BellaStrega

[ QUOTE ]
We do have evidence that Statesman stopped talking about things in the future that may change though. [IE: Giving a sugjection to slotting 5 SO'sdurring I5 knowing that they were working on ED]

My contention is that in the 04/05 post he was speaking to the "current" situation. In reguards to an "undesierable" activity, streetsweepping and not doing mission. To get the "chalange" of what they can find on the streets it's "OK" that they find it in missions on Invincible.

But if you read posts again, he states clearly in both that starting when the characters get SOs they "outstrip" [he used that word in both posts] the Mobs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why ED, but doesn't necessarily imply anything about whether 3 +3 minions are supposed to be an impossible fight at 35+.

My contention, in other words, is that you're interpreting his posts selectively, ignoring anything that might imply the balance goal shifted between the first post and the later post - either because you want to assume the worst about his motives, or because it gives good leverage to nerfherd.

If they nerf across the board yet again in issue 7, I guess you were right. However, I'm not going to partake of this avant-garde quote game where what someone said first counts for more than what was said most recently.

Edit:

Whatever, Mieux. Go on thinking what you want. I'm not interested in fighting with you again over something irrelevant and trivial. That is, arguing with you over what I said vs. your interpretation of what I said. I don't feel my actual posts are irrelevant or trivial.

[ QUOTE ]
I did. I said it didn't ... then went on to give the reason why I thought it did. Err, didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you did so in a way that asks me to ignore what Jack posted, or rather, to assume he posted them in reverse order.

I don't think we have evidence that invincible missions are supposed to be as difficult as Venture feels, or rather that the ability to complete invincible missions is an indication that the AT/build/powersets is overpowered to the point of needing nerfage. It seems that if a 30+ character can solo invincible missions, that this is within Jack's revised intended goal for difficulty.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the balance vision isn't anywhere close to reality. 3 white minions? All of my characters can take down 3 reds without much trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which would be the reasons for Issues 5 and 6.

But, hey ... I'm just making "crazy talk" ... the Devs arn't doing exactly they said they would.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not "crazy talk." You're just trying to muddy the issue, not making any real points.

All of my 30+ characters can take on three +3 minions under I5 and I6 changes. If the devs are happy with balance as it stands, you're just blowing smoke.

Now, why would you want to blow smoke?

[ QUOTE ]

I'd like to point out the bold part there. "Long Term."

Now, given the older post, the use of the term "Long Term" , and all the changes since the older post, I think States is finally getting the game back to the way he intended it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh huh. It seems to me that the later statement is a modification to the earlier statement - that the goal was altered to some degree.

And I was here for those, read them when they were posted, noticed when he conceded that higher-level characters should be able to take on relatively tougher enemies than lower-level characters, hence my question - a question you did not answer, I add.

[ QUOTE ]
The invincible setting, while difficult for some (like my rad/rad defender), should still be do-able with smart play and smart builds for most, if not all, of the AT's and powersets in the game.

No, it shouldn't. It should completely and utterly kick your assets. Invincible missions should make people cry. A regular (not outlevelled) Invincible mission should only be completable by players (solo or grouped) with the best possible builds of the strongest ATs using perfect tactics, heavy inspiration usage and massive downtime. Every mistake, no matter how trivial, should be terminal. The downtime should be sufficient to make the rate of XP gain a total loss. The ability of a build to consistently solo an Invincible mission at an acceptable speed should be considered prima facie evidence that the build is overpowered and needs nerfing.

The setting should only exist for bragging rights and to pump up outlevelled missions.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this coincide with Statesman's comment that at higher levels, three +3 minions (normal invincible spawn) = 1 hero?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can we get some commentary here?

[/ QUOTE ]

From a developer? Unlikely. The whole concept at this point is stupid, but they'll never back down. Jerks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jonyu, like Castle, tends to be responsive to player concerns and questions, even when he doesn't agree.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In that specific tangent, you were talking about how Elude is like Unstoppable

[/ QUOTE ] Not really. What I said is that if there were +DEF mitigation caps, they shouldn't be ignored by Elude. You want to dismiss Elude as some anomally, then argue that it is allowed to do such a thing for balance reasons. That argument is lacking. At least five power sets across three AT's have Elude level defense...hardly something you can dismiss for convience of your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't dismiss Elude as an anomaly. I said that it does not duplicate - now - the conditions that - then - prompted the decision to reduce the resist cap.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unstoppable could be perma and Invincibility was incredibly powerful

[/ QUOTE ] That's irrelevalnt to the discussion about whether there are caps. "Caps" are not ignored for balance sake. You seem to act like Elude was never permable at the same time Elude was permable. They were.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? I'm talking about the state of the game - now - when we got the news about the change to defense scaling as compared to the state of the game - then - when resist caps were changed. I'm not talking about how Elude worked then, because it does not work exactly the same now, and how it worked over a year ago is not relevant to how it might be balanced now.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I pointed out that when the change was made, Unstoppable could be perma and Invincibility was incredibly powerful, so pointing to that as a reason that scrappers should have a different to-hit floor than tankers

[/ QUOTE ] This statement doesn't make any sense. I'm not pointing to them as a reason for anything at all. You are the one who is arguing the balance consideration of those powers as justification for why there is no separate +DEF cap for scrappers versus tankers.

[/ QUOTE ]

When resist caps were added, some scrappers (invuln) could hit the 90% caps with ease and keep them there. That's why the resist caps were added. That is explicitly why they were added. Now? Without buffing, or without a power that can massively buff defense all the time, the fact that scrappers can achieve the same 90% mitigation as resistance could isn't as big of a deal, because scrappers can't achieve that 90% mitigation all the time without buffing.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
completely ignores the factors that made changing the resist cap necessary for balance

[/ QUOTE ] As I stated, the resist caps were imposed on everybody not just /lnv sporting P-Uns and Invinc. In addition, those caps have not been changed despite massive nerfing of those powers..why? Because those caps have nothing to do with any notion of maximum mitigation of +DEF versus +RES. They are strictly imposed so that Tankers will be the toughest. For that exact and very same reason, the same limitation should be put on non-tankers for defense if you are going to spout notions of dmg mitigation maximums. Hell, Arcana even agrees in theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason that the cap was imposed on all non-tankers is because it would be unbalanced and stupid to just apply it to invuln scrappers to keep them from hitting the caps. It certainly wasn't an issue that blasters or controllers were hitting the resist caps at the time.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't. Imposing mitigation maximums is arbitrary. While I agree that since this is a game, there should always be some risk, there is no reason why a defensive scrapper couldn't be just as difficult to hit as a tanker and arguably more so. While I can understand that no scrapper could be as "tough" as a tanker, +DEF is used for elusiveness...avoidance of damage...not mitigation of it. The mitigation is only applicable when we talk about statistic performance over a long term. +RES and +DEF have fundamental differences in a game with secondary effects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I acknowledged this.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem arises when you use +DEF to simulate something other than avoidance...except that's what it does, regardless of the conceptual justification. As Arcana acknowledges, each AT could argue why it could be the best at deflecting damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

And potentially creates more problems than it solves.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, when it's pointed out, you move the goalposts.

[/ QUOTE ] I haven't moved the goal posts one milimeter. You just can't seem to hit them so you're shifting the blame.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this:

I explain the conditions that lead to the reduction of the resist cap. While it was applied to every AT but tankers, the reason was specifically that /Invulnerability scrappers could hit the resist cap against everything but psi and toxic, and the fact that they could also get enough defense from Invincibility to floor just about any enemy made it possible for them to tank well enough to replace tankers and deal ~150% the damage a tanker could. I then point out that defense does not have an extreme outlier that even remotely compares to this, which probably makes the need to give different ATs different "defense caps". You then say, and I quote:

"That's irrelevant to the discussion."

Goalpost. Shifted. You come across points you don't like and dismiss them out of hand.

The sad thing is, I didn't come in to start an argument, but simply to point out why the devs might have chosen to not start with different floors. I don't know how it'll play out on test, and am not trying to predict the future. However, I do remember the past: [ QUOTE ]
2. Tankers damage is way out of whack compared to Scrappers' Resistance. Previously, I stated that Scrappers couldn't reach the Resistance cap. And they can't - UNLESS they resort to the Power Pool. That was my error. A correctly built Scrapper (with a lot of Enhancement slots) CAN reach the 90% cap. But a Tanker can NEVER do the same amount of damage as a Scrapper. This needs to be rectified. A Tanker should be as good at Resistance as a Scrapper is at Damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You also neglect the fact that Invulnerability also had a very powerful Invincibility

[/ QUOTE ] Invinc is irrelevant to the discussion. We are not talking about whether /SR balances with /Inv. We are talking about the +RES caps versus the +DEF mitigation caps. Those +RES caps are extended to all toons, not just /Inv.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that specific tangent, you were talking about how Elude is like Unstoppable, and thus not a reason to give a higher floor to scrappers than tankers. I pointed out that when the change was made, Unstoppable could be perma and Invincibility was incredibly powerful, so pointing to that as a reason that scrappers should have a different to-hit floor than tankers completely ignores the factors that made changing the resist cap necessary for balance - those same factors are not present here.

Of course, when it's pointed out, you move the goalposts.

[ QUOTE ]
Not at all compelling. Especially since /Inv has Unstoppable which used to give them capped res and they took it away. Unstoppable was not allowed to ignore the res cap, neither should Elude..if the +DEF limit has anything to do with the resistance limit. Which it clearly doesn't since damage mitigation as an /SR, /EA, /Ninjitsu, etc, can all currently exceed 90%. At no previous point has +DEF been limited to any mitigation cap that imposed by a 5% floor. 5/95 = 5.2%. 94.8% was the mitigation % limit simply because a floor was put in. And this was technically achieveable by everyone....even after the res caps were lowered.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're arguing now, we're talking about the situation that will exist in issue 7, from the information available now.

You point to Unstoppable as allowing Invulnerable scrappers to cap their resists, but you carefully neglect the fact that Unstoppable could be perma at the time, something that Elude (and Unstoppable) currently cannot do. You also neglect the fact that Invulnerability also had a very powerful Invincibility, which meant that realistically, an Invuln scrapper or tanker was getting hit by 1 of 20 attacks for 10% damage, something that SR cannot now, nor ever in the past, claim to be capable of.

Given how much resistance Invulnerable and DA scrappers can achieve on their own, it probably wouldn't kill game balance to relax the 75% resistance limit and go back to 90%. I doubt the devs will do it, but the environment that made the change necessary no longer exists.

[ QUOTE ]
As I said, it's possible the devs are now subscribing to a 90% limit for +DEF...but if you are contending that, then the +DEF limit has to be different for Tanks versus non-tanks. Without that imposition, then we have arbitrary enforcement of their own rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm saying that the situation which made it possible for invuln scrappers to reliably hit the 90% cap doesn't exist for super reflexes. Elude can't be perma as Unstoppable could. SR can't use power pools to hit 45% total defense, unlike Invulnerable and Dark Armor scrappers who bought into Tough (well, DA couldn't quite hit 90%, but it could come close). Further, Elude is overkill. You might slot it with three def buff enhancements for a total of 70% resistance, but only 20% will be doing you any good.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, 1% def = 2% res will be accurate up to +5 AVs,

[/ QUOTE ] Under the new damage system, yes, ignoring the context of not getting hit versus getting hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, SR takes fewer status effects than Invulnerability, but takes larger hits when they do land. This isn't news to anyone, and doesn't change the fact that damage mitigation for 1% defense is, under the new mechanic, equal to 2% resistance.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Melee/Range: 37.39%. Multiplying that by two, we get: 74.78%
AoE: 22.475%. Multiplying this, we get: 44.95%

[/ QUOTE ]

Due to ED, shouldn't we be multuplying by 1.6 instead of 2? +DEF inspirations are on Schedule B, methinks.

At 1.6x you get: ~60% melee/range and ~36% AE.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already multiplied the numbers by 1.57 to get the total defense, then multiplied the total defense by two (1 def = 2 res) to get the effective resistance, and thus mitigation.

Edit: Others beat me to the clarification. Yay!

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not forgetting anything. I'm using 10% as to what the defense mitigation is. I said reduce someone down to 10% of their damage versus reduce them down to 10% of their to-hit. It's probably confusing with the mix of %'s without labeling one an actual to hit % value versus a relative %. In both cases I was talking about the reduction of your ability to hit by 90% or your ability to do damage by 90%. If we are going to talk about how +DEF should scale like resistance, then if scrappers can only reduce damage by 75%, then they should only be able to reduce MTH by the same amount....75%. This means the minion floor should not be lower than 12.5%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignoring Elude, how much defense can an SR scrapper accumulate via the passives, toggles, and power pools? Assuming one goes all-out and puts three def buffs in every one of those +def powers?

Assuming a base of 5% for each passive and 12.5% for each toggle, it appears that you can get 7.85% in the passives with three enhancements and 19.625 in the toggles. That adds up to 22.475%

On top of that, you could get:

Weave: 3.25% / 5.1025%
Stealth: 1.25% / 1.9625%
Hover: 2.5% / 3.925%
Maneuvers: 2.5% / 3.925%

This comes to a total of:

Melee/Range: 37.39%. Multiplying that by two, we get: 74.78%
AoE: 22.475%. Multiplying this, we get: 44.95%

I used lower values for the AoE defenses, because Castle, Statesman, or Geko said these would be reduced when the change is implemented.

Anyway, seeing that an SR scrapper who goes all out can reliably get 75% mitigation against ranged and melee attacks, I suggest that the driving reason behind lowering the resistance cap for scrappers isn't really present: That is, SR scrappers aren't going to be using power pools to hit 90% mitigation. I don't expect Elude to count because it's a) overkill, and b) not available at all times.

Also, 1% def = 2% res will be accurate up to +5 AVs, because everything now has a base to hit of 50%, reduced by defense and debuffs, then modified by rank and level.

It's like it's 100% in line with the whole "risk vs. reward" while at the same time, maximizing the risk and obfuscating the reward.

A clever bit of sleight of hand that needs to be burned to ash, and the ashes scattered to the four winds to never again occupy the same space.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With the change to bounding, you can achieve 90% mitigation against any enemy up to +5.

Changing it the way you suggest means you can reduce a +5's or an AV's damage to less than 10%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. That's wierd.

The maximum mitigation becomes a sliding scale, depending on foe rank or level.

Because, with this system, you can, in fact, mitigate a +0 minion to 5%. But your best mitigation vs. a +5 is 10%. Everyone in between has some proportional value.

[/ QUOTE ]

5% to hit for an even minion is 90% mitigation or 10% damage.

The result is that they hit 1/10 as often as they do with base accuracy.

With the change to bounding, you can achieve 90% mitigation against any enemy up to +5.

Changing it the way you suggest means you can reduce a +5's or an AV's damage to less than 10%.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sometimes it gets the best of both worlds, and sometimes it gets the worst of both worlds

[/ QUOTE ] Correct me if I'm wrong, but the PP was introduced to the game. It wasn't part of the original design strategy as far as we know. That is why I don't see why Debuffs would be any less effective than +DEF if we ignore the context of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong. The idea that power effectiveness (accuracy, effect, duration, etc) would be lessened by level difference was in the game since launch. The purple patch simply narrowed the range of levels you could fight from something like +10 to +3.

The purple patch was eased a bit, to expand the level range to +5, if I recall correctly.

[ QUOTE ]
This suggests there is no inherent weakness of one versus the other from a design perspective. Which is why Arcana's statement is a curiosity. It doesn't preclude the PP from reducing the debuff, but I haven't seen any statement that says the PP provides -to hit buff resistance as of yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Debuffs are affected by level difference, so that 30% debuff won't be a 30% debuff against a +2 enemy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rain or Arrows just got a whole lot better".

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate "Rain or Arrows"

I always get rain...

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, where I live its rained for 29 straight days.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could be worse. You could've been getting 29 straight days of arrows.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then he could have fought in the shade.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I mean, I really don't care how skilled you are, your .44 bullets are not going to hit 10x harder than someone else's .44 bullets.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but someone with the skill to reliably deliver that bullet to your head is far more likely to kill you than someone who's random spray is going to hit you in the arm instead.

[/ QUOTE ]
Except that bosses and lt's have actually had their accuracy reduced while minions were left alone.

Really, it's a game mechanic, nothing more. As Kali said, it doesn't require a "realistic" explanation, it's just the game's shortcut to making tougher opponents tougher.

Mind you, having a Hellion boss pull out a bazooka instead of a capgun with uber-damage *would* be interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

People who breath fire probably shouldnt carry around explosives. Probably drives up their life insurance rates.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that Damned are probably not considered good risks by insurance carriers.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I mean, I really don't care how skilled you are, your .44 bullets are not going to hit 10x harder than someone else's .44 bullets.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but someone with the skill to reliably deliver that bullet to your head is far more likely to kill you than someone who's random spray is going to hit you in the arm instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, let's back up a bit: Exactly what point are you trying to make?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Someone give Arcanaville a cigar!


[/ QUOTE ]

In all the commotion, I forgot to ask: does this mean you're working on adding cigars to the female costume parts, so my SR scrapper can actually enjoy that cigar? She's been kicked, punched, stabbed, jolted, burned, chilled, flung, crushed, tripped, sliced, shot, choked, impaled, chewed on by giant eyeballs, and attacked by more dark tentacles than anyone not appearing in weird Japanese animation, in the service of testing Defense. She's earned that stogie.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to second the request, as my attempts to create a female mastermind modeled on Baron Samedi are stymied by this lack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sometimes, Kali, a cigar is just a cigar.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, like when Baron Samedi is smoking one.

I would also like to protest the lack of bottles of rum as a costume option, given their utility to both voodoo and pirates.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Someone give Arcanaville a cigar!


[/ QUOTE ]

In all the commotion, I forgot to ask: does this mean you're working on adding cigars to the female costume parts, so my SR scrapper can actually enjoy that cigar? She's been kicked, punched, stabbed, jolted, burned, chilled, flung, crushed, tripped, sliced, shot, choked, impaled, chewed on by giant eyeballs, and attacked by more dark tentacles than anyone not appearing in weird Japanese animation, in the service of testing Defense. She's earned that stogie.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to second the request, as my attempts to create a female mastermind modeled on Baron Samedi are stymied by this lack.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not here to debate what is balanced or fair,

[/ QUOTE ]

That's all you had to say.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I originally suggested that it be scaled down to 3.75%...

[/ QUOTE ] Isn't the whole point to provide them with a penalty? Is the penalty supposed to be offset by the resistance in the power? Then why create something only to cancel the benefit and eat up CPU cycles in the process?

Maybe the point is to create an effect of an unyielding foe, meaning you're getting hit because you're not moving. Then the resistance is there to create the effect without actually creating a true penalty for using the power. So reducing the debuff would reduce the effect. It would then seem a better choice to increase the resistance in the power. This allows you to retain this "unyielding" aspect of the power, but without an egregious penalty. The only remaining issue is where you set the base resistance considering slotting.

[/ QUOTE ]

The penalty was placed against issue 3 numbers. The numbers have taken two significant hits since then. If the penalty was balanced when it was implemented, how on Earth is it balanced now?

I tend to think that a penalty that causes you to take more damage with your defense active than shut off certainly qualifies as an "egregious penalty."

[ QUOTE ]
So, I finally took the time to read issue #9 of the Top Cow comic, and I really dug it... except for the sudden drop-off at the end (felt like there should have been more to the ending but they ran out of space).

Back Alley Brawler really came off as a bad mother-shut yo mouth (Just talkin' 'bout Back Alley Brawler). It was a nice three issue arc.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Back Alley Brawler story is my favorite so far. The ending was a bit of a letdown, but the rest of the story was great.