"The Game is not Balanced around IO's"..... should it be?

[Infinitum]

5 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

I'm pretending nothing. I'm especially not pretending that this crap is balanced because I've ALWAYS had some bias for tanks, thinking that they should be the Supermen of CoH and all other melee ATs should be inferior across the board like some people obviously do.

Thats not even close to how the game is right now. 

[tidge]

I have reviewed the data in the OP:

 

On 1/22/2021 at 12:36 AM, Galaxy Brain said:

The AH is cross-shard, so looking into active bids on commonly sought-after IO's can give us an *idea* of how popular the IO system is, if we try and correlate 1 bid per player:

 

 

 

*LotG I divided by 5 as folks usually try to buy as many as they can

 

I could add more and more, but in my experience these are some of the most commonly slotted IO's across many builds...

It conclusively proves that I need more Auction House slots to satisfy all of these eager customers.

[Luminara]

27 minutes ago, Apparition said:

As I pointed out above, when a Defender loaded with damage procs does almost as much damage as a Blaster, there is a very serious problem.

 

When a defender still has to spend more time setting up to deal that damage than the blaster spends just getting on with it, and then only has a chance to deal as much damage as the blaster, no, there's no problem.  Zero.  Animation times matter, and expecting players to spend two to four times as long doing something just because they picked the "wrong" archetype is crap.  This isn't 1997, Co* isn't EQ or WoW and the idea that there should be a greater damage penalty to accompany the existing animation time penalty associated with playing archetypes which are already dealing lower damage is antiquated.

[Bill Z Bubba]

Just now, Infinitum said:

Thats not even close to how the game is right now. 

It certainly is closer to that for tanks versus brutes than it ever was on live. Again, the AoE changes were grossly unnecessary and unwarranted. Tanks, having vastly superior mitigation 100% of the time should NEVER do more damage than the brute. Full stop. Stating otherwise shows a complete lack of respect for an level of archetype balance.

[Infinitum]

1 minute ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

It certainly is closer to that for tanks versus brutes than it ever was on live. Again, the AoE changes were grossly unnecessary and unwarranted. Tanks, having vastly superior mitigation 100% of the time should NEVER do more damage than the brute. Full stop. Stating otherwise shows a complete lack of respect for an level of archetype balance.

They dont do more dmg than tankers

 

Even your test showed that.

 

Your tanker build has vastly more mitigation because you built it that way,,I'd be willing to wager you could,make that brute stronger.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Infinitum

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 minute ago, Luminara said:

When a defender still has to spend more time setting up to deal that damage than the blaster spends just getting on with it, and then only has a chance to deal as much damage as the blaster, no, there's no problem.  Zero.  Animation times matter, and expecting players to spend two to four times as long doing something just because they picked the "wrong" archetype is crap.  This isn't 1997, Co* isn't EQ or WoW and the idea that there should be a greater damage penalty to accompany the existing animation time penalty associated with playing archetypes which are already dealing lower damage is antiquated.

100% agreed. Every power in this game should have its affects altered in consideration of the power's cast time. (Yes, arcanatime, not stated cast time.)

[Bill Z Bubba]

6 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

They dont do more dmg than tankers

 

Even your test showed that.

Oh FFS. Did you mean they don't do more damage than brutes? If they are doing more AoE damage than brutes, then they are doing more damage in an area of their performance. If they are doing less single target damage, as they should and do, then that is going to affect their overall performance. Were they CORRECTLY doing less AoE damage than brutes, then the clear all times would be APPROPRIATELY larger than they are.
Tanks should NOT have been granted better AoE capabilities than the other melee archetypes unless their base damage was so low that it would remain lower than the other archetypes.
Edit: And WHY is this? Because tanks have vastly superior mitigation than the other melee archetypes 100% of the time so should NEVER have better damage output at any level, at all, ever.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Bill Z Bubba

[Infinitum]

1 minute ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Oh FFS. Did you mean they don't do more damage than brutes? If they are doing more AoE damage than brutes, then they are doing more damage in an area of their performance. If they are doing less single target damage, as they should and do, then that is going to affect their overall performance. Were they CORRECTLY doing less AoE damage than brutes, then the clear all times would be APPROPRIATELY larger than they are.
Tanks should NOT have been granted better AoE capabilities than the other melee archetypes unless their base damage was so low that it would remain lower than the other archetypes.

Their dmg is lower than the other ATs - doesnt matter how many they hit over time eventually the brute, scrapper or stalker will surpass the tanker.

[Infinitum]

And dont pretend like survivability is an issue with any of these ATs. 

[Apparition]

11 minutes ago, Luminara said:

 

When a defender still has to spend more time setting up to deal that damage than the blaster spends just getting on with it, and then only has a chance to deal as much damage as the blaster, no, there's no problem.  Zero.  Animation times matter, and expecting players to spend two to four times as long doing something just because they picked the "wrong" archetype is crap.  This isn't 1997, Co* isn't EQ or WoW and the idea that there should be a greater damage penalty to accompany the existing animation time penalty associated with playing archetypes which are already dealing lower damage is antiquated.

There is a problem when it completely invalidates one AT (Corruptor), and encroaches on the territory of the pure damage AT (Blaster), with much higher personal defenses and resistances.  And FWIW, Corruptors have the same animation times.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Apparition

[Bill Z Bubba]

11 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

Their dmg is lower than the other ATs - doesnt matter how many they hit over time eventually the brute, scrapper or stalker will surpass the tanker.

Claws Spin against 1 target

Scrapper - 98.8472
Brute - 78.8276
Tank - 99.8481

At caps:

Scrapper: 98.8472*5*10 = 4942 or maybe 9885

Brute: 78.8276*7*10 = 5518

Tank: 99.8481*5*16 = 7988

 

You were saying?

 

8 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

And dont pretend like survivability is an issue with any of these ATs. 

It vastly is when you're not playing on easy mode.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Bill Z Bubba

[Infinitum]

5 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Claws Spin against 1 target

Scrapper - 98.8472
Brute - 78.8276
Tank - 99.8481

At caps:

Scrapper: 98.8472*5*10 = 4942 or maybe 9885

Brute: 78.8276*7*10 = 5518

Tank: 99.8481*5*16 = 7988

 

You were saying?

 

It vastly is when you're not playing on easy mode.

Thats cherrypicking one freeze frame of 1 power - deliberately, so yeah your whole structure of your argument is flawed.  

 

I'm sure you will disagree but it wont make you any more correct.

 

Ps I don't play on easy mode unless people ask me to.  Its always +4/8 unless I'm being respectful to someone elses wishes.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Infinitum

[Bill Z Bubba]

5 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

Thats cherrypicking one freeze frame of 1 power - deliberately, so yeah your whole structure of your argument is flawed.  

Riiight. Cuz it's not easy as hell to dig out the info on every AoE thanks to CoD being updated.

[Infinitum]

3 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Riiight. Cuz it's not easy as hell to dig out the info on every AoE thanks to CoD being updated.

About as easy as factoring the dps of a whole attack chain vs 1 power

 

Because the takeaway from your previous post looks like a claws tanker can out damage a scrapper and a brute.

 

And thats not the case with either when you factor in dps over time.

[Bill Z Bubba]

Just now, Infinitum said:

About as easy as factoring the dps of a whole attack chain vs 1 power

 

Because the takeaway from your previous post looks like a claws tanker can out damage a scrapper and a brute.

 

And thats not the case with either when you factor in dps over time.

No it doesn't. It shows a claws tanker can outdamage a claws brute with spin at the damage caps and hitting all enemies possible.

Of course, it does also show that over time, the tank is always going to surpass the brute in aoe damage just as the brute will always surpass the tank in single target damage, as you've agreed to.

My point stands: Tanks have superior mitigation across the board 100% of the time and at no time deserve to do more damage in any area of the game than the brute.

Those that think otherwise don't give a shit about balance between the archetypes and really should quit lying about it.

[Glacier Peak]

41 minutes ago, Luminara said:

When a defender still has to spend more time setting up to deal that damage than the blaster spends just getting on with it, and then only has a chance to deal as much damage as the blaster, no, there's no problem.  Zero.  Animation times matter, and expecting players to spend two to four times as long doing something just because they picked the "wrong" archetype is crap.  This isn't 1997, Co* isn't EQ or WoW and the idea that there should be a greater damage penalty to accompany the existing animation time penalty associated with playing archetypes which are already dealing lower damage is antiquated.

The opening of your paragraph should read:

"When a defender uses their time to carry out the inherent functions of their archetype...."

 

 ... and then anything else after the point that their functional role is fulfilled that the player wants to do is entirely up to the player/playstyle.

 

The role of the defender archetype is not in any way supposed to be on par with the highest damage outputting archetypes. Damage procs make it easier for players to use archetypes in a way they weren't intended to fit their playstyle, but it goes against the design of archetypes to begin with and severely diminishes the uniqueness of each archetype and their role within a team.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Glacier Peak
clarified defender

[Replacement]

@Bill Z Bubba @Infinitum Maybe you should rehash this and go nowhere in a different thread, instead of page 23 of an "SOs vs IOs" thread?

 

Aka get a room, you star-crossed brawlers?

[Infinitum]

5 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

No it doesn't. It shows a claws tanker can outdamage a claws brute with spin at the damage caps and hitting all enemies possible.

Of course, it does also show that over time, the tank is always going to surpass the brute in aoe damage just as the brute will always surpass the tank in single target damage, as you've agreed to.

My point stands: Tanks have superior mitigation across the board 100% of the time and at no time deserve to do more damage in any area of the game than the brute.

Those that think otherwise don't give a shit about balance between the archetypes and really should quit lying about it.

You are still cherry picking one power and making a false claim that tanker mitigation far exceeds a brutes - thats simply false - you can get very close to tanker res and set numbers with a brute - while outputting far more dmg

 

But You know this already.

 

Keep grinding that axe big guy.

[Bill Z Bubba]

2 minutes ago, Infinitum said:

You are still cherry picking one power and making a false claim that tanker mitigation far exceeds a brutes - thats simply false - you can get very close to tanker res and set numbers with a brute - while outputting far more dmg

 

But You know this already.

 

Keep grinding that axe big guy.

Again, you lie. Brutes can not achieve tank mitigation values without outside help because the base values are at scrapper levels. All they share is caps and any brute you build, I can copy as a tank and have superior mitigation. This is a fact. What you spew is lies.

Edit: Also see HP caps.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Bill Z Bubba

[Infinitum]

Just now, Bill Z Bubba said:

Again, you lie. Brutes can not achieve tank mitigation values without outside help because the base values are at scrapper levels. All they share is caps and any brute you build, I can copy as a tank and have superior mitigation. This is a fact. What you spew is lies.

I did not lie - I said far exceeds - it doesnt far exceed - it may exceed but its not a stretch amount unless you poison your build to make it that way.

[Bill Z Bubba]

Just now, Infinitum said:

I did not lie - I said far exceeds - it doesnt far exceed - it may exceed but its not a stretch amount unless you poison your build to make it that way.

Quibbling. Value of mitigation difference, using your quibble, FAR exceeds overall damage output. Fact. You know the game tracks damage done right? There's a badge for it. Easy to test using farm maps.

[Infinitum]

2 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

Quibbling. Value of mitigation difference, using your quibble, FAR exceeds overall damage output. Fact. You know the game tracks damage done right? There's a badge for it. Easy to test using farm maps.

You are the one putting words in my mouth - I guarantee you I can build amsimilar brute to survive well like a tanker and exceed the tankers dmg output easily on probably 98% of builds.

 

Why? Because thats how brutes play, how they are designed.

 

You are purposely overlooking and sidestepping that.  You want that axe really sharp.

[Luminara]

16 minutes ago, Apparition said:

There is a problem when it completely invalidates one AT (Corruptor),

 

An archetype which has exactly the same opportunities for slotting exactly the same procs.  Procs don't invalidate corruptors simply because defenders have access to them, any more than defenders are invalidated by corruptors using procs.  Shitty inherents and poorly differentiated scalars are what create a sense of invalidation between the two, not access to procs, or procs working how they do.

 

19 minutes ago, Apparition said:

and encroaches on the territory of the pure damage AT (Blaster), with much higher personal defenses and resistances.

 

Yeah, I'm sure everyone who plays blasters is furious over the fact that what they can do in 5-10s, a defender might manage to reproduce after investing 20-30s, if the RNG decides to smile upon them.

 

🙄

[Coyote]

1 hour ago, Luminara said:

 

Nerfing proc damage means increasing the number of attacks the low damage archetypes are forced to use.  And as low damage archetypes, they're already forced to spend more time attacking than higher damage archetypes, plus they have to spend time buffing/debuffing/controlling just to stay alive, since they can't one-shot anything, or ignore status effects, or even shrug off incoming damage.  The whole point of using damage procs on low damage archetypes is to shorten the time spent defeating each spawn.  Compensating by increasing the trigger rate is like offering alcohol wipes after stabbing them in the genitalia.

 

Bad nerf.

 

Unless you're considering an APP attack as part of the powersets for Defenders/Corruptors, I think you didn't bother to do the math.

[BelleSorciere]

9 minutes ago, Luminara said:

 

An archetype which has exactly the same opportunities for slotting exactly the same procs.  Procs don't invalidate corruptors simply because defenders have access to them, any more than defenders are invalidated by corruptors using procs.  Shitty inherents and poorly differentiated scalars are what create a sense of invalidation between the two, not access to procs, or procs working how they do.

They don't, though? Their primary is stronger than Corruptor secondaries meaning that slotting can have a different priority, meaning that Defenders can more easily slot enough procs to outdamage Corruptors while still buffing/debuffing at least as well and approaching Blaster damage. If Corruptors could leverage procs to the same extent that Defenders can, don't you think they would be?