The Enzyme Nerf Cometh

Which is a fine way of gathering data, as long as you acknowledge its limits.

I don't think anyone would argue with that, but these abilities have a cost of less margin of error, and a playstyle that is far more finessey than your description of your shield character's soloing technique.

Bonker's solo everything project is quite impressive. He also began the TF's fully IO'ed. He wasn't purpled or PvP IO'ed out, to my knowledge, but he does state that he hit 50 and IO'ed first.
This is a poor example of what you can do without IO's, isn't it?

I don't believe that I have suggested that you shut up, just that your level of outrage was unwarranted. You keep inflating these things. At first, it was just a minority of players that were affected, and I thought that you agreed with that. Now, you state this change, in short, is somehow indicative of the dev's changing attitudes to the player base.

My message has always been that you and others like you used an exploit, and should accept the consequences.

<3

Invincible pets? Ah, you're talking about Phantom Army?

Yeah, PA is pretty game-bending, if not game-breaking. But its' not in a debuff set.

If you're talking about Illusion/Rad Controllers, just come out and say it. There are a LOT of buff/debuff sets that are orders of magnitude less powerful than Ill/Rad, and it sounded like you were talking about them.

PA is a good example of the old devs not understanding what they created. Some sets had ridiculously overpowered tools, like Illusion, while others were incredibly gimpy, like Dark Miasma. Still, don't forget that other controller sets were soloing AVs at the same time as Ill/Rad started too, and faster (Fire/Rad for example.) And nowadays we have tons and tons of characters that can do similar things without radiation or illusion. Some can't. FF for example. But that doesn't mean that quite a few combinations are more exploitive than any melee character can be, by design.

Actually, in many cases I did have to use finesse to beat an AV. It wasn't as simple as just using an attack chain over and over again till the AV falls. Because of the way a DM/SD works, you need to be surrounded by enemies to do decent damage, as Smite-SL-Smite-MG is actually not incredibly damaging by itself. In order to deal with AVs that have resistance or high regeneration, I had to constantly manage the number and strength of the foes around me, making sure that I did not kill them while at the same time constantly balancing my life. 16 bosses wouldn't die to soul drain, but could kill me easily (especially if they were +2, +3, or even +4), while 16 minions would die too quickly but keep me safe. Additionally, I did not possess enough resists or +MaxHP to take large hits well, and would have to carefully time my big heal so that I got good use of the +regen but didn't fall to a quick two-shot. Some AVs, like Diabolique (sp) took me over a half-hour before I finally got the right formula down, and even then I didn't have enough tools to stop them from running or activating a godmode.
He wasn't meant to be an example of SO soloing, but just an example of how even fairly tame combinations of support/anything can solo tough challenges in a broader manner than even my best meleers can achieve.

I'm trying to respond to every point against my argument.

One argument I kept hearing is that this change is minor, so I used proportional math to show how much of a change it is.

Others have stated that it is a good change simply because it was an exploit. In response, I tried to show that simply being unintended does not mean that a change is positive, especially considering that many things unintended by the devs have been positive additions to the game (and the old dev mindset of "only play as we intend" was destructive).

One claim was that the change was good because SR will be in better balance with SD. And while that is factually true, I don't think that SD should be penalized for being designed in a better way; rather, I believe that SR should buffed in a way that makes it a better match with the modern game (on an aside, I think any defense set that relies on defense as its main protection should get capped DDR).

Finally, many have said that I should just accept the change because I abused a bug knowing the developer stance on it. However, to me it was just a tool, and the one of maybe a half-dozen ways that IOs were still useful in the modern game. Removing these tools is understandable, though the effects of the game economy have already been a great drain on the resource's of those who used those HOs. However, I don't think is good for the game to remove these tools because it gives nothing positive to the playerbase while taking away the tools of builders and min-maxers on the whim of developers.

I would approve of this change if HOs became more useful because of it, but as of now all it does for me is dissuade me from playing one of my favorite characters, remove a viable build option that doesn't rely on IOs for effect, and make fire an even MORE popular set while doing little to help the sets that are relatively struggling. Developer intent should not be the deciding factor, but instead the affect of the game should be the critical focus. As of now, I can only see this change as a negative one, and it makes no sense for me to support it.

I understand your proposition about having to maintain an area of saturation around you. I just note that the use of debuffs and having to continually shunt aggro is probably more complicated than having things around you which you can't kill without gimping yourself.

Fair enough, then you juxtaposed him poorly in your statement.

Proportional math? Is that what it is?
I understand that people say that after a certain threshold, every point of DDR has the effect of multiple points. This is only a useful assertion when trying to expound upon the importance of more ddr, not a value that can be asserted without any existing DDR.

From a real number standpoint, every point of DDR reduces the defense debuff by the same amount.

Taking, say, a 25 percent reduction in shield's DDR and then saying it's just like 80ish DDR--which you then suggest adding to other sets to test player response--is simply wrong. Of course people would object to adding that much DDR to these other sets, especially in this amount, because you have artificially inflated the real numbers and many of these sets function just fine as they exist.

The change is what it is, I'm not going to label it as positive or negative, except as proof that the devs are fixing old bugs.

So you believe it was designed with the exploit in mind?

After using the bug (or tool, if you'd rather) you are subject to the natural results of its fix. This isn't a moral condemnation, just the results of simple cause and effect.

It is more complicated than just knowing which enemies you can't kill. It requires knowledge of an AV's abilities, aggro control (ideally you would get the enemies to attack you in such a way that they do not use their most dangerous abilities), and the ability to find a very fine balance between damage and death. And a good build...


Functionally they do have the same magnitude of change. And every point of DDR does not reduce defense debuff by the same amount, just like every point of defense decreases damage taken by differing amounts. Going from 94% to 95% DDR is much greater than going from 0-1%, just like the last 5% of defense to softcap improves total survivability by the same amount as the last 40%. If I had designed the system, I probably would have may it work in the opposite direction, but the system is set up so that every point of defense, resistance, and DDR is more valuable than the last right until the soft-cap/cap.

Even without the exploit, shields is better designed. Heck, even with its extra offense, it is better designed. It allows the user to stack IO sets to reach the cap, gives and gives minor boosts to resistance and MaxHP, which makes the defense more effective. AAO has a side affect of reducing enemy damage (which is not directly resisted by AVs or GMs), and shields godmode is functionally useful even after reaching the softcap. Grant cover allows a shielder to be marginally useful to a team, and phalanx fighting makes a shielder gain benefit from shielding.

In contrast, SR is defense, defense, defense, and more defense, combined with DDR, DDR, DDR, and more DDR. They've been given slightly useful resists in the passives and quickness is a good power, but SR still is way too one-sided to work well in today's game.

Again, you're talking about proportional numbers, which are only useful when you compare them to prexisting numbers. Your problem is taking a proportional number and assigning it a real number value, then asserting it in a situation without cause.

That 5% defense everyone goes on about reduces incoming damage by the exact same number of damage points whether it is added to zero (0) or forty (40) defense. I'm not talking about "survivability percent" which is a proportional measurement. I'm also not talking about a comparison to the damage taken before the extra 5%, which is again a proportional measurement. I'm talking about damage sustained, which is a simple number in points of damage.

Proportional numbers are fine when compared to other proportional numbers, but when assigned real numbers based upon their proportional value, lose all meaning.

...

I'll put this simply.

Let's say 4 minions = 2 lts = 1 bosses, and a hero can survive 3 minions with no defense or resistance.

At 25% defense, incoming damage would go from a value of 3 minions worth of damage to 1.5 minions worth of damage. Therefore, said hero would be able to survive against 6 minions, or 3 lts, or 1.5 bosses.

Increase that to 37.5% defense. That is half the value of the previous defense increase, and yet incoming damage is again proportionally decreased to .75 minions worth. Since our hero can survive 3 minions worth of damage with no defense of resistance, he can now survive 12 minions, 6 lts, or 3 bosses.

Half the defense, same effect. The value of each point of defense increases as it approaches 45%. 1% of defense does not equal x amount of damage avoided. The same is true for resistance.

All of these measurements are relative. Mathematically, there's no such thing as a "minion" of damage. Those minions do damage in terms of points. Your 5% defense deflects* the same number of points whether you add it to zero or forty defense.

How hard is this to understand?

Here, let's do some actual math.
I'll be using Arcanaville's simple formula:
NetToHit = Accuracy * (BaseToHit - Defense)

I'm clearing up variables that are going to be held constant.
Assuming attacks with no higher accuracy, the Accuracy has been set to one (1). I've then eliminated Accuracy as a variable for this example only, as it's not in contention.
Critter base to hit is 50%, and so has been set to .50.
Defense will be done in 5% increments.
I've renamed NetToHit as N, and Defense as D.

The simple formula looks like this:
N = 0.5 - D
The rest of the calculations are easy:

No defense:
N = 0.5 - 0 = 0.5 or 50% chance to be hit
Five defense:
N = 0.5 - 0.05 = 0.45 or 45% chance to be hit
The difference between .50 (50%) and .45 (45%) is 0.05 or 5% difference in mitigation.

Forty defense:
N = 0.5 - 0.4 = 0.1 or 10% chance to be hit
Forty-five defense:
N = 0.5 - 0.45 = 0.05 or 5% chance to be hit
The difference between .10 (10%) and 0.05 (5%) is 0.05 or 5% difference in mitigation.

It's really as simple as that. Five percent is five percent, no matter where you put it.

Now, for the record, I also understand your argument. The easiest way to express it is in terms of halving incoming damage. At 0 defense, it takes 25 to half incoming damage. At 40 defense, only 5 defense will half incoming damage.In terms of real numbers, though, there is a big difference in actual damage taken.

The individual at 40 defense cuts damage in half by using only 5 additional defense, because that character is already taking much less damage. In terms of points of damage taken, this halving eliminates the same amount of damage per point of defense.

In terms of "feeling" you do feel tougher after adding 5 defense to 40 because you are at the softcap. At zero defense, adding 5 is noticeable only on spreadsheets, or when combined with other forms of mitigation. However, you can't just take numbers and say something like this: "At 40 defense, adding 5 proportionately halves incoming damage, so it's just like adding 25 to a non defense build. Since people think it would be a big deal to do so, the 5 defense is a big deal." This is exactly what you said earlier in the thread, and it is a misuse of the numbers. Doing this removes the proportional measurements from their frame of reference, and without that frame of reference, you may as well be making numbers up. At least it would be more honest.

*Of course, attacks are deflected, rather than individual points of damage. The problem with lower levels of defense is that they are difficult to notice, as you will take full damage when you do get hit, unless you have other mitigation options.

Yes, it does. But when you add it to 40%, that same number of points subtracted is half of the incoming damage - the same +5% defense doubles your survivability when you start at 40%, but only marginally increases survivability when there's no other defense to add it to. So, proportionally, it is worth more, exactly as Combat is saying. Basic time-to-live calculations demonstrate this also - each point of defense will add more time-to-live than the last point did, up to the softcap.

Are you using a different definition of "exploitive?" (I would have said "exploitative," but that's a nitpick). I don't think "turning on your primary and secondary powers" meets most definitions of "exploit."

I have agreed that proportional numbers are fine on their own. I even demonstrated that I understand and agree with what he is saying in the post to which you respond.

I am disagreeing with what he is doing with these numbers, it does not follow that I am disagreeing with everything he says. I have at more than one point expressed agreement with some of his statements, including his use of proportional measurements in their proper context. When he takes these measures out of context and removes those things to which they are proportional, he is engaging in fallacious arguments and I feel free to comment appropriately.

I'm not even disagreeing with things like this:

I am specifically disagreeing with this, which is an example of what happens when you confuse proportional math with real numbers:

He knows that giving these other sets this much DDR is unreasonable and wrong for several reasons, but he purports that it is the same amount that shield is losing. My point is that once he removes the context of shield's existing DDR, the value of the points cannot be held the same. I'm merely criticizing this, because he continually purports to have numbers that back him up.

He seems to be toying with the notion that anything that confers an advantage (regardless of whether it's fair or unfair, intended or not) is an exploit.

You're right, 5am reading comprehension fail. Sorry.

Yes, that would definitely not be the same magnitude of change. The first change would allow you to survive a huge number of situations that would otherwise be lethal. The second change would allow you to survive a much smaller number of situations that would have killed you otherwise.

No, it's really not the same magnitude in terms of performance.

More important than that:
People's responses, that such an act would be unbalanced, is less a result of the changes to /shield being huge, and more a response to throwing numbers onto more or less balanced and working sets.

Oh, and if I may point out--you're suggesting giving these sets more points than shield has after the fix. How is this rational? How does that really adequately demonstrate what shield has lost?

If we choose an enemy with exceptionally heavy auto-hit defense debuffs, sure. And if we pretend that 45% defense is "safe" and 40% is "unsafe" rather than merely "less safe", yes. The first is not common, the second is not a good assumption. Even with 70% DDR, the amount of attacks needed to cause severe cascade failure will usually kill you by themselves, before the debuffs are even an issue.

Now you're babbling. For the record, your use of incorrect maths underscores that you are conceptually wrong. So yes, you are wrong at both levels.

This thread, since about page 3 or 4, has had nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with your butthurt. Your use of numbers--particularly substituting proportional for real numbers and vice versa--only underscores the fact that you really don't know what they mean.

(And...is that a little man of straw I see there? Has someone suggested getting defense was easy? I suppose we'll never know.)

Hamis are fixed, suck it up and move on.

...uh...

I really have no idea where you've gotten this idea. Shield is a top notch set for general play. It does thrive in crowds more than against a single target, but groups of enemies still exist in many places (in fact, ALMOST EVERY PLACE) outside of farms.

Combat isn't the OP, I am. And I called it a nerf because, well, it's been in the game for about 5 years?

If you're gonna go "holier than thou" on people at least have the common courtesy to spell correctly.