Jump to content

Alouu

Members
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About Alouu

  • Birthday 01/01/1004

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Attack Name Old Toxins New Toxins Old Doublehit New Doublehit Bitter Freeze Ray 95.58 94.43 73.62 72.74 Bitter Ice Blast 78.95 55.93 60.81 43.08 Freeze Ray 67.87 51.50 52.28 39.67 Ice Blast 56.33 64.86 43.48 49.96 Ice Bolt 33.95 43.26 26.16 33.32 Strangler 99.14 85.47 76.37 65.83 The target had 37.7% res to all on live, vs 38.24% on test, I dont have the most precise methodolgy in the world, generally I just hope results drown out the margin of error. On live, I have also made a comparison between Toxins and Build Up using the Chain BFR > BIB > Freeze Ray > Strangler the results of which look like this: Toxins Damage Total: 1233.72 Build Up Damage Total: 1082.60 Toxins + Aim + Gaussians Proc, Damage Total: 1446.52 Build Up + Aim + Gaussians Proc, Damage Total: 1253.06 The damage totals only take into account the damage from the attacks and the bonus damage from toxins, so excludes things like damage procs. Looking at the toxins differences above and applying them to the results below, it would appear that the edge toxins had over BU has been cut by about 50 damage (for this chain at least). Not the biggest of deals although other sets were already looking enticing over it beforehand.
  2. Alouu

    Design Formulas

    Hi, ive been working on a formula for pvp damages based on the AT modifiers listed above. Here are two links that both have the inputs set to look at Archery's Aimed Shot for a Blaster: One, Two. S is the Scalar C is the cast time of the power (so currently set to 1.67 for Aimed Shot), R is the recharge of the power (6s for Aimed Shot) A is the area divisor incase it ever proves useful. Now you may have noticed that in these two formulas that what I multiply S with is different, with one using 56.1 and another using 42.27. The way I set up the formula multiplies the AT Modifier above with these numbers to create the true scalar. Now what I expected is that since here blaster melee damage scalar is listed as 1.000, and in this table the corresponding value is 56.10 (at level 50), doesnt this mean that a scalar of 1.000 = 56.10? If that is true then the above listed AT modifiers must be wrong, since as you see in order to correctly predict Aimed Shot's pvp damage value I had to change the blaster ranged AT modifier from it's listed 1.82 to 1.383. Alternately if im wrong, can someone explain why when using the listed AT Modifier of 1.82, I needed to multiply this by 42.27 in order to generate accurate* results, and where this number could come from? *Multiple powers were tested using both formulas, not just Aimed shot. It does produce quite accurate values for the powers I tested that dont do extra funky effects like holds.
  3. It was put in to counteract the effects of DR, the bonus recharge you receive lowers the more actual recharge you slot into the power. However testing has indicated it doesnt actually function at all, which for the sake of our PPM's I hope is never fixed.
  4. When setting up a pair of binds like this: /bind X powexecname Power1 /bind Lshift+X powexecname Power2 On live you will activate Power1 when you press X and activate Power2 when you press Lshift and X at the same time. On test, when you press Lshift and X at the same time, you activate Power1, then if you press it again it will activate Power2. This bug doesnt apply to Control when used as a modifier key, as far as I know it only applies to Shift.
  5. Something I've been working on. I may make a standalone post on it later. Covering how the solutions within solve some of the problems you have presented: Radiation Emission - The formula for offensive toggle suppression goes a small way to help this powerset. Thermal Radiation - The new values I give for resistance DR and Base Resists gives viabiltiy to Thermal +res shields. Sonic Resonance - The new values I give for resistance DR and Base Resists gives viabiltiy to Sonic +res shields. Force Field - The new values I give for defense DR gives viability to Forcefield +def shields, The new DR value for knockback enhancement strength I give reigns in Force Bolt. Controllers / Dominators - The protection based system with abuse proofing I describe increases the viability of these archetypes. Melee - The changes I give to melee ranges, melee run & jump speed DR values, and an "afterburner" effect after melee hits gives viability to melee. Although I understand you wanted more "ballpark ideas" than specific suggestions, I think there is only a very narrow range of DR curve parameters which result in both +Res shields being viable, and stacking +Res set bonuses all the way to high heaven (on a blaster for example) not being viable. For this reason I wanted to share the exact solutions I came up with through my process of discovery as to what those parameters might be. I believe that the change making +res shields functional alone would cause the pure spike meta to dissapate.
  6. @Alouu - Ice/Plant Blaster @Whoogiewatsit - Empathy/Water Defender
  7. Nah im not referring to that, here's what im talking about: https://web.archive.org/web/20120906120102/http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?p=4215484#post4215484 This is after much wrangling with the community over his initial proposals that he ended up at this implementation which uses enhanced recharge only rather than all recharge including global bonuses, but also has a lower boost to PPMs, 25%. Scrolling down in the same thread you can see he uses the +25% to ppm's for his other example calculations. That said I still dont know if they went ahead and slapped that +25% into the formula before shutdown or not.
  8. Here is a Wolfram formula that I have been using. For this formula the editable values are: B: (B)ase Recharge of the power E: (E)nhancement to Recharge (As a percentage, this does not include global recharge like set bonuses & hasten.) A: (A)nimation time (Not arcana-times, the actual in game listed values) P: (P)roc Per Minute rating of the enhancement R: ®adius of the power if it is an AOE/Cone (If the power is a single target set this to 0.) C: Ar© of the cone. (360 if the power is an AOE) I put this formula together for my own purposes and after using it for a while I can say anecdotally that the numbers it spits out do seem to line up with the frequency at which things proc in game. However it is possible that the part of the formula that says (P * 1.25) should actually just be P, ie (P * 1). The reason for this is that although it was indicated by synapse that proc values would increase by 25% I cant find absolute evidence that this 25% increase was implemented into their i24 formula prior to shutdown. That said, again using anecdotal evidence only, it does appear to have been.
  9. I really liked that post Sunsette, your "in a vacuum" arguments make perfect sense to me. I also agree that we need to preserve what made us all come back to this game after such a long time, I dont know if you also saw the post on turning defense into a logarithmic system but I think it was a perfect example of something that while it may technically be better balanced if implemented well, it would lose part of what makes the game what it is. In the case of the clamp though, its not iconic in any way, or nostalgia invoking, or even noticeable really unless you know what to look for. Its just a nuisance. Regarding your appraisal of support and dissent about the change, the situation you hypothesised where there are 70% who mildly want the change and 30% who vehemently oppose it doesnt seem right to me, I would say it's more like a 10 / 80 / 10 split. I havent taken a full tally of supporters and dissenters in this thread yet but it does look quite evenly split and I would say what we are seeing here is the two 10's at each pole clashing (very vocally..). If thats true then all that is needed is a majority of that 80 in the middle.
  10. You're confusing me with someone else. My previous two posts also don't apply to the arguement you made, they address two specific non-arguements made by others.
  11. If I hadn't acknowledged that I was being disagreed with, I wouldn't have made any responses. The point is from what position does the disagreement come from. The arguments "this is the way it's always been" and "why bother" can get thrown out in opposition to any idea ever made and are equally invalid every time they do. If you want a look at what a sound argument looks like take a read of @justicebeliever's post. From that post I accept the conclusions since they are logically made and thus have to accept as a result, that if anything this should be a back burner suggestion. You do understand you would still be able to miss... right?
  12. For those of you dissenting based on arguments such as “Why is this change worth it?” or “This is just the way RPGs are!” I invite you to consider a scenario in which my suggestion is already implemented in the game. That is to say, you hit when you are supposed to hit and you miss when you are supposed to miss. Assume that this has been the status quo since launch day. Then a suggestion comes along which goes along the lines of “Hey guys, lets make it so if we have a 100% chance to hit, it gets rounded down to 95%!”. I hope you can appreciate what a singularly unpopular suggestion this would be. Personally I can easily imagine that not a single member of this community would take to such an idea. It would be universally scorned and rejected as anti-fun in its arbitrary randomness, unnecessary as the formula for missing already works fine and so on. If you have an ounce of integrity I hope you can admit to yourselves you would be right there among us, rightfully calling out what a stupid bloody suggestion it was. From there it is but a single logical step to acknowledge that rejecting proposition A in favor of keeping status quo B, translates directly into accepting proposition B at the expense of status quo A.
  13. I went out of my way to show the falsity and hyperbole of your initial response because I knew there would be people on the fence not knowing what to make of the whole thing, who would be swayed if I did not. The benefit is clear, its just also very small. If the effort involved to make the change is also very small as I assume it is, this is not a factor.
  14. I think if the amount of work ive put into falsifying your bs each time has shown anything, its earnestness. As for this time, you added an amount of elusivity needed to bring the value back to 0.95... What of it? The arguement for this is that gaving a hitchance of 95% to 100% generally happens against enemies that show as grey to yellow, and having hit chances lower than 95% will generally happen against enemies that show as orange to purple. If we take that as true, then since those grey to yellow enemies get steamrolled anyway it wont make any challenge difference having the hit chance cap raised against them. Additionally it wouldnt make a difference to the fight against orange to purple enemies because you dont have high enough hit chance to reach the threshold where removing the clamp would be noticed. Admittedly this does break down in certain situations like if a team is stacking tactics or if we are talking about a full team of 50s with accuracy set bonuses. But for that I would argue that since the clamp applies to enemies too, removing the clamp also increases their lethality a tiny bit in response, giving back whatever challenge was lost.
  15. These two points seem similar enough to address in one package. Previously in my response to @Rylas, I explained my personal reasons for disliking the clamp. You can go back there and read it if you wish. If you piece that together with the sentiments of the other posters who support my suggestion you can see that it all boils down to pretty much the same thing. Perhaps to sum it up this statement might work: Something doesnt have to be very bad, to count as a bad thing. On the other hand the sentiments so far in support of keeping the clamp in place have been somewhat illogical or based on a lack of understanding of it, which has led to some testy responses. With that in mind the question becomes whether this admittedly minor nuisance is worth fixing or not, my assumption is since it only requires the change of a single variable in the code it would be rather easy and therefore is well worth doing. If that assumption turns out to be wrong, no harm done making this suggestion to find that out.
×
×
  • Create New...