UberGuy

[ QUOTE ]
Just why the heck do Stalkers still have the highest toggle drop chance??? Stalkers already have unresisted damage in their criticals.

If any AT should still have high toggle drop percentages it should be defenders who cannot dish out the damage needed to bring down a toggle heavy opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stalker crits are resistable. Stalker Assassin Strikes "bonus" damage is not resistable.

[ QUOTE ]
Except those two lucks lasted 1 minute and only affected things slightly (-25% base accuracy.) 25*1.5*1.3=48.75% accuracy. The AV will most likely only have to swing three times and you are dead (and AVs generally attack pretty fast, so that the healing over time is not as good.)

Saying that MoG is only as good as a few lucks is a disservice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two lucks simultaneously is identical to the effective defense bonus of MoG with none of the downside. Of course they only last 1/3 of the time. Howerver, for a fight where I have a choice between no healing for 3 minutes and expending six lucks, I'll prefer the lucks.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Except that DP increases the HP regenned by IH and your normal healing powers. So while the relative HP stays constant you get more benefit from Dull Pain in the second scenario.

Even so applying it to one instance and not the other is unfair as Dull Pain is one of the few powers that will function under MoG conditions to any degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. Add DP to the MoG side. Doesn't change the result.

[/ QUOTE ]

The comparison is exactly proportional. It factors out completely.

I really think you should read Arcana's analysis, just above, Futurias.

No one is saying the power does nothing. What is being said is that the way it works in total is inferior to just using Regen's other powers, and is significantly inferior if you pop a couple of lucks with your Regen powers.

[ QUOTE ]
Just tested this in recluse's victory. And I watched as a stalker not hidden, and in all honesty it was hard to even see if he actually had any toggles on I pray he did. As 20 heroes attempted to hit him as he just stood their. I would presume either sr or perhaps ninja, but at any rate the defense of this stalker was to say the least excessive.

I think perhaps the scaling is way off from this observation.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Defense scaling" did not change PvP in any way, form or manner. This was a change to critter toHit calculations only.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reference for Brutes..
Gloom
* Unenhanced damage @ lvl 40: 44 (N. Energy, DoT)
* Foe -ACC
* Range: 80
* END: 11
* Recharge: 12 secs


[/ QUOTE ]
~ Brawl Damage ? Corruptor Gloom should be doing ~180 @ L40 and costs 8.5 Endurance. So 20% the damage and 130% the cost ? aka, Freaking Brawl damage and costs 11 endurance. What IS the point ?

[/ QUOTE ]


Do NOT use Brawl numbers here. They will be HORRIBLY wrong. Brawl Indicies DO NOT WORK for Patron OR Epic powers. See my post here.

[ QUOTE ]
I know that Arcanaville has dissected all this but can you give me a cliff's note version? I still believe the remaining 25% health with 70% resist at insane defense levels is more survivable than 100% health with no resist and regular defense level.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not.

Assume you slot it for DR once. You no cap out as a Stalker or Scrapper is 75% DR.

Now you've got 1/4 damage coming into 1/4 HP. Zero sum game.

You've got massive defense. Bonus.

You cannot heal.

You have become a gimped SR scrapper running Elude. Why gimped? Because SR Scrappers can be healed. You cannot.

No amount of defense buffing will help you. No amount of toHit debuffing will help you. Foes toHit against you cannot drop any further.

No amount of DR buffing can help you. You are at the cap.

You have no protection against Psionic and Toxic damage (neither DR nor Defense). You take 100% damage into 25% HP.

You cannot be healed.

Compared to using your other Regen powers your overall survivability drops against most foes when you use MoG, and it drops dramatically if the foes use Psi or Toxic damage. I believe Arcanaville has analyzed this and come to that result, though I may be incorrect in remembering that.

[ QUOTE ]
While the Training room was up I tested my defense against a +2 Lt, and +2 Minion and they took me out in 4 hits with just my toggles and passives...no noticeable difference from current game play. I stood in a group of 12 even conned minions and was taken out in about 10-20 seconds...no noticeable difference from my level 23 Super Reflex Stalker, or 25 Super Reflex Scrapper.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't base anything on that few a number of attacks. That could be a streak of bad luck. Statistical analysis works that way.

You need a run of a minimum of several hundred, and preferably several thousand attacks with misses and hits counted, to really get a picture of what defense powers are doing.

Other posters in this thread have hopped on and reported completely contrary results to your own, and the reason is the same. They had lucky streaks.

I await your collective discoveries eagerly. I have been assembling this math into a set of programming libraries so that I can quickly produce numbers for arbitrary situations. I'm looking forward to being able to "finalize" the tables and math involved in a useful way.

I am sorry for those of you who liked this mechanic, but I have disliked it from the day it was introduced. And yes, I have characters it could have benefited. Toggle dropping was an absolutely pathetic solution to some of the problems of PvP in this game.

Don't think I'm saying toggle dropping might have kept your AT of choice from being gimp. Maybe it did (or in the case of Dominators, maybe it kept you from being utterly gimp). But maybe now, based on how things play out with toggle dropping being a vastly less dependable mechanism other more enjoyable balances can be found.

My opinion: the Blasters that were dangeous with toggle dropping are still incredibly high DPS monsters, and with a team supporting them with mez protection and possibly defense/DR buffs, they will still be highly dangerous to melee ATs. They will still be devastating to non-melee ATs. Remember, this game's PvP is supposed to be about team viability, not solo viability. Toggle dropping made certain Blasters (and to a lesser extent, Stalkers) capable soloists.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please consider changing taunt enhancements so that they will boost accuracy and duration in PvP. I can't stand the thought of slotting a power for PvP use what will provide ZERO benifit in the PvP game.

[/ QUOTE ]

/signed.

Is this a first? Is there any other power in the game which takes enhancements that only work in PvP?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, although Stealth stacking with Hide is comparable. It does nothing in PvE. Anything in PvE that can see through Hide can see through Hide+Stealth at any range that would aggro it (possible exception: snipers). That makes stacking the two powers totally pointless in PvE, but of course it's known to be very useful in PvP.

[ QUOTE ]
Please consider changing taunt enhancements so that they will boost accuracy and duration in PvP. I can't stand the thought of slotting a power for PvP use what will provide ZERO benifit in the PvP game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm on board with this 10,000%. I don't even have a Tanker as my main, unlike the majority of respondants here so far, and I would never, ever consider doing that. PvP just isn't that important to me.

What that describes to me is another potential gulf that will dissuade casual PvP-ers from bothering, because dedicated PvP-ers will do things like this glady if it gives them advantage.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Make that AV +5 and his final accuracy is 95% (bounded from 100%)

[/ QUOTE ]
I was not under the impression that accuracy was ever capped. Capping (or bounding, whichever name you prefer) only applied in two places I thought:

1) After the addition/subtraction of baseToHit, Defense and ToHit Buffs/Debuffs.
2) To the final chance to hit, after everything else has been applied.

Which would mean a +5 AV had a full +100% accuracy (x2, meaning a floored 10% chance to hit). Incidentally, do we know for certain if it is treated as two separate accruacy buffs (1.5 (AV) * 1.5 (Level) = 2.25, floored 11.25%) or one combined buff (1 + (0.5 + 0.5) = 2.0, floored 10.0%)?

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding is that the inner (additive) quantity is bounded [0.5,0.95], as is the outer, final, multiplicative quantity. This was based on Geko's "Ask Geko" description of the math.

But you're correct, that doesn't cause the result I posted above. The AV's accuracy floor would continue to climb until reached 95% (woah). I was, in late-night grogginess, thinking of the inner bounding affecting the wrong quantity.

A +3 AV would have a 9.75% minimum chance to hit you.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reference for Corruptors...

Soul Drain
* Unenhanced damage @ lvl 40: 38.2 (N. Energy)
* Self +DMG, +ACC
* Range: PBAoE
* END: 20
* Recharge: 240 secs

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm hoping these numbers will be expanded upon somewhat. First thing I noticed looking at the Ghost Widow plaque was that Soul Drain doesn't give numbers for how much damage/accuracy are buffed nor for how long the buff lasts. I can assume that these stats are the same as the Dark Melee version, but isn't the point of the plaques that all information is provided to the player? In any case, I bugged the lack of completion.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the information from the plaques I am wildly unimpressed. That is radically insufficient for choosing among power pools when the choice is permenant and unalterable.

[ QUOTE ]
NERF FOCUSED ACCURACY NOW !!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

*Post Removed by Cricket*

You need to read up on the various defense and accuracy threads.

The floor is no longer 5%. It's now 10% of the foe's base accuracy. So 6.5% for a +0 boss, 7.5% for a +0 AV, and so on, up to 9.5% "cap" on the floor.

Edited to not seem mean.

[ QUOTE ]
For those who dont know.

MoG in I6 puts everyone at 5% to hit.
In I7 versus bosses/AV the floor will be 7.5%

You get hit half as much again, and STILL cannot regen or heal.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI, AVs have a higher base toHit than bosses. An even level AV will hit you 75% (7.5% floor) and an even level boss 65% (6.5% floor).

On the surface, both those things make me very excited. I'm sure I'll find something to complain about, but we'll burn that brige when we get to it.

[ QUOTE ]
What fascinates me is how new this discussion is to the MMP world. I’ve played lots of games over the years, and usually customization wasn’t that big of an issue. I won’t use any particular game as an example, but rather I’ll take D&D 1st edition to demonstrate a difference. Magic Users then couldn’t use swords. Just couldn’t. They couldn’t really wear armor, either. The major reason for this was balance: a sword wielding, armor wearing mage rendered any regular ole fighter pretty darn useless. There was certainly some grumbling – after all, didn’t Gandalf wield a sword? – but pretty much it’s been accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's worth noting that even this has changed. Current D&D rules allow for the use of a Sword by a "wizard" character class. They simply won't be as proficient with it as an equivalent level warrior. In fact, by doing so, they likely somewhat stunt their progression as a spell slinger. While I have read the opinions of many who despise the latest revisions of the D&D core rules, I immensely enjoy and appreciate the flexibility they provide. You can, at last, build the "hybrid" characters you might like without easily creating a dreaded "tank mage".

On to this notion in the City, it is indeed the flexibility you have given us in creation that has created this notion of the characters being "ours". I truly believe that had you not provided a free form description field that other players can view, you would, in fact, have stunted this freedom.

You see, my heroes not only look like I want them to, and have (within the framework provided) have the powers I want them to, they have the origin I want them to.

Now, I'm one that keeps my origins within the framework. You won't find any refugees from Marvel, DC or any other "universes" in my stable of characters - they all hail firmly from "Primal Earth". They all have origins tied strongly to the ideas of the Rikti War, portal technology, the villain groups showcased, and the framework of the Entities/Powers.

But how they fit in, how they came to be heroes or villains, you let me alone define that. That leads to an incredible degree of sympathy with the idea of the character. Despite not ever being a "RP" player in the City, I still have a clear notion of my characters' identities, their imaginary motivations, and what they would think of a given situation or foe.

It is, IMO, the above clarity of imagined character that is so frustrating to players of CoV with regards to Patron Pools. By level 40, players such as myself have established clear ideas of our characters motivations and goals. If those motivations and goals are incompatible with the notion of taking on a "patron" then this becomes a quandary. If an imagined character is a dedicated loner, or perhaps bent on world domination, then even assuming that working with a patron is a partnership and not a "lackey" position can be easily envisioned as distasteful.

When taken with the perspective of assumption that the Villain epics would be as free-form as those the heroes have, you can see how this could be gut-wrenching. People now have the choice of remaining true to how the imagined their character ... or not. That requires sometimes convoluted explanations or "retcons". And when you have emotional attachment to what you've build up in your mind ... well, you've seen some of the emotion behind that here on the forums.

Anyway, I'm glad to see you here voicing your thoughts on the matter, and how we got here. I'm still surprised sometimes at the things that surprise you guys, but I do think you're learning as you go.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is (IMO) clearly spelled out in the EULA. Given that, Arctic Sun's warning hardly seems "too late".

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that Artic Sun's warning was too late, but that I (and perhaps others) already have a toon they've marketed and/or sold prior to recreating it in the COX universe. Artic's interpretation of the EULA suggests I couldn't go on to continue marketing my idea because I made the mistake of recreating it in COX and that I have a problem with.

A classic example would be the "Statesman" toon. If Jack Emmert ever became disassociated with Cryptic Studios and COX universe, would he still retain the rights to the Statesman toon he created years beforehand? If he signed away creative ownership of the toon specifically in the contracts written in order to make this game possible, ok then. But what if he didn't?

Stan Lee is another classic example of someone who created a great idea as an artist but lost ownership to the corporation that made it possible (Marvel, Inc.).

Again, the irony of this statement to these examples and Cryptic and Marvel settling the lawsuit just amaze me.

[/ QUOTE ]

As others have said, if you have a prior claim, then what will happen is that, in acknowledging that they cannot own the character in game, they will likely "genericise" it.

Now, if you get your lawyer on deck, have him/her call their lawyers, and then send the resulting documents with a letter asking Cryptic to let you have the character if you promise not to sue them (since, as the creator of the character you can grant yourself rights to it), then you might be OK.

If you created a character in game based on someone you have no legal proof you created prior to that, you may have handed over any rights you posessed to the character's appearance and name.

This is (IMO) clearly spelled out in the EULA. Given that, Arctic Sun's warning hardly seems "too late".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another twist. I'm a novelist. I'm a writer. I write novels for a living.
What if I want to write a novel of my character, or are in the middle of writing a novel and decide to remake a char in CoH/V?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't do it.

Basically, Cryptic/NCsoft owns all characters/names/images that appear in CoH/CoV.

If you were a special case (say you were Warren Ellis, and you wanted to make Spider Jerusalem in the game, and you contacted Cryptic, and they gave you the nod), it might work out (and there would probably be lawyers or at least some serious paperwork involved). But those instances are nebulous and so few and far between, it's not worth risking.

Keep your CoH/CoV characters seperate from those you plan to sell, and you should be fine.

cheers,
Arctic Sun

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats interesting, because the U.S. Copyright offices said otherwise about this when I brought this up on the phone with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is about Trademarks more than Copyrights.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What defines identical though. If my blue skinned, white haired merfolk in my story and in CoH are the same, but they have two totally different backgrounds and histories, is that different enough?

[/ QUOTE ]
In theory no, as they own the look. But I suppose you could argue, it's not like a blue skinned white haired race is unique.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bear in mind that these things often revolve around being "mistakable" for one another.

So, if your blue-skinned, white-haired character smoked a cigar, wore combat fatigues and a white tank top, and was heavily muscled with a crew cut, he'd likely not be mistaken for a blue-skinned, white-haired character with long, flowing hair, a trident, and a metallic bodysuit.

However, if you had those two characters, and they were both named "The Shore Warrior", there would still probably be a problem. Even though the two were arguably different, having such basic similarities as the hair/skin color and the same name could arguably lead to confusion.

I believe I already said that I agree that Aid Self makes a character more survivable. If it didn't, why on earth would we take it?

Scott was saying that without it our sets would be revealed to be so gimp that the devs would have to boost them. That their true "gimpiness" is being concealed by the benefits of this power.

I disagree. I submitted as evidence the fact that I have characters who lack Aid Self yet do amazing things. Things which which a glance at the game manual would suggest I shouldn't be doing.

It's impossible for Aid Self to both be worth taking and not have it make a character better. It's impossible for any amount of healing worth even having to make more of a difference to someone with mitigation than to someone with none.

I argue that just because I could conceivably stand around and spam Aid Self on myself does not make my Invulnerability Scrapper "more survivable" than my Regen Scrapper, even though my Invul has better +DEF and +DR. Why? Because I argue that while my Invul is standing around animating that power, my Regen is actually fighting. My regen is actually able to deal damage, apply debuffs/buffs, and do other things than just heal. Maybe my Invul could stand around all day and not die. (My practical experience actually tells me he couldn't, but lets say he could.) But he needs to do something else meanwhile. No, he won't actually spend 100% of his time animating Aid Self. But he'll spend roughly 3x as much time doing that than my Regen would spend animating Reconstruction even if Reconstruction and Aid Self had the same recharge times.

Hate to break it to you, GS, but I don't come close to believing that day is coming. Ever.

Over all, our current levels of defense are workable. I have Aid Self on two melee characters; both Invuln, one Scrapper, one Tanker. I may yet change the Tanker over to Tough. My Regen and Dark Armor characters don't have it, and never will. My DA Brute won't have it - he's out of pools. My MA/Regen Stalker... nope.

We don't need Aid Self to survive or function. Is it damn nice to have? You betcha! But nerfing it, or hell, removing it from the game wouldn't cripple my characters.

So I just can't see your logic there. Doesn't flow for me.