Before the rumors start

On the flip side, all Resist powers have Resist Debuff Resistance by default, where Defense powers do not all offer the same levels of DDR (and often times none at all). Also, ToHit buffs can begin to chip away at Def more than Res, and this becomes increasingly more obvious in the Incarnate content.

Give and take.

90% resistance mitigates the same amount of damage as 45% defense at standard base tohit but resistance mitigates damage, while defense mitigates whole attacks which includes secondary effects.

Basically, at base 50% tohit, defense tends to be stronger than resistance. However, the number of things that can alter that situation is remarkably high. Tohit buffs and defense debuffs in particular.

Its more proper to say that even though X defense and 2X resistance mitigate approximately the same amount of damage on average, X defense tends to be better sometimes, and 2X resistance is better at other times.

From there, it gets complicated. If you avoid high defense debuffing situations and tohit buff situations and extreme single attack damage, the defense will tend to be better. If you find yourself in high defense debuffing situations and aren't SR (or something else that manages to acquire ultrahigh DDR), the resistance will tend to be better. In incarnate content, moderate resistance tends to beat moderate defense because the enhanced tohit of many critters significantly weakens defense. But high defense tends to beat high resistance because even with that weakening, high defense deflects more of the large amount of debuffs flying around in incarnate content.

Mechanically speaking, there's no such thing as resistance to damage and resistance to resistance debuffs. What Temp Invuln does is grant resistance to smashing and resistance to lethal. Not resistance to smashing damage, resistance to smashing.

What does "resistance to smashing" mean? It means whenever someone tries to land an effect on you that tries to change "smashing" that effect is reduced by the resistance. So when someone lands smashing damage on you, that effect tries to subtract from your "smashing attribute" which is linked to your health: it damages you. That effect is reduced by the resistance. When someone lands a smashing resistance debuff on you, that is *also* a change to the smashing attribute** which the resistance reduces.

Why do all resistance powers have resistance to resistance debuffs? Because really, all resistance buffs *are* resistance to resistance debuff buffs. They are literally the same thing.


What's the difference between defense and resistance when it comes to debuffs? A curious twist of the mechanics. When your resistance is debuffed, the *non-debuffed* value is used for resisting debuffs. If you have 90% resistance and you're hit with a 10% debuff, that gets resisted down to 1%, and then your resistance drops to 89%. But if you're hit again, the next debuff is still resisted by 90%, and your resistance drops to 88%. The reasons are complex.

But when you have 45% defense, you *avoid* most defense debuffs, so only 10% of them actually land relative to having no defense. But when you are hit with a 5% defense debuff (the equivalent of a 10% res debuff), that lands at full strength, reducing your defense to 40%. You now avoid less debuffs than before, which means more land. Which means your defense drops faster. Which means more debuffs land. This is known as cascade failure and it only affects defense, because defense's ability to avoid debuffs to itself get lowered when those debuffs land: that's a uniquely defensive situation.

It is for that reason specifically that DDR was invented. Not because resistance resists debuffs and defense doesn't. Its more specifically because while resistance resists debuffs and defense avoids them, resistance gets to keep its full strength against debuffs while defense does not.



** All attributes have values, they have resistance parameters, they have strength parameters - that's what damage buffs alter. These things - Current value, Res value, Strength value - are referred to as Aspects of the Attribute in the technical lingo of the game engine.

Incarnate content should also mean that there is ample diversification of support. I would hope the leader mixed and matched people well. I think as it is I will have all types of Tankers at 50 doing the same content spotting the differences very soon which has always been my goal.

I was just simplifying... sheesh, mom!

Well, the point of the post was that Defense has it's drawbacks as well as Resistance. Which goes back to what I was responding to, "placing them on equal footing by raising the res cap to 95%." They're on equal footing already, they don't share the same weaknesses, but they both have their own strengths. There's no need to raise one or the other.

What did I tell you about mathematical oversimplifications? Looks like someone needs a timeout.

timeout not affected by global recharge bonuses

If 90% resists let 10% damage in and 45% defense let's 5% damage in...tell me where 5 = 10? Is that mathmagic land?

The problem is defense blocks debuffs etc. because they don't hit...so extra effects...procs...debuffs...none of that hit the defensive player...

so say that attack does 100+10 fire damage

after 20 attacks resistance took 220 damage

after 20 attacks defense took 110 damage.

this assumes all attacks land on resistance...where as you assumed only half would...based on to-hit %

However, if you assume that only half land on resistance, you have to consider the chance that none landed on the defense toon in which case:

20 attacks took 110 damage to resistance

20 attacks took 0 damage to defense

Now let's consider...a situation with a debuff...

let's say each attack has a 10% to-hit debuff that stacks...

20 attacks resistance took 110 damage and has a 5% chance to hit the NPC

20 attacks defense took 110 damage (with a possibility that 0 may have been taken and only incurred at a later time) and has a 80% chance to hit the NPC (assuming 90% to hit and that the attack actually landed...again the aforementioned possibility exists)

clear as mud?

The way you're describing it, 90% resists doesn't let 10% damage in, it lets 5% damage in. 50% of attacks from critters with base 50% tohit miss the player before resistance can act.

If we count everything, half of all attacks miss, and then 90% resistance lowers the damage of the remaining attacks from 50% of the initial amount to 5% of the initial amount. 45% defense does the same thing: 50% miss, and then an additional 45% of the initial attacks miss, and that leaves 5%.

If we don't count attacks that would have missed anyway, then out of 100 attacks 50 hit, 90% resistance reduces those to 10% of their damage. 45% defemse reduces those 50 to 5 attacks, or 10% of the original amount.

When you throw accuracy into the equation the math becomes slightly more complex, but regardless 45% defense is 90% damage mitigation.

I already explained it, but here it is in case you couldn't see it:


We went over this as well. I'll just sum up what we said before. Both have weaknesses, both have strengths. Arcana explained it in great detail, so I'm not going to bother trying to follow that up.

Well, if you're going to assume all attacks hit, you have to make the same assumption for defense. The whole scenario was based off a law of averages. The RNG can just as easily mistreat a Defense based set.

What is with all these strange circumstantial assumptions? Why can't we assume none landed on the resist set?

Again with all the inconsistent assumptions. Let's assume Res got this debuff, and then assume Defense never got hit, got a +1000% damage buff, levelled to 60, and beat Statesman in an arm wrestling competition. Do you think that would still be even footing? Well of course not, because you're talking about completely different situations now.

Whatever assumption you want to make, you have to make for both sides. If you want to assume that Def is catching a lucky streak, then you have to assume Res caught a lucky streak.

I could just as easily say "Let's assume defense got shafted by the RNG, and that Res got a debuff it happens to have virtual immunity to." Playing favorites in your situation set up is always going to be an easy way to paint a false picture. Just don't assume we won't notice.

Again, I point to Arcana's lengthy more in depth explanation about the weaknesses and strengths of both Res and Def.

I'd say you muddied it up pretty good, yes.

You can't assume none of the attacks will hit resistance because resistance has no defense in this circumstance...in 20 attacks...with no defense...you WILL get hit 9-11 times...I took the average...

Rather than get into a debate with you over how well it is that you are unable to read anything I post...I am going to say this.

Whatever you think, it doesn't change the fact that I am not in support of nerfing an AT that doesn't need it and is not broken (brutes). Frankly, Tanks are not broken...they function fine...it might irritate johnny butane to no end, but sometimes I think he just wants to see tanks light the world on fire...because they all have to "feel" like they jumped out of an X-men comic book according to him and he simply refuses to play brutes because they're not tanks and don't get the tanks advantages.

So, IMHO...tanks should not do brute damage, they don't need a buff, and brute resistance caps and damage caps should remain untouched because they're not OP'ed, except in johnny's imagination where tanks are a little girl pouting in a corner over damage and brutes all run around at their resistance and damage caps all the time with no buffs.

Yes, and if we're taking averages, then we can't assume the defense character never gets hit. This is what I was trying to point out with your argument. You assume one person has special luck, but then apply law of averages to the other. You're already using unfair measurements for your basis. If one gets special luck streaks, you have to apply that same special luck streak on the other side of the equation.

Planet_J, I'm not trying to single you out here. You came out and asserted that Res and Def aren't on equal footing. I was only pointing out that in terms of mitigation, they are indeed equal. It's not a personal attack.

Ok assume 0 hits on defensive and 9 hits on resistance...who comes out ahead still?

How about with 1 hit defensive and 11 hits resistance?

That doesn't change the debuffs taken by the resist toon either...

In this special circumstance, where defense is having much better luck than the res set, then yes, your unbalanced example makes Defense look better.

Now, let's say everyone took 3 more hits than the law of averages allots. Defense now takes 300 damage and Resistance takes 130. Resistance wins.

So that's why we use the law of averages when comparing Res to Def, because ignoring it can make anyone look stronger.

[edit] Oops, I made a math boo-boo. If Defense took 3 more hits than averages allot, then it's 4 hits total. Making the damage taken 400.

Likewise, if Tankers had their damage cap raised to the point where it would be approximately equal to Brute damage (given that Tankers have higher base damage, the actual cap would be lower for the same output when capped), Tankers would still not be as damaging as Brutes.

Except in the edge cases where they would be buffed by other players, at which point the Brutes would likewise be as survivable as tanks.

While I don't think a damage cap increase is enough, or even should be the highest priority, it has the advantage of being (I would presume, anyway, not being familiar with the code base) relatively easy to code and test, and would address a long standing and, at least by some, resented asymmetry between the Brute and Tanker AT designs. Who would it hurt to allow Tankers to deal the same damage as Brutes under the same circumstances that allow Brutes to survive the same damage as Tankers?

I think there's something to be noted for HP Caps. Factoring those in, tanks still out-do brutes on survival. So, if we're raising the Tanker damage cap, or adjusting the scalars, then I don't think they should be adjusted so that at peak performance Tanks do as much damage as Brutes.

So, to rephrase, I don't think a Tank with his damage maxed out, should throw Knockout Blow for the same amount of damage that a Brute can with his damage maxed out.

Do they? I was under the impression that, when fully buffed, Brutes and Tankers had the same max HP. Less than fully buffed, Tankers win because they have higher base HP. That said, I've been only erratically in touch with the CoH community for quite a long time now, so lots has changed without me noticing.

Personally, since the two AT's were inspired by pretty much the same comic book characters anyway - bricks - I'd say just eliminate the differences entirely. Give Brutes Bruising and Gauntlet, lower their damage cap slightly to compensate for Bruising. Give Tankers Fury, lower their damage, defense, and resistance scales to match Brutes, and give them the same caps as modified Brutes. Make the only difference between the AT's be which set is primary and which is secondary, and thus what levels you get to take which powers.

[Edit] snipped some stupid rambling, as opposed to the rest of my post which may be stupid, but I think is at least somewhat to the point.

Yes, I feel safe making this suggestion because I believe there is absolutely no chance of it being followed. Heck, my *REAL* suggestion would be to literally merge them into a single Brick AT. That would annoy more players and take more work, though, so I moderated it.

Tanks always have more HP...

Tanks always have more defense...

Tanks have a higher base damage modifier, so if their damage cap was raised to match brutes they would actually do more damage...

Tanks have more base resists by 25% over brutes as well.

That information can be found outside of me telling you that as well.

Now, where was it that brutes can be as survivable as tanks? Because frankly...you and johnny are evidently living in the same world where brutes are uber tanks that do massive damage...

In reality with base damage modifiers accounted for...tanks do damage about like a brute at 10-15% fury...

You're not that bad off on a tank...

Secondly...I don't think merging them would actually work out, as that would really step on too many people's toes.

That is the aim of raising Tanker damage cap to 545%. A Brute would do 10% more ST damage (and 30% more AoE) because Tankers would have 10% more max HP at the cap.


Nope. Tankers have 10% more HP at cap since ~i18.

I agree with the sentiment but not the implementation. They're both intended to be bricks, it's just the Brute succeeds at it while the Tanker has fail damage and has been sidelined as a walking decoy and crutch for bad teams. Tankers should not get Fury and Brutes should not get proper Gauntlet. Both AT's should have their damage caps brought in line with each other to correspond to their very similar defensive caps. Tankers should get their own damage boosting mechanic that is distinct and thematic to them that sets them apart as their own flavor of brick. As I've said before, I'm strongly in favor of trying to emulate the 'World of Cardboard' speech as a thematic hook that justifies Tankers having lower damage most of the time (yet they would have similar but not quite as much damage capacity as Brutes with the caps fixed) but the ability to take off the kid gloves when it's warranted on the hard targets.

This would allow Brutes and Tankers to be villainous/heroic, or savage/self-sacrificing flavors of bricks respectively.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheBigGuy
...versus the aptly named:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheBrute



.

Tankers' hp cap is 110% that of Brutes'.

Well... hm. No? Not exactly, anyway. There's a distinct difference in how villainous or antiheroic bricks behave versus how heroic bricks behave. Villainous bricks are siege engines, while heroic ones are fortresses. In a comic book, the same character can switch back and forth between the two, but the easiest way to do this in CoX is with two separate archetypes (much like how say Gambit is sometimes a Scrapper and sometimes a Blaster -- complete with durability shifts -- in different books). But 'rage' being part of a brick's portfolio definitely indicates an antiheroic bent which they may or may not struggle against.

It's interesting in its simplicity. But I'd rather see suggestions targeted at bringing Tankers into their own as fun to play because they're really good at managing enemies than because we couldn't think of a way to make them different than Brutes.

¡ole! ¡Toro! ¡Toro!

I don't know the code but I have a strong suspicion it would be impossible to do this in any kind of straightforward way without horribly breaking the AT -- or possibly like, all the control powers and probably targeting and mob AI. But it's still a worthwhile discussion to have For The Future.

Plus I also have a strong suspicion that it can be solved with psuedopets, which once would have irritated me but now mostly just amuses me.

And this is precisely why I don't want Tankers toyed with. A proper Tanker build using all the existing end-game upgrade methods available can make nearly any Brute look like a one-trick pony and in some cases can even exceed their performance given that a Tanker's default burst output will not diminish when consistent DPS is interrupted for whatever reason (utilities, mobility, etc.), unlike a Brute who depends on maintaining their chains to keep themselves at optimal capacity. I believe this is the Dev's standpoint as well, which leads me to believe that there won't be a "buff" to the existing framework so much as a complete makeover.

Maybe it's just my overbearing manliness, but I don't like makeovers.

Johnny, I think we're pretty close on something I could call an agreement. I would still prefer that scalars be adjusted over damage caps, so that EVERYONE can make use of the buff as easily. Buffing the caps would only be noticeable on people using builds like SS/Shield or DM/Shield, who are already creeping up to the damage caps. Make the buff a fair one for all builds, and I might just say you and I are one the same page about something for once.

To clarify, I don't find Tankers that bad off on damage, but the idea of making their damage potential on par with Brute survival potential is a fair request.