Stargazer

You're completely right, and I thought you gave an excellent description of how this works.

Again, entirely correct. As far as I know, Electrical damage isn't being *used* at all.

This is where things get interesting (or weird, depending on your point of view).
Electrical Damage and Radiation Damage are two defined, but not currently used, Damage types. They haven't really been "added", but rather seem to be remnants of ideas that didn't make it into the finished game. Similarly, IIRC Toxic wasn't as much "added" as it was a "relabeling" of a previously existing Damage type (and passing out Resistance to it).


Defense on the other hand...

At the risk of repeating myself...
Wanna bet?

The question isn't really if it's worth the investment to *add* them, it's if it's worth the investment to *use* them.

For the sake of argument, let's say that Toxic_Attack is added to the game (by a programmer). This part doesn't necessarily take much effort, but until it's been done, it's not possible for the powers team to use it.

When it's available though, the powers team has to decide if they want to *use* it. *This* part can take a lot of effort. Suddenly, it has to be decided which powers should use this new attack type, and which powers should defend against it. Also, what powers that currently give Toxic Resistance (because Toxic Defense didn't exist at the time) should have this converted into Defense? What powers that have the benefit of not checking against an additional Defense types should be compensated when that Defense type suddenly starts showing up? A whole bunch of attack and defense powers would suddenly need to be reevaluated. Would the benefits of using this extra attack type warrant the work that would be required, or would it only be change for change's sake?

Even if a new attack type isn't *used*, that doesn't mean that it was a waste of time for the programmer to *add* it. With it there, the powers team has the *option* of using it, and that can be a good option to have (one they wished they had at the time Toxic Damage was "added"). It wouldn't necessarily need to be used with the name it was originally given either; if at some point in the future the powers team wants to add a new pair of Damage/Attack types, they can simply re-purpose some of the previously existing (but not used) ones. Say for instance that they want to add Trout Melee in i21, and specifically want it to use powers that deal Trout Damage, and use the Trout attack type. They could simply use Electrical Damage for Trout Damage, and Toxic_Attack for Trout_Attack.


Again, as I said in my previous post, this doesn't change what we actually currently experience in the game, but it is relevant when discussing the limits of the game mechanics.

Wanna bet?


You're completely right about this.

However, there's a difference between what's used and what exists. I'd suggest being a tad more careful with making definite statements about what Damage/Defense types exist, and what can be added. (of course, the used/exists distinction is pretty much just interesting when discussing the limits of the game mechanics, since things that aren't actually used won't have a direct effect in-game)

Heck, Paragon Wiki's list of *known* (used) damage types isn't even complete. It doesn't mention Heal, and the Special damage type is only listed (under the name "Quantum Damage") as previously being used by Quantum attacks.

Browser choice is very subjective, depending as it is on preference and usage patterns.

For my needs/wants, Firefox currently seems to be the best option. There are however things that I think other browsers do better.

The story arc in question mentions *Bane* Spiders and Fortunatas. It doesn't say anything about other Soldiers. Also, while that's stated as being the main method of recruitment, I don't think it's stated as being the only way.


Besides, the VEATs contradict previously established lore anyway, since all Bane Spiders were previously stated to be male, and all Widows/Fortunatas female. Player Bane Spiders in general also seem to make very little sense, at least unless you're willing to stick to an extremely constrained back-story.


Basically, there now seems to be an internal inconsistency in the game lore as far as the VEATs are concerned, which leaves us with the choice of how to deal with that.

If you want to strictly adhere to previously established lore, you're limited to female Fortunatas/Widows and non-Bane Soldiers (unless your (male) Bane happens to be one capable of projecting a false mind I suppose).

The other options involve bending the "rules" a bit, and if you're willing to do that, you could also bend them a little in other ways. Basically, you're only as constrained by game lore as you want to be.

Note also that there are VEAT options (for instance non-Bane Soldiers) that are not very constrained when it comes to background stories.

It's like I've always said (actually, this might be the first time), the envelopes are out to get us. I think they have something to hide.

(also, annoyingly often they seem to contain bills)

If that is in fact the only reason that the CoP Trial has not been put back in the game, re-adding it would seem to be a way to add a commonly requested feature for relatively little work.

However, since the ability to make non-rewarding FedExes is not new, it'd seem a bit strange if it was indeed the only reason.

Actually, that's just "flavor text".

Mobs (and players) have "Classes". These classes determine the core attributes of the entity, and how strong the effects of a power used by the entity will be. Examples include Minion, Lt, Boss, EB, Blaster, AV, ....

In your targeting box there's a label that describes your target. Often, but not always, this label shows the class of the target. Other times, the label has no relation to the class, but is meant to give some sort of description of what the target is. In this case, the label is just a label.


One label that gets around a lot is "Hero". Most people probably think that a "Hero" is "the heroic equivalent of ArchVillain", and sure this is *often* the case (in those cases, it's a label applied to ArchVillain class mobs). However, "Hero" is also used as a label on Lt, Boss, EB and Monster class mobs. When you run into a Boss labeled "Hero", that label does not confer any additional bonuses to them, they still have the core Boss attributes.

Note that while "Hero" is just a label, "ArchVillain" is used both as a class and a label. Usually the AV label is used on AV class mobs, but sometimes it's also used on Monster class mobs.

Quick answer: No.

Long answer:
Both the Hive Green Mitos and the LGTF Green Mitos use the same Resistance power, so unless Castle is actually creating a new set of powers for the LGTF Green Mitos (and there has been no indication that he is), the Hive Green Mitos will not be staying at Mag 50 (well, 50-ish) protection either. The Hive Green Mitos should effectively have Mag 1 higher Mez protection due to their Rank, but that's it.

Quite a bit more actually. I just noticed (when the numbers didn't triple as expected) that you're only applying the Resistance to the Regenerated Health, not the base Health (the numbers for Held Mitos seem to apply the Resistance to both though).

So, we'd get (57.132 + 855.1/7)/(1-0.9) = 1792.89 in order to defeat them between heals.

Hmm, hold on a sec...
The 70% is only considering their Regenerative Aura, right?
They also get 20% from their Resistance.

Yeah, so now there are at least two ways to beat them, having a team with decent damage output, or a team with lower damage output but a decent amount of Holds.

Seems reasonable to me.

So, Mag 7 from the Resistance power then?
I'd think that most Controllers (at least the ones that bother to slot their SIngle Target Hold) would be able to manage that (Mag 10 needed to Hold an Lt with that power).

That's definitely a huge improvement.

It's still going to be somewhat hard to Hold them though.
Assuming you mean that you set their Resistance power to give Mag 10 Hold protection, you're still going to need to stack Mag 13 Hold on a target with 50% Hold Resistance in order to hold them.

While that's definitely doable on a Controller/Dominator, not all Controllers/Dominators will be able to do it, and other ATs will have a hard time doing it. So, it's still going to require some significant Hold power on the team to be able to do it (not sure if that's good or bad).

A Caliban's Invincible power gives them 15*Melee_Res_Boolean mez protection.
At level 15, Melee_Res_Boolean for an Lt is 0.206, giving them 15*0.206 = 3.09 mez protection. Base Mez for an Lt is -2, so a stacked Hold of 7 or more would be sufficient to hold them. That's no more than 3 Controller Holds (2 if you get the critical Hold on at least one of them).

Basically, it doesn't seem like you actually managed to stack 3 holds on them. That's not surprising, since the low Mez durations (and generally lower Recharge) at low levels makes it hard to stack mezzes.

Edit: It should be noted that they also seem to get 5*Melee_Res_Boolean Hold Resistance, i.e. 103% @lvl 15. This would roughly cut Hold durations in half, thus making it significantly harder to stack Holds.

Maybe it's a bit harsh to have both Mez protection and Mez resistance at such low levels...

I think Mystic's point was that they were unable to stack enough Holds to overcome the Mez protection in the first place.

That's not very surprising really, since it's kinda hard to stack several holds at the lower levels (hitting with 3 holds in a row doesn't necessarily mean that there are 3 active holds on the target).

As others have mentioned before, the Green Mitos could previously heal despite being held. A Controller would also have significant difficulty maintaining a stacked Mag 54 on a target with 50% Mez Resistance.


There was (and is) no special Mez protection given to the *LGTF* Green Mitos, it was (and is) given to all Green Mitos equally.

Also, we didn't have -2 -50 +50, we had -2 +50. Now, we have -2 -50, not -2 -50 -50.

Yes.

Regular Mitos should have a base Mez value of -3, and if the LGTF Mitos are Lts (I wasn't sure, and assumed Boss-equivalent earlier), they'll have a base value of -2. In order to Mez someone, the sum of all their Mez protection (negative values) and the mag of all the Mezzes on them (positive values) have to be above 0.

So, for the LGTF Mitos we previously had -2 (base) + 50 (mez "protection" power) = 48. This means that they were above 0 already, and were thus held without any outside influence.

Now, we get -2 (base) + -50 (mez protection power) = -52. This means that we'd need a stacked mag 53 Hold on them in order to hold them.


Anyway, since the mez protection power (Resistance) applies the same value to both instances of Mitos, it's not plausible that the "-50" (actually +50) was meant to make the LGTF Mitos easier to hold.

It's definitely not ideal, but neither is maintaining two separate sets of powers in order to allow for one small difference.

Now, if they want to differentiate the two instances even more on the other hand...

Well, if they only want to have small differences between the two instances of Mitos, they could just put a If Class == Boss_Mito check (or !=) on the relevant attributes (for instance the mez protection).

They gave no XP before the change either.

Actually, 50% Hold Resistance will not reduce Hold durations to 50% of their original duration, it'll cut them down to 1/1.5 = 66.7%.

The numbers are also somewhat optimistic in that they assume holds with no activation time (just looking at the duration/recharge ratio), and that it only considered the Hold protection given by the Mitos' Resistance power (Mitos should have a base Hold of -3, so mag 54 should be required to hold them).

However, this is also somewhat offset by the listed hold duration being less than the actual duration of Controller holds (22.35s @50, 15s is @1), and no Hold slotting.


Either way, it seems pretty clear that (an extra) mag 50 Hold protection is... <understatement>a tad much.</understatement>

It's not just a question of being hard (take a lot of time), but also if that effort (time) could be better spent elsewhere.

Sometimes it's a choice of adding "slow, high 'return'" content less frequently, or adding "faster, slightly lower 'return'" a bit more often (where each approach has its benefits), but sometimes you're just looking at two (or more) options with similar "return", but where one (or some) of them simply take more time/effort. In those cases, it's often a good thing to go for one of the options taking less time/effort.


I'd like to think that adding BBotS would be a good choice, but since I don't know what the other options are, or the relative time/effort cost of all the options, I can't say that for sure.

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make.
While faction-specific content won't reach all *characters*, what really matters is what *players* it reaches, and the only ones that won't be reached by faction-specific content are those who exclusively play the other faction.