Quote:
Do you want me to scream at you? |
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
The alternative which works equally well for the mitigators is to simply use variations of the duration equation for magnitude stacking of defense and resistance.
I.e. Damage = BaseDamage / (1 + NetResistanceBuff) |
I remember sending you a PM back in the day that you proposed the multiplication I posted above, I mentioned that formula since I figured it may be easier to implement and I still sort of remember your answer: "But then what meaning the numbers in powers will have? If 20% resistance no longer is 20% resistance?"
Today I think there is no point in simplifying it, this would need a code change and once you dive into it you may as well do it "right".
Quote:
I'd take that bet. However, I must take note here that only one person can really take that bet, and I'm one and oh against this particular individual.
|
Originally Posted by Adeon Hawkwood
Sooooooo many possible responses here
 .I'll be good though. Suffice to say I'm not as convinced as you seem to be that a DR system could be implemented that would have a noticeable effect on team play without marginalizing the lower performing support sets. I'm not going to say it's impossible but I am extremely skeptical. I think we'd likely end up in a situation where either some support sets become "useless" (especially Force Field) or where the diminishing returns on buffs are to low to have a noticeable impact on play. |
[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:
True, but its become more clear to me now that almost *none* of the numbers really mean what most players think they mean, and actually thinking they mean something actually misleads players more than it guides them. What does 41% defense mean? The english sentence that best answers that question doesn't even contain the number 41. Percentages in particular are highly problematic.|
Originally Posted by Starsman
Do you want me to scream at you?
I remember sending you a PM back in the day that you proposed the multiplication I posted above, I mentioned that formula since I figured it may be easier to implement and I still sort of remember your answer: "But then what meaning the numbers in powers will have? If 20% resistance no longer is 20% resistance?" Today I think there is no point in simplifying it, this would need a code change and once you dive into it you may as well do it "right". |
Also, my original equations above aren't actually diminishing returns equations. They are more properly described as multiplicative constant return equations.
In any event, if I were designing a combat system from scratch today, I would deliberately make the base numbers not mean things the mechanics wouldn't obey. In other words, either 41% defense means 41 percent of something specific and meaningful, or its a 41 rating and the percents and the misleading connection to hit chance goes out the window. To reinforce that, it would be a 410 rating to shatter the association completely.
To be honest, I wouldn't even have "resistance" and "defense" in my game. Those things are inversely related to survivability, and why should the game force people to think about inverse relationships. I would rate so-called resistance abilities and defensive ones by admittance, the made-up metric I invented that no one else uses that specifies how much damage gets through rather than gets blocked. Or more specifically, by inverse admittance.
A 100 rating resistance power would be twice as strong as a 200 rating resistance power. Meaning you'd live twice as long with the 200 power. That's really easy for the casuals to figure out. The *math* is a lot harder for the min/maxers to deal with, but tough.
[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:
The idea, at least my version, is not to make a set weaker than it is now, but instead to make two sets stacking weaker.|
Originally Posted by Adeon Hawkwood
How exactly? Yes, you can limit the ability of debuffs to stack with each other but I don't really see how you could avoid debuffs stacking with buffs.
Time Manipulation is a good example. It combines a strong Defense Buff with a strong To Hit Debuff. Now assuming you DR'd the Defense Buff int he manner you discribed the To Hit debuff is still at full strnegth and, effectively, fully stacking with any Defense buffs you have. |
So, a Time Manip that debuffs and buffs will do the same.
Two Time Manip together will be weaker than two Time Manip are today, though. The ToHit debuffs of each Time Manip would not add up, they would also follow the same formula I showed you for stacking on top of eachother.
Remember: the goal is not to make any set weaker than it is today, its to make grouped players the insane power multipliers they are today.
Quote:
| Diminishing Returns wouldn't directly hurt it but I think that its Jack of All Trades, Master of None approach will get hurt by the fact that the debuffs it does have will lose effectiveness since at least some of them will be stacking with debuffs from other players. |
Quote:
| Sonic Resonance is slightly better than Force Field in that it does provide some resistance debuffs along with it's resistance buffs but the fact is most Defender sets can pump out decent resistance debuffs and provide a wider variety of other tools (it doesn't help that Sonic has 4 powers with very questionable design decisions). |
Quote:
| Overall I think DR would leave the top support sets relatively unchanged (Traps, Cold, Time, Rad, Dark) while lessening the benefit of lower tier sets to teammates. The only set I see really benefiting is Thermal since it's Resistance buffs get stronger relatively speaking and it's other powers are unlikely to encounter as much DR as some sets. |
This would not benefit anyone and mainly "hurt" Defender/Melee combos (and various IO builds.)
Quote:
I agree. Are not games like EverQuest2 and Waraft based off such arbitrary ratings? ratings that also need to grow as you grow because 200 may be twice as good as 100 at lvl 10, but may mean gimp gear at level 20?|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
In other words, either 41% defense means 41 percent of something specific and meaningful, or its a 41 rating and the percents and the misleading connection to hit chance goes out the window. To reinforce that, it would be a 410 rating to shatter the association completely.
|
Would allow for a "perpetual" growth where you can always add a few more points on top for the next levels and make enemies hit with a bit more damage and accuracy ratings.
I think the only mechanics in this game that can be used that way are +HP and linear Damage increases via 100% chance procs or base damage (the two things the IO system decided to be extremely stingy with!!!)
Quote:
Pretty much. I've often felt it would be interesting in this game if they changed to a Rating system so that buffs scaled with the AT of the character they were used on. There would, however, be less need to grow rating as you leveled since the primary purpose of such in other games is to make low level gear obsolete.
|
Originally Posted by Starsman
I agree. Are not games like EverQuest2 and Waraft based off such arbitrary ratings? ratings that also need to grow as you grow because 200 may be twice as good as 100 at lvl 10, but may mean gimp gear at level 20?
|
Quote:
Not that exclusively, it also makes lower level buffs weaker than higher level ones. Those games tend to require you upgrade your abilities for newer versions every few levels. Not saying those games are the incarnation of balance, though.
|
Originally Posted by Adeon Hawkwood
Pretty much. I've often felt it would be interesting in this game if they changed to a Rating system so that buffs scaled with the AT of the character they were used on. There would, however, be less need to grow rating as you leveled since the primary purpose of such in other games is to make low level gear obsolete.
|
Quote:
Well it's more a low level buff cast on a higher level character is weaker. In general they balanced it so that for most abilities the the actual benefit remained relatively constant across levels. So the amount of Rating provided increased as you leveled at about the same rate as the amount of Rating required for 1% improvement also increased (i.e. using made up numbers a level 10 might have a 100 Rating buff giving 5% To Hit while a level 50 might have a 700 Rating buff giving... 5% To Hit).|
Originally Posted by Starsman
Not that exclusively, it also makes lower level buffs weaker than higher level ones. Those games tend to require you upgrade your abilities for newer versions every few levels. Not saying those games are the incarnation of balance, though.
|
The original reason they implemented the Rating system was for gear. They needed to provide higher level gear but had pretty much reached a cap for how high it could go without breaking the game. Changing to a rating system allowed for low level gear to get worse, similar to out-leveling enhancements in CoX.
Quote:
And that concept makes little sense here when the ratings refer more to our own personal ability than gear (how do you outlevel your own abilities?). In fact I believe the days of expiring enhancements is numbered (that's my feeling: I know of no such plan by the devs at the moment). I think part of the motivation the devs have for selling attuned enhancements is that they are realizing or have realized that enhancements shouldn't expire, and this is a small step in the direction of eliminating that behavior.
|
Originally Posted by Adeon Hawkwood
Pretty much. I've often felt it would be interesting in this game if they changed to a Rating system so that buffs scaled with the AT of the character they were used on. There would, however, be less need to grow rating as you leveled since the primary purpose of such in other games is to make low level gear obsolete.
|
[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 it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense (why is my Defender's Ice Shield more effective on a Tanker than a Brute?) but it would be interesting from a balance perspective. It would provide an alternative way to differentiate between ATs in a high-buff situation other than buff caps.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
And that concept makes little sense here when the ratings refer more to our own personal ability than gear (how do you outlevel your own abilities?). In fact I believe the days of expiring enhancements is numbered (that's my feeling: I know of no such plan by the devs at the moment). I think part of the motivation the devs have for selling attuned enhancements is that they are realizing or have realized that enhancements shouldn't expire, and this is a small step in the direction of eliminating that behavior.
|
Not necessarily a good way but an interesting way.
As for Enhancements now all we need to do is convince them to change IOs so that their set bonuses behave the same way as Attuned enhancements (but considering how much I PANCAKED about it in Beta I doubt that'll happen).
Quote:
To be fair, IOs have never expired. If they do make enhancements never expire, why use a lvl 25 IO over an SO that wont ever expire? Will the ++ system go away? Or will they just get rid of the TO/DO/SO system entirely and start selling common IOs in the stores instead? (This in my mind would be the ideal path.)|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
And that concept makes little sense here when the ratings refer more to our own personal ability than gear (how do you outlevel your own abilities?). In fact I believe the days of expiring enhancements is numbered (that's my feeling: I know of no such plan by the devs at the moment). I think part of the motivation the devs have for selling attuned enhancements is that they are realizing or have realized that enhancements shouldn't expire, and this is a small step in the direction of eliminating that behavior.
|
What I trully hate is that the special enhancements, like the Hydra enhancements, can expire at all. Those are too special to just expire. Always bothered me. A lot.
I also wish the non-common IOs, the sets, did not have a level and acted like Attuned ones do. I find the system currently encourages a very absurd behavior of slotting the lowest level possible enhancements you can get.
Quote:
I know khelds resist caps and I was talking about if they nerfed brute resistance. Since brutes are off the table for adjustments I am no longer concerned
|
Originally Posted by Starsman
I don't know who you had that conversation with, but those ae some wise words.
Anyone that thinks tankers have issues should focus on the tankers issues, not on how to adjust other ATs to make tankers look good. For the record, Kheledian's Resist cap is 85%. |
Currently Playing:
Rage King - SS/Regen Brute (50+3)
Soulfire Darkness - Dark/Fire Tank (50+2)
Deaths Final Embrace - Kat/Dark Brute (50+3)
ULTIMATE REGEN GUIDE I22
I think you all are spending way too much time worried about 1% of the game.
How much of any toons entire lifetime is spent in itrials buffed to the gills? Seriously...the toon I ran trials heavily on to get all t4'ed out with lots of different powers, I bet I ran probably...20-30 hours worth of trials the entire time...that's a drop in the bucket compared to getting that toon to 50...running TFs and SSAs...getting accolades, collecting badges....I still play that toon all the time, and I only run trials on that toon now when the new ones come out for the badges. I am certain it was easily less than 3% of his entire lifetime to this point...all said and done, I feel extremely confident saying it's less than 1% of what his total time in game spent will be.
So, if 99% of the time, saturated buffs are not an issue...and really...in my mind they're not an issue period.
Then why do you spend so much time saying..."but when EVERYBODY hits the caps..."
That's such a nonexistent set of criteria, it's likely the reason it hasn't been addressed...and probably never will.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled tanker programming:
Tanks, are meatshields, it's clearly what they do best, I like the idea of extending taunt durations for tanks. Though, I also agree this can be somewhat counter productive for some ATs in a team with a Tank.
I feel the best way to fix tanks would be to adjust their damage modifier down to say...0.650 and give them fury and about 700% damage cap....
Now all whining stops I bet.
Any takers? They even get a "new" mechanic...(albeit recycled but still)
Currently Playing:
Rage King - SS/Regen Brute (50+3)
Soulfire Darkness - Dark/Fire Tank (50+2)
Deaths Final Embrace - Kat/Dark Brute (50+3)
ULTIMATE REGEN GUIDE I22
Errr I don't like the idea of other ATs coming into the argument of Tank/Brute superiority.
He will honor his words; he will definitely carry out his actions. What he promises he will fulfill. He does not care about his bodily self, putting his life and death aside to come forward for another's troubled besiegement. He does not boast about his ability, or shamelessly extol his own virtues. - Sima Qian.
Quote:
This is a missconception. Saturated buffs, in all content, are an issue and usually possible for melee ATs with a single defender, add a second and things go highwire.|
Originally Posted by planet_J
So, if 99% of the time, saturated buffs are not an issue...and really...in my mind they're not an issue period.
|
Mind you, it's not a tanker specific issue, and the fix would not fix tankers anyways.
Quote:
With what? A kinetic is the only thing that even has a valid argument and FS isn't up all the time. That speaks more about nerfing kinetics than anything else...|
Originally Posted by Starsman
This is a missconception. Saturated buffs, in all content, are an issue and usually possible for melee ATs with a single defender, add a second and things go highwire.
Mind you, it's not a tanker specific issue, and the fix would not fix tankers anyways. |
Which is precisely why I am trying to AVOID this becoming another all over the place thread with no real consensus...if anybody wants something done to/for tanks. Then speak up and make your point.
Altering Melee AT's other than tanks are off the table. Altering Buffs from Defenders/corruptors, etc. are likely a separate issue for another time...
WHAT WILL FIX TANKS IN YOUR EYES?
Answer that question.
Currently Playing:
Rage King - SS/Regen Brute (50+3)
Soulfire Darkness - Dark/Fire Tank (50+2)
Deaths Final Embrace - Kat/Dark Brute (50+3)
ULTIMATE REGEN GUIDE I22
Quote:
Fulcrum Shift has a 60 second recharge time and a 45 second duration. Not only can Fulcrum Shift be up full time; double-stacking Fulcrum Shift on a fairly consistent basis isn't difficult to do.|
Originally Posted by planet_J
With what? A kinetic is the only thing that even has a valid argument and FS isn't up all the time. That speaks more about nerfing kinetics than anything else...
|
It is a context-dependent buff, though. And it is only one buff available to one set; that much I'll grant.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
 |
Quote:
You didnt specify recharge. A sonic defender can cap the resistances of most melee characters. A defender with Tactics can soft cap the defenses of many characters.|
Originally Posted by planet_J
With what? A kinetic is the only thing that even has a valid argument and FS isn't up all the time. That speaks more about nerfing kinetics than anything else...
|
Quote:
| Which is precisely why I am trying to AVOID this becoming another all over the place thread with no real consensus...if anybody wants something done to/for tanks. Then speak up and make your point. |
Quote:
|
WHAT WILL FIX TANKS IN YOUR EYES? Answer that question. |
Quote:
I'm still rather amused that you're so worked up about this. IF over the life of your Brute as you say, you only see the caps during 1%, why were you so being so "panicked" about the idea of lowering the caps by 5%? You were so stressed out at the thought, you had to check with a dev to make sure Brutes weren't going to be touched! Once you found out they weren't, you came back with a very vindictive snark. Nice. You win an internet!|
Originally Posted by planet_J
I think you all are spending way too much time worried about 1% of the game.
How much of any toons entire lifetime is spent in itrials buffed to the gills? Seriously...the toon I ran trials heavily on to get all t4'ed out with lots of different powers, I bet I ran probably...20-30 hours worth of trials the entire time...that's a drop in the bucket compared to getting that toon to 50...running TFs and SSAs...getting accolades, collecting badges....I still play that toon all the time, and I only run trials on that toon now when the new ones come out for the badges. I am certain it was easily less than 3% of his entire lifetime to this point...all said and done, I feel extremely confident saying it's less than 1% of what his total time in game spent will be. So, if 99% of the time, saturated buffs are not an issue...and really...in my mind they're not an issue period. Then why do you spend so much time saying..."but when EVERYBODY hits the caps..." That's such a nonexistent set of criteria, it's likely the reason it hasn't been addressed...and probably never will. Now, back to your regularly scheduled tanker programming: Tanks, are meatshields, it's clearly what they do best, I like the idea of extending taunt durations for tanks. Though, I also agree this can be somewhat counter productive for some ATs in a team with a Tank. I feel the best way to fix tanks would be to adjust their damage modifier down to say...0.650 and give them fury and about 700% damage cap.... Now all whining stops I bet. Any takers? They even get a "new" mechanic...(albeit recycled but still) |
Anyway, I've already mentioned my thoughts about improving tanks a few times, not that anything I've mentioned is likely to get implemented. But, you never know, I could get close to the target.
The changes Arcana and Starsman mentioned would probably make the game more balanced, but I'm not sure how they would go over with the player base this late in the games life.
Throwing darts at the board to see if something sticks.....
Come show your resolve and fight my brute!
Tanks: Gauntlet, the streak breaker and you!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PapaSlade
Rangle's right....this is fun.
|
Quote:
Tanks aren't broken.
|
Originally Posted by planet_J
WHAT WILL FIX TANKS IN YOUR EYES?
Answer that question. |
[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:
Lady, you gone too far!!!
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Tanks aren't broken.
|
My answer was "Having more people playing them," but I might like Arcana's better at this point.
Quote:
If you like that, you should see the thread he started in the Brute forums. Give him two internets.
|
Originally Posted by Rangle M. Down
You were so stressed out at the thought, you had to check with a dev to make sure Brutes weren't going to be touched! Once you found out they weren't, you came back with a very vindictive snark. Nice. You win an internet!
|
@Rylas
Kill 'em all. Let XP sort 'em out.
Quote:
What about adding lasers on their heads?
|
Originally Posted by Jack_NoMind
My answer was "Having more people playing them," but I might like Arcana's better at this point.
|
@Rylas
Kill 'em all. Let XP sort 'em out.
I'll be good though. Suffice to say I'm not as convinced as you seem to be that a DR system could be implemented that would have a noticeable effect on team play without marginalizing the lower performing support sets. I'm not going to say it's impossible but I am extremely skeptical.
I think we'd likely end up in a situation where either some support sets become "useless" (especially Force Field) or where the diminishing returns on buffs are to low to have a noticeable impact on play.
Now if DR were combined with some other changes in the form of a major overhaul of support sets to account for DR then I could see it working but i don't see it working if it's just stacking DR on top of the current sets.