William Valence
-
Posts
163 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by William Valence
-
-
3 hours ago, Vindicator said:
This. The whole "but, but, muh cottage rule" needs to evolve.
Doesn't help that the cottage rule is one of the most misunderstood, and misapplied things in the CoX community.
-
1
-
3
-
-
Gonna phrase all this slightly differently, consolidating thoughts and being less vague, but trying one more time.
Can we give: Controllers, Defenders, Corruptors, and Brutes 10 Rage base, all the time, with their inherent, Everyone else, but tankers, would get 17 Rage with their inherent, all the time. Tankers would get 24 Rage, all the time with gauntlet.
Modify the call for the aggro cap process to compare aiTarget->attackerList.count against aiTarget->attrCur.fRage instead of the currently defined critter aggro cap. Would let you test both a variable aggro cap, as well as how the AI handles modification to the cap on the fly using Brute's fury inherent. Allowing you to test powers that modify the cap as well.
If life is good technically, then a new attribute can be made, fAggro or some nonsense, and Rage would no longer be needed as a placeholder. You could even attempt a damage buff for tankers in their inherent, that scales down based on how many enemies are on their attacker list. Allowing tankers to better stack on teams when one has a majority of the aggro.
-
Would it be possible to try an iteration of pineapple with a Variable aggro cap attempt, just to see if something in the direction of differentiating the ATs around aggro control and manipulation would even be feasible?
-
You leave the first sentence to provide context for the second sentence. If I was saying that it wasn't how incarnate swapping worked, I wouldn't have added the second sentence, and simply sassed the Exactly how it works part.
Because the first sentence provides the assertion of how core swapping works, but the second doesn't reference core swapping specifically, rather using a determiner phrase "they can put that kind" it's appropriate to keep the first sentence to maintain context and avoid cutting the thought in half or risk quoting out of context.
This has been your overly pedantic English lesson on how to properly quote an idea when being a sassy bastard.
-
The fury break-even point is the difference in scale damage between tanker and brutes two at buff level / brute base damage scale / 2 rounded up. Or the base scale damage for brutes / the difference between tanker and brute damage at buff rounded up. First seems more accurate with rounding, but either is close enough.
Since fury adds between 2% and 200% base damage, you want to know how much of a difference between the two there is, and how much brute base damage needs to be added to match.
For example using @csr's Rage +enh example. Tanker does 2.6125 scale damage and brute does 2.0625 for a difference of .55 scale damage. To make up the .55 scale damage the brute would need .55/.75 or 73.33(Repeating of course /lerroy) or 37 fury. Proof -> .75 * ( 1 + .95 + .8 + .74) = 2.6175 -> within rounding error as breakpoint was between fury points.
19 minutes ago, WumpusRat said:This math kind of puzzles me, to be honest. It seems like a lot more moving parts than are necessary.
He's looking at the break even point. The fury needed to match tanker damage at a given level of equivalent buff. Also there were some errors in what you did:
21 minutes ago, WumpusRat said:For a total of +315% damage bonus.
So 315 total damage
...
For a total of +175% damage bonus
So 175 total damage
These are literally plus percentages, so you add the percentage, not multiply. So you either add damage equal to 175% or 315% or multiply by 100% plus buffs. So damage would be 275 and 415 in that scenario. Modified the way you did to get brute vs tanker final damage (It's usually easier to just use their damage scalars and skip a step the proportions are the same) You would get 261.25 vs 311.25 or 19% more damage, less than the 27% increase estimate.
-
It is possible that the /mmm, or all the freebies commands could be given to the player.
It is not reasonable to make the argument that because of this the long-term goal was to give them to players.
-
Quote
The Tanker is the “big man” of the hero world, combin-ing massive defense with a powerful, but not exception-ally quick, offensive punch.Tankers make effective solo Heroes, at their own delib-erate pace, but they are also in demand by teams,where their function is to keep enemy attacks off thelightly defended Blasters, Controllers and Defenders.
The full bit from the manual you referenced @Haijinx. Emphasis mine, but that's not even what I'm arguing.
It's not that they don't do damage, of course they do damage, rather that the damage wasn't the primary reason to pick them because other options were focused on that. The utility for protecting a team through survivability and melee fighting control, was the primary purpose for choosing to take a Tanker over another option. Just like a Defender's primary output isn't damage, but of course they do damage.
@Leogunner We've spun this circle in the past, and I don't think we'll agree on this topic. Probably just best for us to just leave it be this time.
-
40 minutes ago, siolfir said:
That was one of the premises behind the changes, though - you may not agree with it, but it was stated as one of the design goals of the changes in the other thread.
1 hour ago, William Valence said:That was the goal of the changes if I'm understanding correctly, but there are unintended consequences to that.
I don't believe I've said that it wasn't the goal. I understand that Tankers doing more, easier, without changing play pattern was the objective. The changes reach their goal.
I'm saying meeting that goal doesn't fix the problem of two ATs being too similar with one just having more output (It just changes which has more output), while changing tankers to a primary damage identity, and adds a very strongly scaling effect that in my opinion is being under accounted for.
-
28 minutes ago, Leogunner said:
That's not particularly quantified. You say this pushes Tankers primarily toward damage but that, in itself, has no definitive reference point. How much are they aimed at damage on HC live? And you say it's less differentiated from Brute but I can quantify their difference EASILY by just using Shadow Maul on 3 foes. The difference in use means the Brute likely would lean toward cycling the faster ST attacks for better fury and high DPS while the Tanker might utilize the longer animating attack despite its lower DPA IF he can hit 3 or more foes with it.
Apologies I thought it was fairly self-evident. HC live they aren't aimed at damage. If you're looking for an AT that is primary damage output, then a tanker isn't as viable an option as others, and now it is. And not only is this version a viable option, it can output the most in player constructed situations. That's the quantifiable change in primary output. That was the goal of the changes if I'm understanding correctly, but there are unintended consequences to that.
As to the current difference, that would only be true if the tanker couldn't cycle those same attacks in it's downtime at the same rate, or the powersets were different. In situations where it's more damage to use the AoE, it will be more damage to use the AoE for both, just easier for the Tanker. The tanker doesn't to anything different with AoEs, it does the same thing, just better/more. If damage is kept in a range the only difference will be due to targets hit with extra AoE. If a tanker does 90% it does 90% plus whatever extras it hits with it's AoE. There's no secret sauce like with scrappers/stalkers that makes a big difference here.
34 minutes ago, Leogunner said:I understand that AoE is king in CoX but the meme isn't painting the whole picture. Being able to AoE down a bunch of minions is a great utility but it is really only that: a utility. It isn't DPS. If it were DPS, it wouldn't be decreased by the presence of anyone who has better AoE like a Blaster or a Dominator. Just one AoE from them and your advantage is pretty much clipped to solo farming. I'm not trying to downplay the stronger AoE, I'm just saying it's not the mass DPS output it's framed to be.
It is the DPS it's being framed to be, because it's being framed in context. I'm comparing Melee damage Armor ATs to each other, because if a player is looking at a concept using one of them, it's most likely that they would be compared to the others, not to Dominators or Blasters. Also having mitigation should inherently mean less damage compared to an AT that doesn't have that mitigation output which is in part, I believe, why the brute damage cap was lowered.
45 minutes ago, Leogunner said:I won't argue with you on that. Increased area makes using the AoEs easier...but the increase in target cap makes using the same skills of lining up those AoEs more REWARDING. That's my take away. I could be happy hitting 4 foes with my shadow maul and it's a net profit in DPS...or I can cram in another 4 targets and make its activation REALLY pay off.
That's fine, and it is more rewarding, but being rewarding doesn't mean it isn't out of spec. If Scrapper attacks were all cones that only damaged the enemy targeted, but the crit damage scaled with the number of targets in the cone so crits did between 1x and 8x damage to the target, it would be more rewarding to line up your attacks, but it would be out of spec. You could hit the 4 people easy and get 4x damage, but the crit would be really rewarding if you got all 8 in. Yes more rewarding, but not necessarily balanced.
57 minutes ago, Leogunner said:That is the case now...it's just leaned in favor of Brutes. You can't deny, with the betatest changes, at least they play differently (Tankers and Brutes) far more than on live...and I'm not talking the clear times on farming maps, I'm talking mechanical differences in play.
No problem is ever solved by allowing something else a turn at being the problem rather than fixing it. As for mechanical differences, with the way the sets are structured, it's almost always optimal to gather as many enemies as you can survive and AoE, with single target fillers. That hasn't changed. The feel to it has, with tankers feeling much easier to use and brutes feeling the same. But the optimal mechanical play is pretty simple to figure out, and hasn't changed. Meme, meta, it can be called whatever someone wants to call it, but it's also true. IIRC only stalkers and masterminds get a modifier to participation for event tables. Masterminds because of how their pets interact with the participation metrics, and stalkers because of how disadvantaged they are due to their lackluster AoE output, and behavioral focus on ST damage.
I am concerned that there will be a behavioral change in optimization and selection, but the mechanical gameplay won't change. Not really, and definitely not with a change that just modifies the comparative damage levels. Get things into your AoE, use them, fill time with other abilities, repeat. That's the basic loop of CoH combat gameplay. Stalker's Hide/AS mechanic subverts this to create something interesting, but these changes don't do that. They do the same things as pre-change just more.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Replacement said:
About your damage comparisons - I assume you're talking about Tanker damage when capped on targets (e.g. base damage * max target number)? I cannot fully disagree with your assessments, but I think it's important to point out if this is a comparison of best-case scenario.
That is what I'm talking about (Bolded).
It is reasonable and fair to point out it is a comparison of a best case scenario, meaning the most damage the tanker can output vs cross-at equivilants, but it's a construct-able scenario that is influenced by the player. A tanker can saturate it's AoEs with more ease than a brute can reach 100 fury. And a Tanker can actively influence it's additional damage whereas a scrapper's crit is RNG.
-
50 minutes ago, Kigo said:
This is exactly how swapping incarnate cores currently works. If they can put that kind of limitation on core swapping then surely they can put the same limits on the slash command.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Leogunner said:
I've always advocated for quantifying harm done rather than just relying of gut feelings.
Quantifying hasn't really helped much, but here goes again.
- The changes push tankers more towards damage as a primary output making them more similar to brutes rather than accentuating differences. There is nothing to this that creates anything ancillary to either the tanker or brute to differentiate them in fundamental identity. The primary difference would be in feel, with the the brute needing to build resource to get it's effect higher and tankers are just easier to play, in outputting their effect.
- The increase in target caps allows for base damage output that can't be matched by brutes, and is unlikely to be matched by scrappers (would have to crit every enemy hit) this is best observed on the extreme end in farms, as both brutes and tankers have the same tools, and ancillary options (with higher target caps) yet the tanker's AoEs are potent enough to knock a minute plus off of run times. This is strong enough that it could cause a general change in play pattern to leverage that power
- The increase in areas makes tankers even easier to play. This means they are not only able to reach the 90% damage of brutes (I disagree with this assessment, as I believe that tankers will be able to exceed brutes output, but even if you use the 90% metric), they will be able to do so with ease of play rather than a swingy mechanic like fury
- They have the same powersets, so if their output is seen as only damage/survivability and that's how they're balanced, then the one that applies the effects better will be the one selected most often. Rather than having different identities that are built up on for players to choose from.
-
4
-
People will most likely roll what they think is strongest.
With tanks now getting offense pushed so much, and the differences between brute/tankers getting smaller rather than larger, they occupy the same space even more. I think it's unlikely there will be a balanced shift. If the two of them do the same thing effectively, or one does all the stuff of the other, plus some, then the one that's seen as more optimal will be picked with greater frequency.
Or the one that is easier to use, at each tier to apply it's effect.
-
1
-
-
The target cap increase is still a lot, a lot of power. If you see on the live servers that Tanks are spending less time in each level range, and/or passing level ranges with less XP; is reverting the target caps something that is possible?
-
Ah, sorry.
Not quite. Sorry if the phrasing was misleading. There is one AI, with various brains that are specific to types of entities. These brains add functionality or targets to specific types of entity such as "Pet" or "Arachnos" but almost all the AI code is shared with everything.
-
On 9/29/2019 at 12:54 PM, Doc_Scorpion said:
Proven to be incorrect by folks who've dived into the code, there's multiple A.I's. (They've been able to change pet behavior by copy-pasting from one to another.)
On 9/29/2019 at 12:54 PM, Doc_Scorpion said:That's a "poorly designed AI" problem, not a "one AI to rule them all" problem.
On 9/29/2019 at 12:54 PM, Doc_Scorpion said:Only if all mobs use the same AI - which they don't.
Link? Because from my examination there's a basic AI with some modification of certain parts of the AI using a type specific brain. The brain can add or modify functions of the default behaviors, but not enough to say that mobs don't use the same AI. These brains dont have enough functionality to control half of what's needed to have half a functional AI.
Also copy/paste behaviors between? The brains control behaviors specific to unique mechanics that the default brain, literally named default, can't handle. For example pet summoning, extra buffs, allowable buff targets, or rez functionality. What are they copy/pasting?
5th column, Arachnos, Rularuu are three brains I can remember off the top of my head.
-
7 hours ago, DR_Mechano said:
We had any updates on how things are going via testing?
I saw enough that I'm willing to try dicking with the AI code. Specifically I'm going to try to exempt henchman from the standard AI team and role assignment. AI pets get the same team list as their owner from what I can see, so there's no reason to dynamically assign them AI teams per target like you would for mobs, other than to piggyback that functions role assignment.
However the only real role assignment that touches Henchman is also for everything else, but it doesn't need to be dynamic, so you should be able to assign it when they are created and inherit their team/friends.
I've got a nagging feeling that if I just cut Henchmen off from the mobs team assignment code, it will behave like it did before the melee fix, but that would be super hackish as that would basically remove them from everything except power selection if I'm seeing it correctly, and break melee.
Also the i2500 build I'm using is super unstable and held together by duct tape and unicorn dreams, so I'm going to swap to the ourodev master build (I think that's called i24, hard to keep track) and I'll make the changes on that version. If everything works I'll have some PMs to send.
-
2
-
3
-
-
36 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:
Sorry! 12 Mag 1 attacks at 8.6 damage. 8.6 at level 1 is 1 Magnitude of damage. As you level up the damage increases per mag but so do your hit points in a nonlinear manner (Takes more Mags as you get up in level because HP grows on a slightly different line to allow for greater magnitude variety without insta-killing PCs, this is why Alphas tend to kill squishies instantly while more leisurely combat gives them more room to maneuver: All the enemies are throwing their higher mags at once)
8.6 damage hits you 11 times and you go from 100hp to 5.4HP, but you've probably had a Regen Tick or Two in there over the course of normal combat, so the 12th hit finishes you off.
It's important to note: You don't fight 1 enemy throwing Mag 1 attacks at you at level 1. You fight 3. And typically a Lieutenant throwing Mag 1.3 attacks. So unless you narrow out the field (Whether through controls or murder) you can rack up those 12 hits in as little as 15-20 seconds.
Yup, and considering everything is so variable, part of my confusion is how those numbers, +14% rech and +30% enemy health, maintain a TTK:TTD ratio, considering both are so variable, and I still don't know what the TTD is that you're using in your examination, or the TTK but that's something else entirely.
The numbers for hasten look wrong, with its minimum input being 14% not 8% unless you're overcapped at which point hasten itself isn't important. Meaning it's average and median effect would be higher than 14%.
It's a lot of change that can't be verified to do what they are intended as the metrics used to determine the changes don't make sense.
-
4/5=.8 -> 4/4.3 = .93 -> .13/.93=13.9% Hasten is responsible for this much of a change at saturation
120/5 = 24 ->120/4.3 = 27.9 -> 3.096/27.9 = 14% Hasten is responsible for this much of a change at saturation
.7 / 5 = 14% Hasten will at saturation be responsible for 14% of the recharge modification within rounding error.
For long recharge powers that will only benefit from hasten some of it's time:
1000 rech with 95% slotted and Hasten with 95% recharge slotted. Hasten recharges in 187 and change seconds Recharge without hasten is 512
120s of 265% recharge means 318s are deducted from recharge in this time leaving 682s -> 67s of 195% recharge eats 130s for a remaining 552s -> 318s from the next 120s hasten run leaves 234s -> the next 67s of hasten downtime eat another 130s leaving 104s -> hasten will eat the last 104s in 39s
Total time 120 + 67 + 120 + 67 + 39 = 413s = 19% reduction due to hasten
At worst hasten will effect powers by 14%, and that's at recharge cap. Hasten's likely best influence is at 110% +rech global with no slotted recharge in the power which is 25% reduction from hasten itself.
As for the TTD, I'm not familiar with damage magnitude as a descriptor of damage, and I don't know what the attack rate for critters is off the top of my head. So I can't calculate the TTD from that.
- How many seconds is that?
- Player mitigation and critter damage grows in proper ratio to maintain consistency in the TTD as the player levels or is there a chart with the player level and TTD at that level?
- Is there a big spread between ATs or power pool selections (IE manuvers or Fighting) that effect it in swingy ways?
It's interesting to actually dig into this power and see how much it actually reduces the recharge time of powers. We're messing with some very tight margins when messing with stuff like this.
-
Trying to parse out the third suggestion in my head, but I'm confused on two things.
- Why 13% recharge modification and 30% health modification?
- What's the current TTD for the average player?
-
4 hours ago, Jimmy said:
As part of this, we’re now collaborating not only with The Titan Network, but also the Victory and Resurgence servers, and it’s our intention to invite more servers to the table in the coming months.
This is cool.
It brings up an important question though, on the goals of the homecoming team going forward. Is homecoming looking to be the centralized owner/authority for CoH, or will things remain as they are now with different groups and communities expressing their own visions of what CoH should be?
Would private servers that are not homecoming affiliated get a C&D from whatever group/board thing is set up to manage the non-profit; should the talks succeed in gaining homecoming the IP?
-
1 hour ago, Steampunkette said:
If we do the Delete Hasten and shift to 20% global recharge for everyone (Effectively giving everyone unslotted Hasten) the immediate result is the Recharge Meta goes out the window. Recharge will still be a strong mechanic, particularly among set bonuses, but it won't be the end-all-be-all of power.
Long term, this would encourage different builds. Different "Optimal Attack Chains" and overall increase the challenge of the game by stripping some of the extreme ends of power away.
If we do the "Shift things around" design, very little changes in the short term. In the long term, though, more people who are moving into choosing sets and final builds for characters will run into the 'Smaller gains' appearance, since "Permahasten" just takes you from +20 to +45. And might try something different...
It wouldn't be the Optimal Build, but it would at least be variety, which is the spice of life.
If you delete it, and players can't do what they can do now, you will definitely not remove the recharge meta. You will instead create a power gap between sets that have +Rech (I.E rad or time) and sets that don't. Because recharge is universally strong.
If you delete it and people can do what they can do now, but instead they do it with an inherent replacement, you are just giving players the power of having hasten without having to take it. Effectively creeping up power for the sake of not having to take Hasten.
If you do the "Shift things around" suggestion you put up, Hasten gets stronger, and not hasten gets stronger, and no amount of attempted psychology will convince people that hasten is actually weaker. It's stronger when you first get it than it is when you get it now, and it's stronger at the high end.
I'm not poo-pooing the idea "'Cause nothing can change", I'm against it because I believe it doesn't do anything you think or want it to do, for the reasons I've said.
-
1 minute ago, Steampunkette said:
1) Psychological change. If you've got 20% recharge buff, do you -really- need a click-recharge buff for 25% that recharges 3 minutes later? Sure you do, if you're building a recharge build. But for a lot of people who aren't -specifically- trying to build for recharge it appears less needed on it's face. It even looks like it's been nerfed with a 45% total, before double stacking.
Here's my problem with that.
Do you -really- need a click recharge buff?
Probably. If you don't have the recharge values needed to make your attack chain work, or your key powers hit perma status, then yes. If the 20% passive power is good enough though:
23 minutes ago, William Valence said:It would be more likely to increase power than reduce it.
If the things you can do with perma-hasten can be done with inherant hasten replacement, and you get additional pool/power options on top of that, you're making a change for the sole purpose of allowing for hasten level results without having to spent the power/pool picks to get them.
5 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:2) It also helps to level the playing field for people who don't take Hasten, bringing the bottom up while not really moving the top very much.
It does. But it does that by giving a power effect of a power selection without having to take that power. That's something I'm not the biggest fan of. +Rech is universal, so a +rech power is obviously going to be more popular than a Placate, Fear, or Stealth power. I don't think that fact warrants giving everyone free +rech powers, and if someones concept is more terrifying presence than speedy, then part of the game is weighing the opportunity costs of power selection.
This makes hasten stronger and not hasten stronger, just so people don't feel like they're missing out on the stats when they don't take hasten.
-
5 minutes ago, Steampunkette said:
The suggestion as it stands is 3 parts:
Reduce Hasten to a 25% Recharge Buff.
Add a 20% Recharge Buff to all Players.
Reduce Hasten's Cooldown time to 200 seconds.
On it's face it's a nerf. Hasten and the auto-grant only give 45% recharge rate. But at 200 seconds you can get Permahasten with 2 Recharge SOs.
And actually slotting for recharge allows you to double-stack. Bringing it back to 70%.
It would take about +250% recharge to double perma, which is less than the +275% needed to perma current hasten.
And they get an autopower quickness for the times before they would have selected hasten.
I don't believe this suggestion does what you believe it does
Focused Feedback: Rage
in [Open Beta] Focused Feedback
Posted
The rule was to allow players to have consistency in expectations toward what their powers do.
It was the prevailing design theory that there should be consistency, and players should be able to trust that the powers they use do the same thing day in and day out. The result keeps powersets from drifting, but the rule is very individual power specific.
The quote, in context, was referencing changing a specific power in Ice melee IIRC. Not to keep ice melee from drifting, but because it's unnecessary to change the core function of the power in question to do what he wanted at the time. The example castle gave was power-centric (build up) not powerset-centric.
And there's a lot that can be done in that philosophy, and I haven't really see anything that shows that @Captain Powerhouse intends to stray from the consistency focused design style. I may not like tankers being pushed more offensively, but that doesn't violate the cottage rule or consistency of effect of their powers, it's a pure tuning thing. It's a me problem not a CoX design style problem.
Rage is better single and double stacked, than before, unless you were either able to ignore the crash by having large amounts of resists rather than, or on top of, defense. It preserves both types of play, makes single stack more viable, and makes it so that the crash applies properly without regard to the defense set you choose. It could be made a toggle, and it would still be a power that when used, adds to your damage. But it's a creative change that preserves and improves what exists without having to make sweeping design changes.
The opposite of a "Cottage Rule" design philosophy would be in a game like League of Legends where the core functionality of powers and items change patch to patch. There are likely other servers which will approach design and balance in this way, and I think it will be scary to see how ugly it ends up.