Lycanus

okay, poor use of outlier...unintended is more appropriate.

Still, my suggestion would provide no more or less exposure for those that are using the groups storage for personal storage. They are still vulnerable to somebody else with base editing permissions stealing their storage, up to and including the leader.

If a team doesn't want the items displayed to everybody else they just have to set the permissions to leader only.

Her post discussed the fact that, done correctly, diminishing returns would be a good way to do things and that the purple patch essentially already is diminishing returns applied at a sharp level.

In particular she compared the purple patch to the idea of diminishing returns.

Two scenarios:

purple patch vs diminishing returns

***********

first, the purple patch, not sure of the numbers, so I'll use the 0.3 Arcanaville did in her example post.

three debuffers each with a -30% to hit debuff power

Said debuffers against a +4/+5 are only debuffing the target by 9% (using the 0.3 earlier)

Thus, if three debuffers use the same power, the total debuff is -27%

***********

Now, diminishing returns (which technically, the purple patch is just a punitively severe version of diminishing returns)

same three debuffers

the first debuffer's power debuffs the target by -30%

the second debuffer's power debuffs the target by -20%

the third debuffer's power debuffs the target by -10%

the total debuff in this scenario is -60%, more than twice what the purple patch allows with the same three

*******

In addition, even if the the three were: -30%, -15% and -7.5%, that total would be 52.5%

enemy to hit base is 50%, thus you would be basically wasting the third power for the simple fact that at that point it's at the 5% minimum chance

***********

In response to her statement, you gave a sarcastic response.

She recognized the sarcastic response and commented that you missed her point, which you did. I can only guess that you assume that any application of diminishing returns would be similarly misapplied as they were in PvP. Arcanaville has as much said that diminishing returns was not done properly in PvP.

She was discussing diminishing returns done properly.

To be perfectly frank, diminishing returns is a natural part of the game in some enhancements just due to the nature of numbers without anybody making special formulas to evoke it:

recharges enhancement with a 33% recharge reduction on a power that recharges a base time of 60 seconds:

1 recharge enhancement - new recharge: 45s, gain over 0: 15s (60/1.33)
2 recharge enhancements - new recharge: 36s, gain over 1: 10s (60/1.66)
3 recharge enhancements - new recharge: 30s, gain over 2: 6s (60/1.99) (ignoring ED)

endurance reduction is the same

actually, the basic systems have diminishing returns

******

assume an attack with base accuracy 1, damage 100, recharge 9, endurance 9

assume the base to hit of 50% (assuming these are the stats for hitting and damaging higher level enemies, otherwise, accuracy caps at 1 enhancement)

assume no other systems and that individual variables are not limited in how they can increase save that accuracy can't give you more hits than you attempt

numbers picked for ease of calculation

********

100 attacks with no enhancements

50 hits
5000 damage
891 seconds
900 endurance

5.61 dam/sec
1.01 end/sec
5.56 dam/end

********

1 damage enhancement (33%) - 133 damage

50 hits
6650 damage
891 seconds
900 endurance

7.46 dam/sec (33% increase from 0 enhancements)
1.01 end/sec
7.39 dam/end (33% increase from 0 enhancements)

********

2 damage enhancements (66%) - 166 damage

50 hits
8300 damage
891 seconds
900 endurance

9.32 dam/sec (25% increase from 1 enhancement)
1.01 end/sec
9.22 dam/end (25% increase from 1 enhancement)

*******

3 damage enhancements (99%) - 199 damage

50 hits
9950 damage
891 seconds
900 endurance

11.17 dam/sec (20% increase from 2 enhancements)
1.01 end/sec
11.06 dam/end (20% increase from 2 enhancements)

******

1 Accuracy enhancement (33%) - 1.33 accuracy

66.5 hits
6650 damage
891 seconds
900 endurance

7.46 dam/sec (33% increase from 0 enhancements)
1.01 end/sec
7.39 dam/end (33% increase from 0 enhancements)

******

2 Accuracy enhancements (66%) - 1.66 accuracy

83 hits
8300 damage
891 seconds
900 endurance

9.32 dam/sec (25% increase from 1 enhancement)
1.01 end/sec
9.22 dam/end (25% increase from 1 enhancement)

******

3 Accuracy enhancements (66%) - 1.99 accuracy

99.5 hits
9950 damage
891 seconds
900 endurance

11.17 dam/sec (20% increase from 2 enhancements)
1.01 end/sec
11.06 dam/end (20% increase from 2 enhancements)

******

1 Recharge enhancement (33%) 6.77 seconds

50 hits
5000 damage
669.92 seconds
900 endurance

7.46 dam/sec (33% increase from 0 enhancements)
1.34 end/sec (33% increase from 0 enhancements - in this case, that's a bad thing)
5.56 dam/end

******

2 Recharge enhancements (66%) 5.42 seconds

50 hits
5000 damage
536.75 seconds
900 endurance

9.32 dam/sec (25% increase from 1 enhancement)
1.68 end/sec (25% increase from 0 enhancements - in this case, that's a bad thing)
5.56 dam/end

******

3 Recharge enhancements (99%) 4.52 seconds

50 hits
5000 damage
447.74 seconds
900 endurance

11.17 dam/sec (20% increase from 2 enhancements)
2.01 end/sec (20% increase from 0 enhancements - in this case, that's a bad thing)
5.56 dam/end

******

1 Endurance enhancement (33%) 6.77 endurance

50 hits
5000 damage
891 seconds
676.69 endurance

5.61 dam/sec
0.76 end/sec (33% improvement from 0 enhancements)
7.39 dam/end (33% increase from 0 enhancements)

******

2 Endurance enhancements (66%) 5.42 endurance

50 hits
5000 damage
891 seconds
542.17 endurance

5.61 dam/sec
0.61 end/sec (25% improvement from 0 enhancements)
9.22 dam/end (25% increase from 1 enhancement)

******

3 Endurance enhancements (66%) 4.52 endurance

50 hits
5000 damage
891 seconds
452.26 endurance

5.61 dam/sec
0.51 end/sec (20% improvement from 0 enhancements)
11.06 dam/end (20% increase from 2 enhancements)

*****

1 Accuracy (33%) 1 Damage (33%) 1.33 accuracy, 133 damage

66.5 Hits
8844.5 Damage
891 seconds
900 endurance

9.93 dam/sec (33% increase over 1 Acc OR 1 Dam)
1.01 end/sec
9.83 dam/end (33% increase over 1 Acc OR 1 Dam)

*****

1 Acc, 1 Dam, 1 End, 1 Recharge - 1.33 Acc, 133 damage, 6.77 end, 6.77 seconds

66.5 hits
8844.5 Damage
669.92 seconds
676.69 endurance

13.02 dam/sec (33% increase over 1 Acc/1 Dam - 17% increase over 3 Acc, 3 Dam OR 3 Rec)
1.01 end/sec (33% loss over 1 Acc/1 Dam - 98% loss from 3 END - 99% improvement from 3 Rec)
13.07 dam/end (33% increase over 1 Acc/1 Dam - 18% increase over 3 Acc, 3 Dam, 3 End OR 3 Rec)

*****

1 Acc, 3 Dam, 1 End, 1 Recharge - 1.33 Acc, 199 damage, 6.77 end, 6.77 seconds

66.5 hits
13233.5 Damage
669.92 seconds
676.69 endurance

19.75 dam/sec (52% increase over 1A/1D/1R/1E)
1.01 end/sec
19.56 dam/end (50% increase over 1A/1D/1R/1E)

*****

2 Acc, 2 Dam, 1 End, 1 Recharge - 1.66 Acc, 166 damage, 6.77 end, 6.77 seconds

83 hits
13778 Damage
669.92 seconds
676.69 endurance

20.57 dam/sec (58% increase over 1A/1D/1R/1E - 4% increase over 1A/3D/1R/1E)
1.01 end/sec
20.36 dam/end (56% increase over 1A/1D/1R/1E - 4% increase over 1A/3D/1R/1E)

****************************************

As you can see, each successive enhancement of the same type in the same power produces a smaller and smaller benefit, having a heavier impact on the stats of the power as a whole.

This is because the enhancements affect the base level, not the current level. As such, diminishing returns is inherent in the systems the devs have used.

It is likely that any multi-variable system will likewise have diminishing returns each time you alter one variable but not the others.

All Arcanaville is suggesting is a diminishing return situation that would allow 3 debuffer to be able to produce the 52.5% debuff mentioned before rather than the 27% debuff they would produce if using the purple patch is the primary means of increasing difficulty.

In addition, if you only debuffer, you would have 30% debuff under diminishing returns rather than 9% debuff under purple patch.

Granted, if it were normal, non diminishing and without the purple patch, the three debuffers would produce 90% debuff, however, the first two would produce 60% debuff and at that point, the enemy has already been placed at the minimum 5% debuff and 15% of the debuff is extra (only there in case of debuff resistance or higher than average defense)

So, with the diminishing returns you go from "two debuffers hit the minimum with 15% to spare" to "two debuffers hit the minimum with 0% to spare" if you use these bumbers.

With the purple patch, currently being used to produce difficulty, we go from "two debuffers hit the minimum with 15% to spare" to "FIVE debuffers hit the minimum with 0% to spare".

As such, a more moderate diminishing returns system would produce less extreme reductions in ability than the current purple patch usage.

This makes sense because the purple patch is a semi-punitive system of extreme diminishing returns designed to make sure people don't go taking on things that the intention of the content says is way too high for them to fight. It isn't meant to provide an enjoyable level of challenge, it is supposed to provide an aggravating, discouraging level of difficulty.

As such, the deliberate use of the purple patch to add difficulty to content seems a bit extreme.

**********************************

And this is the point that Arcanaville comes on to tell me that I screwed up my math somewhere.

One of the first things you learn in rhetoric and debate classes is that statements that imply always and never, otherwise known as absolutes, are weak and easy to disprove. All you need is one example to disprove them.

Arguments involving "most" are stronger and harder to disprove, requiring more effort.

in other words, anybody with the proper permissions may get in and see what is being stored

and given that all I suggested was that anybody with the proper permissions be able to look and see what is there from their supergroup menu on streets...there is no less privacy for your outlier groups

and again, that is an outlier group not the standard

Without a qualifier such as "I believe" you are claiming your statement to be an absolute.

An absolute is a fact.

You are therefore making the statement as a fact.

If this is not your intention than you are being inaccurate in your choice of words.

you should have said "I believe realism has absolutely no place in this game." In which case it is clearly an opinion.

"Realism has absolutely no place in this game" leaves no room for disagreement.

Your implication is that if someone disagrees with you then they are wrong.

This is not something that is implied in a statement of opinion.

Either you are unaware of what your implication is or you are deliberately using language that has connotative implication of being factual in order to give yourself a false amount of authority.

So, yes, it appeared necessary to point it out.

You could try my books:

http://thryth.webs.com/originalfictions.htm
http://thryth.webs.com/merchandiselinks.htm

most of Greenwater and Zodiacs fiction is available for public view

no, I think she interpreted you correctly

which is a map set up for a running battle, however...just nobody usually lets Mr. Roboarm run anywhere if they can help it

I would certainly like both Tip missions and the ability to make incarnate level AE missions to come down the line eventually

This is an opinion.

You dislike it, others do not.

Personally, I like to take my tanks as high as possible and drop them to watch how little their health bar moves. Seeing my heroines survive a terminal velocity fall as if it were nothing more than a skinned knee invariably seems awesome to me.

I also enjoy hitting flying enemies with -fly at high altitudes so I can follow them down and smack them when they hit bottom...

perhaps easier to just kill them face to face, but not as fun

ah yes, so I could duplicate the two accidental kills from my Champions PnP game...

55 strength, double knockback, haymaker, aiming straight down

first one was against a TKer modeled off of Sylar before we knew much about him, he'd blasted me out of one building and over the next once before, so I wasn't taking chances...didn't realize he didn't have his protections up

presence attack "Ooops" (she meant it)

the second was a minion character of a type that had two force fields and were meant to provide cover for other enemies...the haymaker stunned him, which turned off the fields...the KB into the ground pasted him

would also be nice if I could duplicate my tactic of KB one enemy into another, who KBs into another and so one...

but that's probably too much off for an MMO

you need a real Roleplaying Game to get that sort of flexibility

The few of us that have played Empathy defender have noted that they rarely have to heal anybody, and usually only the tank if anybody needs it, and usually only in major fights. And then a controller Empath is plenty.

And those that have played FF/- have complained that once they've placed their bubbles out, those will last until the next fight and layering them on again does nothing more

both groups have complained that being left to their attacks feels unsatisfying and ineffective and that they're basically sitting in corner or throwing spitwads

there is no real need to keep track of buffs if you do it right, there's plenty of time at the start of each room during the planning phase to rebuff everybody and the group doesn't move until everybody calls ready, which presumably means the buffer has buffed everyone, then it takes about a minute, maybe minute and a half to clear the room...

the only buffs that fade by that time are stuff like clear mind, bubbles last well past that, sometimes for two rooms...

They need more buffing enemies.

The enemies should be using the same tactics that we use.

they've gotten better, the number of debuffing enemies and the mix of enemy types shows this

especially in Arachnos where you can run into debuffers, damage dealers, semi-tanks and more all in one spawn

but we don't have that many buffers

Sky Raider Engineers, CoT Madness Mages, Rikti Guardians, Tsoo Sorcerers

there needs to be more enemies along those lines

hence the title

it would address the hodge podge nature of defenders, they're not really unified in task the way that the other ATs are

The primarily discussed segment of the initiating post:

practically impossible then....I suppose they could do it, but I don't suppose many players would be happy with it...even if in the long term it works

No, it would take a majority making the same statement to make the claim that it is easy seem like a lie.

You are giving anecdotal evidence, as are most of us. However, when comparing anecdotal evidence, the validity of conflicting statement is most supported by the quantity and quality of the statements.

You have stated that you need Dark Miasma to do ITF and that you couldn't do it with a mastermind on the party.

You are one person, most other responses have been that they did not require any particular party build for an ITF and several people have specifically mentioned playing MM on ITF with no problem. In fact one person has stated that they played an all-MM party.

If you are saying that you need something that the rest of us do not, then you comparatively have difficulty with the ITF.

This is the same as the fact that I have difficulty with AVs as compared to you.

The standard is not to the individual, but to the group.

Most of those making a statement on this subject matter have stated that they have not particularly had trouble with ITF on any particular build. That means the standard, at least in this group, is that the ITF is easy and does not require specific builds.

You do not meet that standard. You require Dark Miasma. You require a lack of MMs. Therefore, it is difficult to you.

Now, I have stated I cannot solo AVs, you have stated that you can. That's a 1 to 1 sampling and not enough to set a standard and therefore not enough to tell which of us is above the standard and which below, though it is immediately clear that I am less capable in that regard than you.

As such, it is clear that there is more that I could do to become more capable.

But it is not needed. I fulfill my role in taking on AVs in groups even if I cannot solo them. There is no need for me to solo AVs since there is no need for me to face AVs outside of a group.

Again, you have not called me out to "Learn to Play".

By the same regard, you cannnot perform the ITF without Dark Miasma by your own statement.

It is clear there is something you can do to perform better in this regard.

But it is not needed. There is no need for you to ever play ITF without a Dark Miasma. You can always choose to recruit one and you can always choose not to recruit masterminds. The game does not become unplayable simply because there are people better at ITF than you.

This is not a case where either party is calling out "Learn to Play."

And, actually, that misreading has become the subject. Which you have either not noticed in favor of defending the play ability which I am not attacking, or else you have deliberately ignored in favor of directing the conversation toward mechanics rather than an attempt to clear the air about the fact that nobody has adopted a "learn to play" attitude and that you have been acting fairly rude in early posts.

At least in perception.

The last few posts have had no real sign of rudeness which leads me to believe that the rudeness in the earlier posts was more defensive in nature and unintentional.

"Learn to play" is a phrase typified by an attitude wherein the speaker simply says that phrase and then dismisses the person they're talking to and goes off to do whatever with no further particular discussion.

The offer someone made to you to come and do ITF with them was not an example of "learn to play" as it came with the offer to basically "come see how I do it."

The statement the other player made that the only problems he had faced came from bad players or leaders was made specifically regarding his experience, not yours. This is also not the "learn to play" attitude.

However, you have said that you find ITF difficult while the rest of us have said we have had no problem with it.

This implies that there is something about ITF which you are having troubles with. Which means that there is likely something that others among us know that you may not. This is not "learn to play".

Likewise, you have said you can solo AVs, I can't. I do not feel that you are telling me that I need to learn to play for that difference in ability. You can do that, I can't, this is immaterial. I still have fun with the game and do not particularly need to learn anything. I may want to learn how to spec my characters better. Better learning to reach higher levels of talent is not "learn to play" either.

There has been almost no "learn to play" attitude in any of these posts. We are saying that there are techniques available to make ITF easy with or without MMs or Dark Miasma. That is not "learn to play" because inability to do one segment of content does not effect one's ability to play the game, just that one segment.

What it does mean is that if you wish to have an easier time with that TF then, yes, you will need to keep an open mind and look to see what other people are doing that is different from you.

This is not asking you to "learn to play" either. There is no disrespect, no sneering and no mocking. It is merely a statement of fact.

You have admittedly stated difficulty with this TF, help has been offered for how to address it. You responded to such offers with rudeness, or at least perceived rudeness.

You did not ask for help, fine, but the help is not being forced on you, it is possible to respond to it without snapping or appearing to snap. Ideally, this would involve stating your position clearly and politely. Ideally it would never involve the phrase "shut up" even as a joke.

Yes, it is difficult to accurately gauge a person's intent via the written word due to the lack of a tone of voice or body language. This is why it is important to spend a greater time explaining yourself than you would were you face to face.

A rule when writing anything is to assume the person who is to be your audience knows nothing of what you are about to say. This is because you cannot be present to correct yourself or explain a point should you overlook something.

If you were not intending to be rude, you failed to convey that. Granted, the rudeness is perceived and opinion, not something that can be easily confirmed. However, do note that several people, myself included, assumed that you were making an effort to find offense in anything said.

If this is in err, then you are "writing clearly enough to be understood" but you are not "writing clearly enough that you cannot be misunderstood".