I know im soured on SR but you could tripple that number before you could see a difference
Combat Kangaroos, Justice Server. First 50's
Jirra Roo Plant/Storm/Stone/Musculature Controller
Combat Kangaroo Rifle/Energy/Mace/Spiritual Blaster
Kung Fu Kangaroo Martial Arts/Reflexes/Body/Spiritual Scrapper
Tribal Arc Shield/Elec/Mu/Spiritual Tanker
Passive scaling dam-res equation as per Arcanaville for brute/scrapper:
DR = ((60-HP%)*#of passives)/3
So it looks like it's actually 1/3 of a point of DR per point below 60% health per passive and not just .3 as per in game.
If .33~ is 75% of the value we want for tanks, it becomes .44~ or 1/2.25 of a point, so the equation changes to:
DR = ((60-HP%)*#of passives)/2.25
If a tank has all three passives and gets down to 20% health, he'll have 53.33~ dam-res to all bu psi and toxic.
10% health = 66.66~ dam-res.
5% health = 73.33~ dam-res.
Yea, that sounds appropriate. This should be entered as a bug report in game and probably PMed to the appropriate staff member with a reminder that tank SR evasion is using the wrong value table for its taunt as well.
Be well, people of CoH.
Well that depends to other issues with the set. But the numbers should be ported over properly is what I was getting at. I'd still prefer to see my changes implemented to SR, but the devs are so stubborn on that.
Plasmic's Guide to Sonic/Mental
Plasmic's Guide to Regeneration
Plasmic Fire - 50 Fire/Rad Victory Server
Quote:
At triple the numbers, there would be almost no reason to play any other tanker.|
Originally Posted by kangaroo120y
I know im soured on SR but you could tripple that number before you could see a difference
|
As to the scaling passives, you can lobby for them to be larger, but they are not bugged. They are explicitly functioning as intended, and there is no rule that mandates they scale upward with tanker modifiers. Those resistances don't even use scrapper or tanker modifiers in the first place: they are hardcoded to generate the same result regardless of archetype.
That's just one of those things, like how Hurl is a ranged attack that uses the melee modifier, so tankers, scrappers, and brutes don't have to actually pay the range penalty built into their damage modifiers. Its like that.
[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:
To make them better. No reason, as a resistance value that it shouldn't be increased for a tanker. It's part of the set, as a resistance value. I see no reason why it shouldn't be AT modified just like a stable resistance like HPT would be. So it works differently, but still is a resistance within the set.
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
At triple the numbers, there would be almost no reason to play any other tanker.
As to the scaling passives, you can lobby for them to be larger, but they are not bugged. They are explicitly functioning as intended, and there is no rule that mandates they scale upward with tanker modifiers. Those resistances don't even use scrapper or tanker modifiers in the first place: they are hardcoded to generate the same result regardless of archetype. That's just one of those things, like how Hurl is a ranged attack that uses the melee modifier, so tankers, scrappers, and brutes don't have to actually pay the range penalty built into their damage modifiers. Its like that. |
Plasmic's Guide to Sonic/Mental
Plasmic's Guide to Regeneration
Plasmic Fire - 50 Fire/Rad Victory Server
Quote:
Except its not. Even if you assert it should be scaled the same as any other resistance, it doesn't function as one. I did fairly conclusive analysis of the passives that determined that averaged across a wide range of situations:|
Originally Posted by Windenergy21
To make them better. No reason, as a resistance value that it shouldn't be increased for a tanker. It's part of the set, as a resistance value. I see no reason why it shouldn't be AT modified just like a stable resistance like HPT would be. So it works differently, but still is a resistance within the set.
|
1. The *average* value of the passives under combat conditions will likely be around 11%.
2. The damage mitigation strength of the passives will be only 3%.
3. The protective value of the passives will be equivalent to static resistances of about 26%.
Increasing the equations for the passives by 33% for tankers would actually change each of those numbers differently. Given their mechanics, its unclear *what* the equivalent scaling factor actually is supposed to be.
The other thing is that it is an exotic mechanic designed to simulate a special environment. It could be refactored into a different mechanic that was not resistance: scaling health for example. Doing so would only make the math uglier, but it would transform the feature from a mechanic that typically scales (resistance) into one that typically does not (+health).
Are you saying that as far as you're concerned, because its mechanically a resistance it should scale? Because that would mean that changing it to a health manipulation would eliminate your objection: you would then be compelled to state it should not scale at all, because those are the rules.
While we are at it, would you like to have all ranged attacks obey the ranged damage modifier, which is the explicit rule that is often violated for melee archetypes?
[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:
However you quantify it, it is a resistance within the set. Yes it works differently than other static resistances, which I enjoy very much so. But fact of the matter, it has a base value for a power, and like every other melee defense set, resistances are scaled to the tanker AT. And there would be no changing it to a health manipulation. It offers resistance. Yes you can "averagely" quantify it. I've done so before as well. Which just shows how it would "averagely quantify" on a tanker with an increased value.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Except its not. Even if you assert it should be scaled the same as any other resistance, it doesn't function as one. I did fairly conclusive analysis of the passives that determined that averaged across a wide range of situations:
1. The *average* value of the passives under combat conditions will likely be around 11%. 2. The damage mitigation strength of the passives will be only 3%. 3. The protective value of the passives will be equivalent to static resistances of about 26%. Increasing the equations for the passives by 33% for tankers would actually change each of those numbers differently. Given their mechanics, its unclear *what* the equivalent scaling factor actually is supposed to be. The other thing is that it is an exotic mechanic designed to simulate a special environment. It could be refactored into a different mechanic that was not resistance: scaling health for example. Doing so would only make the math uglier, but it would transform the feature from a mechanic that typically scales (resistance) into one that typically does not (+health). Are you saying that as far as you're concerned, because its mechanically a resistance it should scale? Because that would mean that changing it to a health manipulation would eliminate your objection: you would then be compelled to state it should not scale at all, because those are the rules. While we are at it, would you like to have all ranged attacks obey the ranged damage modifier, which is the explicit rule that is often violated for melee archetypes? |
And it's not "mechanically" a resistance it IS a resistance (with a scrapper value of .3% per hp below 60%hp per toggle, transferred to .4% for a tanker) that has a base value that can be increased to match the tanker AT, that just works differently than a static one.
It would be exactly the same thing as saying that a tanker Shield armor should have an 11.25% resistance per deflection shield and true grit. Just because it's a dynamic resistance doesn't give it any other reason not to scale per AT.
Plasmic's Guide to Sonic/Mental
Plasmic's Guide to Regeneration
Plasmic Fire - 50 Fire/Rad Victory Server
Quote:
It would take no effort at all.
|
Originally Posted by Windenergy21
And there would be no changing it to a health manipulation.
|
[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:
To do so, probably not. But that's not what it is, and can guarantee you the flack it would get if it was.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
It would take no effort at all.
|
It is a resistance. With a set value per power that can be properly adjusted. No reasoning why not to, just because it is dynamic vs. static. Would LOVE to hear a dev get in on this.
Plasmic's Guide to Sonic/Mental
Plasmic's Guide to Regeneration
Plasmic Fire - 50 Fire/Rad Victory Server
Quote:
Hmmm.|
Originally Posted by Bill Z Bubba
Passive scaling dam-res equation as per Arcanaville for brute/scrapper:
DR = ((60-HP%)*#of passives)/3 So it looks like it's actually 1/3 of a point of DR per point below 60% health per passive and not just .3 as per in game. If .33~ is 75% of the value we want for tanks, it becomes .44~ or 1/2.25 of a point, so the equation changes to: DR = ((60-HP%)*#of passives)/2.25 If a tank has all three passives and gets down to 20% health, he'll have 53.33~ dam-res to all bu psi and toxic. 10% health = 66.66~ dam-res. 5% health = 73.33~ dam-res. Yea, that sounds appropriate. This should be entered as a bug report in game and probably PMed to the appropriate staff member with a reminder that tank SR evasion is using the wrong value table for its taunt as well. |
Would it be better to have the passives start kicking in at 80 vs 60?
Quote:
And when that flack materializes, the specific reason I would give would be to address confusion regarding the resistance modifiers.|
Originally Posted by Windenergy21
To do so, probably not. But that's not what it is, and can guarantee you the flack it would get if it was.
It is a resistance. With a set value per power that can be properly adjusted. No reasoning why not to, just because it is dynamic vs. static. Would LOVE to hear a dev get in on this. |
On the plus side, it would no longer be typed, so it would have toxic and psionic protection like it had in CoV beta. So I don't think those complaints you're imagining would be all that common. I'd probably be cheered.
[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:
Given the ease of HP bonuses versus resistance bonuses I'd easily beg to differ. (though I do agree it would be nice and don't understand it not having toxic/psy resistance admitably, one of my quarrels with the set)
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
And when that flack materializes, the specific reason I would give would be to address confusion regarding the resistance modifiers.
On the plus side, it would no longer be typed, so it would have toxic and psionic protection like it had in CoV beta. So I don't think those complaints you're imagining would be all that common. I'd probably be cheered. |
Plasmic's Guide to Sonic/Mental
Plasmic's Guide to Regeneration
Plasmic Fire - 50 Fire/Rad Victory Server
Quote:
It would be better to have them start at 100% and then value down the base resistance value to average the amount of resistance given throughout the HP bar. Yet another quarrel I have with the set that I suggested they fix (back when it was just on scrappers not even going into the porting to tanker debate)
|
Originally Posted by mauk2
Hmmm.
Would it be better to have the passives start kicking in at 80 vs 60? |
Plasmic's Guide to Sonic/Mental
Plasmic's Guide to Regeneration
Plasmic Fire - 50 Fire/Rad Victory Server
So between scraps/brutes and tankers. For all resistances and defense powers, the Scraps/brutes values are at 75% of the tankers. So, unless the ingame numbers in the power info window changes the defense on the auto powers and not the resistance value by a glitch and it actually is ported properly. Then the resistance value of each auto, should instead of being .3% for each health % under 60% health per auto, it should be .4%. Please fix this.
Plasmic's Guide to Sonic/Mental
Plasmic's Guide to Regeneration
Plasmic Fire - 50 Fire/Rad Victory Server