nzer
-
Posts
284 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by nzer
-
-
2 hours ago, Obus Form said:
AND guaranteeing the player use from scaling-resist by losing HP over 4 seconds
I'm going to be very bold and propose that scaling resists should always take full effect no matter how large the hit is. The way they work now defeats the primary advantage resists have over defense.
-
Just now, Bopper said:
I actually like your use of exponential scaling as opposed to linear. I'll have to play around with things and see if there's a right balance in there. Are the L and E currently arbitrary, or are you having something in mind?
They're basically arbitrary, I just wanted something that looked mostly sane at a wide range of PPMs. Definitely play around with it, I'd love to hear more of your thoughts.
-
@Bopper, here's a better explanation of what I'm suggesting. It's a graph of a modified version of the proc chance formula for a single target click power where y is proc chance, x is modified recharge time, TA is the power's activation time, P is procs per minute, L and E are scale factors I've added, and the green line is the current formula. I'm not saying we should go back to flat percentages, just skewing slightly in favor of faster recharging powers.
-
Just now, Bopper said:
You pretty much described the original method, flat percentages. Which disproportionately favored fast attacks and AoEs. The math isn't hard, but it just brings back an old problem.
No, I'm suggesting something in between the original method and what we have now, where how far in between it is can be tuned by adjusting the weighting. PPM would decrease as recharge time increases, but not to the degree that the proc chance is constant.
-
40 minutes ago, Sarrate said:
I'm not an expert wrt to procs (your guide was fantastic, Bopper), and what it really sounds like we're trying to solve multiple, competing problems at the same time.
1) When using a flat rate, fast recharging powers were disproportionately powerful (eg: Neutrino Bolt) while slower powers were left out.
2) Using PPM and being affected by recharge (enhancements, set bonuses, etc, or some combination of the two) leads to fast recharging powers being overly penalized. It also leads to really weird build behavior where people might avoid recharge to maximize procs. It "feels" wrong.
3) Long recharge powers basically guarantee procs and thus can be transformed into mini nukes.
We can solve all three of these at the same time, I think, by applying a weighting to recharge time in the PPM formula to skew the proc chance more in favor of short recharge powers. This will make it harder to turn long recharge powers into nukes, compensate for the cost of animation time in short recharge powers @oedipus_tex mentioned, and lower the damage loss of additional recharge so people aren't avoiding slotting recharge because it will hurt their proc damage.
The downsides are that it turns procs into even more of math problem than they already are, and renders the actual PPM text meaningless, as the number of procs per minute would depend on the recharge time on the power.
-
50 minutes ago, aethereal said:
I don't feel like I understand the design goal for procs.
What are they supposed to do? Is the idea to allow people to improve average performance at the cost of unreliability? Is that... actually something that anyone wants? Certainly, in practice people seem pretty dedicated to maximizing reliability. Is it just supposed to be a complicated system that allows people who have additional systems mastery to improve their performance by demonstrating mastery over fairly complicated game mechanics? Is it supposed to make powers more diverse (if so, we have too many damage procs), and the unreliability is beside the point?
I don't really get it.
Presumably the second option, but I don't see it as rewarding mastery over obtuse systems as much as providing build tension for minmaxers to chew on. In that I think it's pretty successful, while having the side benefit of allowing support ATs to build for some damage if they want to. The problem is that offers so much benefit to abilities that aren't meant to be relied on for damage that they can end up superceding abilities that are.
-
1 minute ago, Wavicle said:
No, let’s not ignore that, because that does not help your case, given all the Other tools Time has and FF does not.
I've never argued FF competes with Time in practical scenarios...
-
2 hours ago, Frosticus said:
Let's look at vs +3's
Or we could look at +4s, which is what people actually run. Or we could look at +4 incarnates, which is the closest this game comes to actual difficulty, and where FF's def is twice as effective as Time's. But both of those are bad for the argument you're making, so sure, +3s are fine. And let's certainly ignore that in a real team either set will likely put everyone well above 80% def to everything.
-
39 minutes ago, Frosticus said:
it kind of is. It's like if you combined the entirety of FF with the entirety of Radiation, leaving out only the powerful -regen of lingering rad. Ya you lose the mez protection bubble, but instead get to cast the FF shields on yourself too.
It is pretty powerful.
Now, a lot of that power may be considered overkill and unneeded in today's game, but it is there no matter how much handwaving people do.
I'm over here playing the heck out of poison to 50 again heh, so don't mind me.
Time gets significantly less defense than FF, significantly less -def and -tohit than Rad, no mez protection, and very little -regen. I'm not going to argue it's not better than both (though that's not a terribly high bar, especially for FF), but it's nowhere near the entirety of both. Maybe if you just look at buff/debuff types and ignore the amounts.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, oedipus_tex said:
they would never, ever, ever, ever ever be allowed (ever ever) to show up in an Armor set. Ever.
Good thing we're not talking about armor sets then.
Again, Force Field provides 53% defense to the entire team without IO sets or incarnates. Are we pretending that would be allowed in an armor set?
-
1 minute ago, Blackfeather said:
I'm pretty sure resistance to -Res effects is baked in - the higher the resistance, the higher the resistance to -Res.
Yeah, that actually sounds right now that I think about it, and it does seem generally correct from a balance perspective; defense provides resilience to def debuffs by making them less likely to hit, res should also provide some kind of innate resilience to res debuffs.
But it's still icky. The better way to handle that would be for all sources of resistance to also provide resistance to -res, that way if the team wants a particular source of resist to not do that, they have a way to make that change.
-
1 hour ago, Trickshooter said:
Oh hahaha, you're right, I somehow forgot (even I wrote that guide) that Damage Enhancements and Resist Damage Enhancements are the same Strength effects. 😅
Yup. Ultimately, damage resistance and damage should just be separate attributes. It really, really doesn't make sense for damage resistance to be implemented as res(damage) if you think about it for more than a few seconds.
This isn't even the only problem it creates. How would resistance to -res be implemented under the current system? Can it be?
-
1 hour ago, Trickshooter said:
I'm not a developer or a programmer, so this might not actually work, and even if it could, it might still be a lot of work and there might be a lot of exceptions and rebalancing of powers needed, but...
There is a field for powers called something like "Strengths Disallowed". This is the field that prevents most Melee attacks from being affected by +/-Range and Pet powers from being affected by +/-Recharge. This is a different field from the one that prevents all outside buffs/debuffs, which is called something like "Ignore Strength" (with a value of "true" causing the "Not affected by outside buffs/debuffs." message you see on City of Data).
Would it be possible for some of these powers, with effects that would otherwise be "Power-Boost-able" if not for their enhanceable +Resistance, to instead have Strength(Lethal Damage, Smashing Damage, etc.) added to the Strengths Disallowed field? Would this prevent +/-Damage from affecting the power at all and prevent the interaction between Damage buffs and Damage Resistance?
Assuming I understand the system correctly, this would also prevent those powers from having their damage/damage resistance increased by enhancements, which defeats the point.
-
4 minutes ago, Wavicle said:
True enough, but changing that is a Huge ask.
Oh for sure, the cat's out of the bag now
-
5 minutes ago, Bopper said:
Hmm. It seems to me like the real problem here is that damage resistance is implemented as Res(DamageType) rather than as its own attribute.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Wavicle said:
This bug lets Damage buffs improve the resistance. There is no way that can stay in.
The quoted patch notes seem to indicate the bug is that certain abilities with enhanceable resists were being affected by outside buffs when they shouldn't, not that damage buffs were improving resists. Is that a thing that was happening?
-
8 minutes ago, Frosticus said:
As it is trivial to get the power perma on either right now.
Uhm, no. Night widow can get it with 5 LotGs, a full Reactive Defense set in mind link, and three recharge IOs in hasten, whereas a fort gets it at roughly the same time as perma hasten. One takes ~50 mil, the other takes 500+ mil. They both get it, but one gets it at level ~32 with minimal investment, and the other only gets it with a fully purpled endgame build.
What you're suggesting, on the other hand, would allow night widows to get it with a standard endgame build, but prevent forts from ever getting it.
21 minutes ago, Frosticus said:And NO, hami's do NOT improve the recharge of mind link. Only IO's do.
Still intended?
Something's definitely unintended here, but I don't think it's that defense/tohit IO sets with recharge reduction affect the recharge of mind link. Again, IOs were added in issue 9, VEATs were added in issue 12, and the game shut down during issue 23. What you're calling an "oversight" could have been fixed before VEATs shipped or at any point in the four years after they shipped, and it wasn't.
Frankly, there's no reason for mind link not to take recharge enhancements directly. Farsight, the exact same buff but stronger, can be perma'd without any global recharge at all.
-
2 hours ago, Frosticus said:
recharge is not a listed enhancement type that it accepts. Or else youd be able to slot in a recharge SO. You can bypass this thru an oversight via IOs
It's not a big issue but it makes the base recharge difference between forts and banes have no meaning. It wasnt intended to be that way.
If you mean forts and night widows, the difference in base recharge makes it significantly easier to perma on a night widow than on a fort.
QuoteIt wasnt intended to be that way.
IOs predate VEATs, so I'm not sure why you think this.
-
14 minutes ago, Frosticus said:
I'd also "fix" recharge enhancement affecting mindlink. It should be very difficult to perma on a fortunata, but relatively easy on a widow with the shorter base rech and mental training factored in.
As far as I know recharge enhancements do affect Mind Link, you just can't directly slot recharge IOs. Defense sets with recharge and hami-Os will both work.
Edit: It just occurred to me you probably want it "fixed" so recharge from enhancements doesn't affect it at all. Personally, I don't see a lot of value in restricting perma Mind Link to 800+ mil builds.
-
5 minutes ago, Bopper said:
I'm always interested in seeing more math. But that's because I'm math-ochistic. I'll see my way out
.
.
.
unless of course someone shows some math
You and @Vanden have made a pretty convincing case for recovery set bonuses being undertuned, so I think the logical next step here is making some proof of concept builds to explore exactly how larger recovery set bonuses would be leveraged. In addition to @MunkiLord's questions, I would ask:
- Are there common slotting patterns that can be easily modified to grab additional recovery, and what are the tradeoffs?
- In what situations, if any, would stacking recovery set bonuses become a viable replacement for Ageless?
- Does an across the board gain in recovery meaningfully affect the player's resilience to end/rec debuffs? (This is actually a valid concern @Infinitum, though I expect the answer is no)
-
1
-
Just now, Infinitum said:
Mah gosh you are being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.
I'm not going over this again.
I'm trying to get you to make a more substantive argument than "buffing recovery set bonuses breaks the endurance economy because I say so," because you don't seem to realize that isn't compelling to anyone who doesn't already agree with you. God forbid we actually, you know, discuss, rather than just shouting at each other.
-
2
-
-
Just now, Infinitum said:
Unless you are fighting enemies that affect your blue bar.
Good, keep going. How does the ~0.3 end/sec most builds would gain from this change break the gameplay dynamic of end/rec debuffs?
-
8 minutes ago, Infinitum said:
It's not really about slotting differently as much as it is making a strong feature even stronger.
Blue bars would never move, they barely move now on most of mine.
Uh... you realize there's no functional difference between the blue bar barely moving and the blue bar not moving, right? Adding recovery to a build that's already self-sufficient doesn't change its effectiveness at all.
-
14 minutes ago, Infinitum said:
No, we have, you just refuse to see it or cant see it for whatever reason.
You are ignoring the obvious whether on purpose or not, who knows.
At this point I'm not repeating myself again.
If you have end issues on a build send it to me I'll fix it for you.
Nowhere in this thread has anyone provided an example of how the extra recovery would allow them to slot differently.
7 hours ago, Redlynne said:Noted without commentary.
What you quoted doesn't say endurance issues should just go away, but I understand how you could misinterpret it as saying that.
I feel like I'm missing something.
in Mastermind
Posted
The secondary is just as important, if not moreso. Thugs, Bots, and Demons to a lesser extent have enough survivability to work with almost any secondary, but the rest don't, and will need to be paired with a secondary that plays to their strengths.