annoying, going from 90+% to 70% DDR really shouldn't be that big of a deal. The only place that could conceivably make a difference that carrying two or three lucks couldn't alleviate is trying to solo a +4x8 no-incarnate TF as a couple other people have done in the history of the forum. The very fact that you are so quick to give up on the character, though, tells me that if you were planning on doing that you'd do it with one of the characters that you already like more anyway.
Quote:
This I might agree with.|
Originally Posted by Combat
If I wanted to exploit the game, I wouldn't have made a single target specialist that relied on large mobs to achieve the best levels of damage. An SS/Fire Brute, Bots/Traps MM, Crab, Ill/Rad controller, Mind/Fire dom, Sonic/Traps corrupter etc. could all exploit the game more than my scrapper ever could. This change is mostly just an annoying nerf, but unfortunately is enough to dissuade me from continuing playing a character. Luckily, I've already achieved most of my goals with that character. What is does is make HOs even less desirable for the only group of players that still commonly use them.
|
Not that I think it's a nerf. I don't think it's a nerf. They said it wasn't orking as intended.
However, I do agree that it was something not used by a large group of the player base.
Even when SG members would ask me for a build, and I'd use HO's, they always replaced them, or moved slots about to use sets instead, prefering not to use HOs.
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection
Quote:
To me it is very similar to the energy melee change a while back. It kills the spirit of the character; and for that spirit was consistency. He didn't rip through enemies as fast as an SS/FA or other AoE FotM, but he had very few actual weaknesses. Now he is weak to the most common debuff in the game. Maybe the nerf won't effect others as much as it has me, but it completely changes the feel of the character to me.
|
Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
All right, as someone who does do excessive things with expensive builds, let me chime in and say that while I understand that any reduction in effectiveness is annoying, going from 90+% to 70% DDR really shouldn't be that big of a deal. The only place that could conceivably make a difference that carrying two or three lucks couldn't alleviate is trying to solo a +4x8 no-incarnate TF as a couple other people have done in the history of the forum. The very fact that you are so quick to give up on the character, though, tells me that if you were planning on doing that you'd do it with one of the characters that you already like more anyway.
|
TW/Elec Optimization
Quote:
Hmmm...I dont feel this is as bad as that terrible, actual nerf >_>
|
Originally Posted by Combat
To me it is very similar to the energy melee change a while back. It kills the spirit of the character; and for that spirit was consistency. He didn't rip through enemies as fast as an SS/FA or other AoE FotM, but he had very few actual weaknesses. Now he is weak to the most common debuff in the game. Maybe the nerf won't effect others as much as it has me, but it completely changes the feel of the character to me.
|
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
The BrandX Collection
What I don't get is how the claim is being made that a bajillion inf /FA character surpasses /SD, while at the same time crying DOOM over SD's DDR reduction. NEWSFLASH: the tiniest bit of DefDebuff is going to severely hamper that overpriced /FA. But not the /SD.
Oh, and for the record, I always make 10-20 billion inf. builds on all my characters. And I still use Hami's.
Quote:
Quite simply, the difference between 0 and 70% DDR is less than 70 and 95% DDR, so SD is now closer to fire than it is to it's old self. That math may seem flawed, but going from 0 to 70% DDR only reduces the debuff by a little over factor of three, while going to 70 to 95 reduces it by a factor of 6. Therefore, assuming both have cascading defense failure, fire will have more resists and the second best self-heal in the game to fall back on.
|
Originally Posted by kinaki
What I don't get is how the claim is being made that a bajillion inf /FA character surpasses /SD, while at the same time crying DOOM over SD's DDR reduction. NEWSFLASH: the tiniest bit of DefDebuff is going to severely hamper that overpriced /FA. But not the /SD.
Oh, and for the record, I always make 10-20 billion inf. builds on all my characters. And I still use Hami's. |
TW/Elec Optimization
Quote:
70% DDR has to take -150% defense debuffs to go from 45% defense to 0%. If you get hit by that many debuffs, the problem usually isn't the debuffs making you more vulnerable, it's that the Cimerorans just hit you twenty times in the span of ten seconds and you're already dead. In most cascade failure situations, the /fire's defense will fail completely, and the /SD's will fail partially.|
Originally Posted by Combat
Therefore, assuming both have cascading defense failure,
|
Mathematically, yeah, 0-70% is less of a difference than 70-95%. In terms of how they will perform in actual play, I'm not at all convinced that's true. Going from 0-70% DDR will keep you alive in many more situations; going from 70-95% in not nearly as many.
Plus, you can always build an Ageless and swap to it for missions where debuffs are an issue.
I don't disagree that such a change can kill the desire to play a character, though, when you liked the character because of the ability to withstand extreme situations.
Quote:
This forum is open to a wide variety of people. You are nerd raging. Some passers-by will slow down to rubberneck at you, some will stop and ask what's wrong. Some folks will stop by and compassionately ask, "umadbro?" This is what happens when we throw a tantrum in public.|
Originally Posted by Combat
Heh, I probably would have stopped posting if people didn't contest every post I made.
|
Quote:
| This change affects top-end builds. End of story. Most of the characters I make eventually get a top-end build. |
Quote:
| And yes, only now I point out disparities between shield and other armors because that is how much I think a nerf to DDR affects shield. |
Quote:
| I know many people don't have the funds to invest in high influence builds. But this change won't affect those people because they probably couldn't afford HOs in the first place. |
Quote:
| Maybe you see me as a dirty exploiter who abused a cheating mechanic to gain power greater than normal players could see. I tell you that I did not choose DM/SD because it was the best powerset in the game. I could name at least 10 powerset combos than could do all my character could do and more. Having 95% DDR is no different to me than ElA having great end drain resist; defense sets should have very high levels of DDR. |
For the record, this is how I see you: you're the guy with the Lamborghini to me, nothing more.
Quote:
| If I wanted to exploit the game... |
I never labeled you a "dirty exploiter" or suggested you wanted to exploit the game. I merely suggested that when you invested such sums of inf in this particular character, it would have been a good idea to do so with the understanding that it is something that could be fixed at any time.
Yet here you are, unable to deal with the highly probable consequences of your actions.
That's all this is about.
As a long-time expert on making unintentionally inflammatory posts, JustBling, I can confirm that that's what you're doing at this point.
Quote:
I do a lot of soloing at x8+4 so it is going to be a very big deal for me.
|
Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
All right, as someone who does do excessive things with expensive builds, let me chime in and say that while I understand that any reduction in effectiveness is annoying, going from 90+% to 70% DDR really shouldn't be that big of a deal. The only place that could conceivably make a difference that carrying two or three lucks couldn't alleviate is trying to solo a +4x8 no-incarnate TF as a couple other people have done in the history of the forum. The very fact that you are so quick to give up on the character, though, tells me that if you were planning on doing that you'd do it with one of the characters that you already like more anyway.
|
Virtue: @Santorican
Dark/Shield Build Thread
As I've said either in this thread or elsewhere, the thing about soloing any level on x8 is that you're swimming in inspirations in much the same way as you are during a farm. Surely it wouldn't be too much trouble to eat some of the lucks that are cascading down your casually-purpled figure?
Quote:
Really? I honestly can't tell. Seriously.|
Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle
As a long-time expert on making unintentionally inflammatory posts, JustBling, I can confirm that that's what you're doing at this point.
|
<.<
If he'd just said something to the effect the he just doesn't feel as "super" anymore, I woulda read it, shrugged, and moved on. Now he's bewailing how "low survivability" shield is, and I couldn't help myself.
Hey, at least I didn't ask if I could have his stuff.
Okay, I'll stop.
Let me put it in a different way.
Would giving fire, stone, or electric 83.3% resistance to debuff buffs be considered a big deal? Yes, probably.
Functionally, that is the same amount of difference that shield's DDR has been reduced, but in the opposite direction. Those sets would be 6 times stronger against defense debuffs than they were before while shield is now 6 times weaker.
If this is not a large change in a set's survivability, then adding that to the other sets would not be a large change. In other words, this change decreases shield's DDR in the roughly the same proportion as going from 85% resists to none. Basically, it is the same difference as a Warshade with maxed eclipse vs. a blaster with no resists.
And to those attacking me for my highly expensive builds, let me explain. I used to be an altoholic. I have filled every english-speaking server with alts. But recently, I have found myself investing in my characters. They begin as a generic concept, and as I level I make that concept stronger and flesh it out. At the same time, I begin investing resources into that character. A character of mine with a very expensive build is one that I have invested time, influence, and perhaps more importantly feeling into.
You may spit on me for having a "lamborghini", but it was easy to make the influence. Despite my dislike of this change, I have made good use of it and am now hundreds of million of inf richer (thanks lotg: defense and def/end!). Nerfing the high-end does nothing but hurt people who have devoted large amounts of time and effort towards a single character.
And shields IS less survivable than other sets. That is the way it was designed. The thing is, it still has enough survivability for most things, and unlike most builds it was consistently survivable. This change removes the consistency.
TW/Elec Optimization
Quote:
You're going back into fallacious nonsense at this point. You used a broken mechanic, and now it's going to be fixed. Your hyperbole doesn't change that. Your use of nonsense numbers and false equivalency doesn't change that. |
Originally Posted by Combat
Let me put it in a different way.
Would giving fire, stone, or electric 83.3% resistance to debuff buffs be considered a big deal? Yes, probably. Functionally, that is the same amount of difference that shield's DDR has been reduced, but in the opposite direction. Those sets would be 6 times stronger against defense debuffs than they were before while shield is now 6 times weaker. If this is not a large change in a set's survivability, then adding that to the other sets would not be a large change. In other words, this change decreases shield's DDR in the roughly the same proportion as going from 85% resists to none. Basically, it is the same difference as a Warshade with maxed eclipse vs. a blaster with no resists. And to those attacking me for my highly expensive builds, let me explain. I used to be an altoholic. I have filled every english-speaking server with alts. But recently, I have found myself investing in my characters. They begin as a generic concept, and as I level I make that concept stronger and flesh it out. At the same time, I begin investing resources into that character. A character of mine with a very expensive build is one that I have invested time, influence, and perhaps more importantly feeling into. You may spit on me for having a "lamborghini", but it was easy to make the influence. Despite my dislike of this change, I have made good use of it and am now hundreds of million of inf richer (thanks lotg: defense and def/end!). Nerfing the high-end does nothing but hurt people who have devoted large amounts of time and effort towards a single character. And shields IS less survivable than other sets. That is the way it was designed. The thing is, it still has enough survivability for most things, and unlike most builds it was consistently survivable. This change removes the consistency. |
I'm sorry you got burned. I'm glad you're finding a new toon as an inf sink. I hope you have fun.
It stings... I agree (personally, I'm still miffed that they made the Nem staff single target and took "all" of its damage away 
). But it should not be any kind of surprise where the devs explicitly said it was not working as intended. You got away with it for a long time... they fixed it.
Kind of a mis-nomer to call this a "nerf" though imo. The devs stated a long time ago that you should not be slotting debuff enh in buffs and vice-versa. This was a bug. A long standing one sure, but never described as wai by devs. This change is a bug-fix, not a "nerf".
Quote:
And you are just wrong and using an incorrect argument. |
Originally Posted by JustBling
You're going back into fallacious nonsense at this point. You used a broken mechanic, and now it's going to be fixed. Your hyperbole doesn't change that. Your use of nonsense numbers and false equivalency doesn't change that.
|
My point is that this change makes a very big difference, refuting the argument made by many this isn't a big deal. My numbers are 100% correct; they are factually true. A 10% defense debuff used to deal .5% after DDR, and now it deals 3%. If that same debuff affected a toon at exactly the softcap, it would increase incoming damage by 60%, whereas before it would have increased incoming damage by 10%.
This change does little good to overall game balance. It makes HOs much less valuable than IOs, and they already needed help in that department. It hits hardest at the demographic developers should most want to keep: people with a lot of investment in the game and who are probably long-time subscribers. It makes shields MUCH less of a competitor to fire, and fire was already one of the most popular sets. The only good it could possibly do is make SD closer to SR, and to be honest, the problem in that relationship wasn't SD (and ironically, the enzyme change could affect SR the most, as they do not the flexibility of slotting that other sets possess).
But most of all, it shows that the developers no longer balance around SOs. If they did, than they wouldn't try have fixed this "exploit", which only affected high-end characters and could even have been considered a feature by this time.
TW/Elec Optimization
Quote:
Actually, my argument is that you are blowing this out of proportion. I am factually correct. You have turned a numerical difference that you once admitted only affected a fraction of the player base into a train wreck.|
Originally Posted by Combat
And you are just wrong and using an incorrect argument.
My point is that this change makes a very big difference, refuting the argument made by many this isn't a big deal. My numbers are 100% correct; they are factually true. A 10% defense debuff used to deal .5% after DDR, and now it deals 3%. If that same debuff affected a toon at exactly the softcap, it would increase incoming damage by 60%, whereas before it would have increased incoming damage by 10%. This change does little good to overall game balance. It makes HOs much less valuable than IOs, and they already needed help in that department. It hits hardest at the demographic developers should most want to keep: people with a lot of investment in the game and who are probably long-time subscribers. It makes shields MUCH less of a competitor to fire, and fire was already one of the most popular sets. The only good it could possibly do is make SD closer to SR, and to be honest, the problem in that relationship wasn't SD (and ironically, the enzyme change could affect SR the most, as they do not the flexibility of slotting that other sets possess). But most of all, it shows that the developers no longer balance around SOs. If they did, than they wouldn't try have fixed this "exploit", which only affected high-end characters and could even have been considered a feature by this time. |
You may as well type out "DOOM" in all caps too.
As for your numbers, you are using them wrong. You're cloaking the fact that your argument is really one of personal outrage behind numbers that are only correct on the face. When you apply numbers to a fallacious situation, you are garbling your conclusions. Please stop. Someone may believe you.
I have multiple top-end builds, and my EM/SD will probably remain one of my favorites. I don't generally solo a +4, and I don't solo AVs (often anyway), so I don't think the changes will affect me that much. Even among the people I normally play with -- mostly long-time vets with very powerful characters -- this is the general consensus.
Mostly this affects the few people who are on the bleeding edge of what it's possible to do. With this change, another set becomes *slightly* better than one that relied on HO's, and when you're at the bleeding edge small differences are huge.
However, my EM/SD scrapper will still be one of the best toons on any team, considering how infrequently I team with A-class farm builds. ^_^
And I don't think I spent 20-30 billion on that build. Over 16 billion, yes. The only thing I might have done to spend more is to shop around for level 52 HOs. ^_^
my lil RWZ Challenge vid
I am glad I read forum regularly as i just sold my lvl 50 enzymes for 100mil each and lvl 52 membranes for 300mil each which i am really happy about. I was expecting to sell them for a lot less but obviously my bidder hasn't read this thread!
I'm going to be sick if they do not change it now
Quote:
This isn't what everyone's arguing with you about being "false." Yes, 70% versus 95% does have an impact on general game play in regards to dipping below the 45% threshold. But lets step back for a moment and remember you're specifically talking about high-end builds of which should be shooting for 47-48% anyway; meaning you can take that 3% debuff and keep on trucking. Yes, the next one might be rough, but how often ever do you see those stack significantly enough while above 45%? I've played hundreds of hours through */SR and never seen a stack of debuffs together. If one ever gets through, its often gone before the next one comes in. I'm not saying that it isn't possible, but it is unlikely. In regards to */SD, same deal, spent a lot of time on him before I ever got around to throwing Membranes in Active Defense. He may have dipped on occasion, but 80% of the time he was back up before another debuff came in; and if I was ever concerned, a small purple was a quick safety net to avoid an occasional double stacked debuff before it faded away.|
Originally Posted by Combat
And you are just wrong and using an incorrect argument.
My point is that this change makes a very big difference, refuting the argument made by many this isn't a big deal. My numbers are 100% correct; they are factually true. A 10% defense debuff used to deal .5% after DDR, and now it deals 3%. If that same debuff affected a toon at exactly the softcap, it would increase incoming damage by 60%, whereas before it would have increased incoming damage by 10%. |
This is why everyone's saying you're crying "DOOM" about */SD. The set is balanced far more than you're willing to accept. Lets analyze: Willpower makes up for cascading failure in its moderate resistances and potential for super-regen. Invulnerability makes up for differences in a T9 that can jump start it into higher resists and a tool for insta-HP. Stone: Granite, that's enough on it's own. Ice: +HP, and Hibernate, EA: A heal and a T9. Shield's own tools are +HP, reasonable S/L resists achievable, a pocket of slightly better than normal DDR, and two tools focused on pushing damage; one in particular that can instantly give you a bit of breathing room if you need to shake a sudden Debuff in a crater-forming KD.
I'm not trying to argue any points, just layout why it seems those who've been involved really don't agree with your sentiments about */SD.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Combat
This change does little good to overall game balance. It makes HOs much less valuable than IOs, and they already needed help in that department. It hits hardest at the demographic developers should most want to keep: people with a lot of investment in the game and who are probably long-time subscribers.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Combat
It makes shields MUCH less of a competitor to fire, and fire was already one of the most popular sets. The only good it could possibly do is make SD closer to SR, and to be honest, the problem in that relationship wasn't SD (and ironically, the enzyme change could affect SR the most, as they do not have the flexibility of slotting that other sets possess).
|
And in regards to */SR being affected by Enzymes? False. The most powerful */SR build I've ever released didn't require a single HO. Enzymes, in fact, ended up harming the build more than supporting it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Combat
But most of all, it shows that the developers no longer balance around SOs. If they did, than they wouldn't try have fixed this "exploit", which only affected high-end characters and could even have been considered a feature by this time.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Warning: crazy space limit reached. Please delete some crazy and try again. |
Quote:
http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=5494032
|
Originally Posted by Combat
Put 20-30 billion into a fire build and the same amount into a /SD build, and the FA build will be tougher. You are comparing SD with defense softcapped to fire with no defense added, and yes, SD ends up on top at that level of investment. But if you add a lot of defense (usually smashing/lethal instead of positional) to fire, it becomes a much tougher set. This is part of the problem IOs have created; resistance sets can add tons of defense but defense sets cannot add similar levels of resistance. Before I would have agreed with you because any defense added to fire would be susceptible to defense debuffs while SD would remain at the softcap, but now that SD takes 5 times as much debuff the advantage is much less.
|
It's fun to see people who always argued Shield was the bomb and far superior to every other set complain Shield is now going to be useless, and other people who always argued SR was just as good as Shield claim the nerf was needed to bring Shield in line with SR.
Just the facts, ma'am:
- Shield has always been overpowered, and although it was brought down a bit issue after issue, it still was the top dog by a wide margin partly due to HOs. Without HOs, it'll remain an attractive secondary, but not THE one and only choice for a scrapper looking to perform.
- It's been widely known and repeatedly pointed out by people I like to picture with high-pitched voices HO tricks were an exploit before Shield even existed.
- I'm losing about ~40 bill inf with this nerf as pretty much every character of mine uses ++ enzymes in defense powers or ++ membranes in power boost/mind link/active defense, so don't go crying about me being a smug nerfherder. It's about playing the game, knowing you break the rules and not whining like a brat when you get burnt.
- Fixing bugs is good.
I must say.
All of this melodrama over a simple bug fix is hardly the civilized thing...
Well, I shall retire to the game and continue enjoying myself for the evening.
Please call me if you need anything rational...
Edit: Combat, I am sorry this change has killed the joy you had from your character, but I just don't understand how you can say /Fire is more survivable than /Shield without sinking more inf into it than I will ever see. Just wanted to say that.