Defense and Scaling

[Mieux]

[ QUOTE ]
You're arguing now, we're talking about the situation that will exist in issue 7, from the information available now.

[/ QUOTE ] Actually, this topic got started when Arcana suggested the 90% mitigation floor was linked to the resistance cap of 90%. A comparision that breaks down on a number of levels....one of which is that there is little of or no historical evidence of a consistent treament of +DEF and +RES in that manner. Jack himself argued that +DEF is not the same as +RES. Arcana repeated that very same idea herself. Now you are trying to tell me the two should be linked because on a spreadsheet, they come out to offer the same mitigation...or do they?

[ QUOTE ]
You point to Unstoppable as allowing Invulnerable scrappers to cap their resists, but you carefully neglect the fact that Unstoppable could be perma at the time .....

[/ QUOTE ] What? There was a point in time when both Un and Elude were both perma and both not perma.

In addition, they lowered the res caps for /Inv...and that was strictly done because of the tank/scrapper encroachment. They didnt' touch Elude even though we have +DEF tankers. They lowered Elude as part of the global +DEF nerf. It had nothing to do with +RES powers.
[ QUOTE ]
You also neglect the fact that Invulnerability also had a very powerful Invincibility

[/ QUOTE ] Invinc is irrelevant to the discussion. We are not talking about whether /SR balances with /Inv. We are talking about the +RES caps versus the +DEF mitigation caps. Those +RES caps are extended to all toons, not just /Inv.

The fact is, arguing the various sets as proof of a link between +DEF and +RES is unprofitable. There was never any straight +RES set, even if there was a straight +DEF set. And remember, the devs got the balances horribly wrong when we look at launch /SR verus launch /Inv. We have to look at what was theoretically achievable.

[ QUOTE ]
mitigation for 1% defense is, under the new mechanic, equal to 2% resistance.

[/ QUOTE ] Only on a spreadsheet.

Honestly tho, the topic is starting lose my interest. It's not that consequential (if it is at all).

[Hanged_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FYI: Darkest Night

Its base Scale is 1.5. It has been since at least I3 (that's as far back as I checked.) Defenders multiple is .125 and enhancements are 1.98 (my calcs before were thinking ToHit Debuffs were Schedule B.)

1.5 * 0.125 * 1.98 = .37125 or a tad over 37%.

Any guide that says it is Base 30 Probably meant 30% mitigation, since that lines up with the 1.5 base.

[/ QUOTE ]

*Blink* *blink*

Well, as mentioned previously, it was on the boards here that a developer told us that it was a 30% (divisible) debuff (which would match the the -15% to the base_to_hit that you were talking about earlier.)

The new numbers you are talking about don't make sense from what we were previously told.

(IIRC, Darkest Night was 30% base debuff accuracy, smoke and smoke grenade were both 15%. They used Cat A SOs, so were 33% each (now up to 95% increase for 3SOs.))

I don't understand your numbers above at all other than Defenders are at 125% of the "base" debuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bolded for what the heck? I dont think you cleared much up here Castle.

Guides have talked about DN being a 35% base To Hit Debuff unehanced.

For example, this guide (http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=faq&Number=2124630&fpart=& PHPSESSID=)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to add a third whahuuuuh?

Castle, I'm incredibly confused by how these debuffs are calculated now. I can see that the numbers add up to 37.5%, but what do those numbers mean? What is base Scale? Defender modifier?

[Frozen_Icicle]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to add a third whahuuuuh?

Castle, I'm incredibly confused by how these debuffs are calculated now. I can see that the numbers add up to 37.5%, but what do those numbers mean? What is base Scale? Defender modifier?

[/ QUOTE ]
Base scale and defender modifier are just used internally at cryptic and doesn't mean anything to us.

37.5 means that an even con minion will have 12.5% chance to hit with darkest night on, and you'll need defence or more debuffs to reach 5%. I suspect a few out of shadowfall, fearsome stare, some dark blasts will do it.

[BellaStrega]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You also neglect the fact that Invulnerability also had a very powerful Invincibility

[/ QUOTE ] Invinc is irrelevant to the discussion. We are not talking about whether /SR balances with /Inv. We are talking about the +RES caps versus the +DEF mitigation caps. Those +RES caps are extended to all toons, not just /Inv.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that specific tangent, you were talking about how Elude is like Unstoppable, and thus not a reason to give a higher floor to scrappers than tankers. I pointed out that when the change was made, Unstoppable could be perma and Invincibility was incredibly powerful, so pointing to that as a reason that scrappers should have a different to-hit floor than tankers completely ignores the factors that made changing the resist cap necessary for balance - those same factors are not present here.

Of course, when it's pointed out, you move the goalposts.

[Futurias]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FYI: Darkest Night

Its base Scale is 1.5. It has been since at least I3 (that's as far back as I checked.) Defenders multiple is .125 and enhancements are 1.98 (my calcs before were thinking ToHit Debuffs were Schedule B.)

1.5 * 0.125 * 1.98 = .37125 or a tad over 37%.

Any guide that says it is Base 30 Probably meant 30% mitigation, since that lines up with the 1.5 base.

[/ QUOTE ]

*Blink* *blink*

Well, as mentioned previously, it was on the boards here that a developer told us that it was a 30% (divisible) debuff (which would match the the -15% to the base_to_hit that you were talking about earlier.)

The new numbers you are talking about don't make sense from what we were previously told.

(IIRC, Darkest Night was 30% base debuff accuracy, smoke and smoke grenade were both 15%. They used Cat A SOs, so were 33% each (now up to 95% increase for 3SOs.))

I don't understand your numbers above at all other than Defenders are at 125% of the "base" debuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bolded for what the heck? I dont think you cleared much up here Castle.

Guides have talked about DN being a 35% base To Hit Debuff unehanced.

For example, this guide (http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=faq&Number=2124630&fpart=& PHPSESSID=)

[/ QUOTE ]

I *think* he's trying to say the base of Darkest Night (after the 125% boost from being a defender) is -18.75% to the Base_to_hit.

This is actually a little higher than the 30-35% we were told (it is effectively 37.5%.)

3xSO would get that to -74.25% -ACC debuff (or -37.125 to the base to hit.)

That means the old, pre-ED Darkest Night with 6xSOs was actually a -111.75% debuff! (WOWZA!)

I am no longer totally confused. Just moderately.

[MrQuizzles]

[ QUOTE ]
FYI: Darkest Night

Its base Scale is 1.5. It has been since at least I3 (that's as far back as I checked.) Defenders multiple is .125 and enhancements are 1.98 (my calcs before were thinking ToHit Debuffs were Schedule B.)

1.5 * 0.125 * 1.98 = .37125 or a tad over 37%.

Any guide that says it is Base 30 Probably meant 30% mitigation, since that lines up with the 1.5 base.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aha! I was right all this time, and most people thought I was crazy. I gauged it at 37.5% (same as the damage debuff), and wasn't that far off.

The 30% bit is for corruptors, as far as I know.

Well it's good to know that Darkest Night hasn't changed, anyway.

[Hanged_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to add a third whahuuuuh?

Castle, I'm incredibly confused by how these debuffs are calculated now. I can see that the numbers add up to 37.5%, but what do those numbers mean? What is base Scale? Defender modifier?

[/ QUOTE ]
Base scale and defender modifier are just used internally at cryptic and doesn't mean anything to us.

37.5 means that an even con minion will have 12.5% chance to hit with darkest night on, and you'll need defence or more debuffs to reach 5%. I suspect a few out of shadowfall, fearsome stare, some dark blasts will do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they mean something to Cryptic, they mean something to us. ;)

Knowing how the game views debuffs helps us figure out how they actually work. AFAIK, nobody's gone to the point of testing, say, Rad Infection against 100 mobs at +0, +1, +2, +3, +4, bosses, AV's, controller v. defender v. corrupter, and seeing what actually happens. If there's a way to figure that out, I'd like to know. And knowing that Cryptic doesn't just have a -37.5% number for Defender DN, and instead has a managerie of modifers that get to that number, helps to figure that out.

(AFAIK, btw, you can floor even-level minions w/ just Darkest Night. I've tested it for RI and Hurricane, and w/ 3 debuff enhancements, it does floor them.)

[Dysmal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FYI: Darkest Night

Its base Scale is 1.5. It has been since at least I3 (that's as far back as I checked.) Defenders multiple is .125 and enhancements are 1.98 (my calcs before were thinking ToHit Debuffs were Schedule B.)

1.5 * 0.125 * 1.98 = .37125 or a tad over 37%.

Any guide that says it is Base 30 Probably meant 30% mitigation, since that lines up with the 1.5 base.

[/ QUOTE ]

*Blink* *blink*

Well, as mentioned previously, it was on the boards here that a developer told us that it was a 30% (divisible) debuff (which would match the the -15% to the base_to_hit that you were talking about earlier.)

The new numbers you are talking about don't make sense from what we were previously told.

(IIRC, Darkest Night was 30% base debuff accuracy, smoke and smoke grenade were both 15%. They used Cat A SOs, so were 33% each (now up to 95% increase for 3SOs.))

I don't understand your numbers above at all other than Defenders are at 125% of the "base" debuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bolded for what the heck? I dont think you cleared much up here Castle.

Guides have talked about DN being a 35% base To Hit Debuff unehanced.

For example, this guide (http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=faq&Number=2124630&fpart=& PHPSESSID=)

[/ QUOTE ]

I *think* he's trying to say the base of Darkest Night (after the 125% boost from being a defender) is -18.75% to the Base_to_hit.

This is actually a little higher than the 30-35% we were told (it is effectively 37.5%.)

3xSO would get that to -74.25% -ACC debuff (or -37.125 to the base to hit.)

That means the old, pre-ED Darkest Night with 6xSOs was actually a -111.75% debuff! (WOWZA!)

I am no longer totally confused. Just moderately.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Last time I did much math was Grade 12, and that was many years ago. I wasnt very good at it then, and I certainly havent gotten any better.

[MrQuizzles]

I don't even want to try and comprehend all this base scale, defender modifier whatsit.

[gSOLO]

[ QUOTE ]
The 30% bit is for corruptors, as far as I know.

[/ QUOTE ]

That means the Corruptor ToHit Modifier is .1

This data seems to be stored in the client; I think it'd be pretty simple to calculate it across ATs if they would just give us the 'Scale' of each power.

[Arcanaville]

[ QUOTE ]

Castle, I'm incredibly confused by how these debuffs are calculated now. I can see that the numbers add up to 37.5%, but what do those numbers mean? What is base Scale? Defender modifier?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll help out Castle by saying that the game wasn't designed around numbers like 0.37125. Those are not numbers that are easy to scribble around with. They were balanced around "simple" numbers like "this attack does 100 damage, so that one does 50% more; 150" and so forth. The actual "numbers" that the devs use are normalized numbers.

Just like we use the brawl index to compare two damage powers together, instead of their "true" damage, the devs design the game with "Base" numbers, and then the game multiplies them by scaling factors to get the "true" numbers.

In other words, back in the beginning of time, the devs picked a debuff power, whatever it was, and called it "1.0" (or 100, or whatever). And then all other debuff powers were scaled around that, which is easy to do with a pencil and the back of an envelope. Then they figured out how strong they sort of had to be to get the effects they wanted, and used scaling factors to bring *all* the numbers down into the range they want.

And then, of course, because defenders and controller have different strength debuffs (defenders stronger than controllers), defenders have a scale factor that is different than controllers: thus, the "defender multiple" (as opposed to the "controller multiple" which is probably 0.1).

Castle is free, of course, to thwack me if that's completely off the mark in this case.


Mathematically, by the way, if Defense was originally designed that way, that points to how we could have gotten where we are now (because using that methodology partially obscures the true effect of defense, which doesn't "honor" such scaling factors in an intuitive way).

[Arcanaville]

[ QUOTE ]

Actually, this topic got started when Arcana suggested the 90% mitigation floor was linked to the resistance cap of 90%. A comparision that breaks down on a number of levels....one of which is that there is little of or no historical evidence of a consistent treament of +DEF and +RES in that manner. Jack himself argued that +DEF is not the same as +RES. Arcana repeated that very same idea herself. Now you are trying to tell me the two should be linked because on a spreadsheet, they come out to offer the same mitigation


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I say that the two should be linked because:

1. I want defense and resistance to scale in exactly the same way when normalized to average damage mitigation.

2. I want defense and resistance to scale across the same dynamic range, to the best extent possible.


When I attempted to achieve both goals a long time ago, I came up with (among other more complex possibilites):

1. Institute an intermediate floor (assuming one did not already exist).

2. Swap tohit increases with exterior multiple bonuses (today, we call these accuracy bonuses but I didn't know at first).

3. Roughly scale defense numbers to be about half the numerical magnitude of resistance numbers in comparable sets that have them, then tweak the numbers to balance total set performance.

Its questionable if the devs are thinking the exact same thing as me, but clearly they are thinking something at least in the same ballpark as me, because it they are not, the current changes are unfathomable. I'm going to go with the devs think the two goals listed above are both laudable and achievable, until someone comes up with a better idea.

If you want to suggest that the devs have a completely different motive for making the changes they are making, including the changes related to the intermediate floor, because they are a direct consequence of attempting to achieve the two goals I list above, there exists a very high burden of proof to suggest anything different.


Although I talked about this in late '04 a bit, and in random posts in early '05, I first posted this as an actual Suggestion thread in April '05 - I found a copy of the thread I saved in my recovered files. I wish I could repost an entire thread easily: it shows both my remarkable prescience and my amazing ignorance at the time simultaneously. And I don't mean to embarrass Obitus specifically, but I thought within the context of I5/I6 that this comment by Obitus was just too funny - not because his comment is funny, but because it points to just how far we've come in three issues:


Obitus:

[ QUOTE ]

Your reaction is perfectly understandable. From a pure numbers' perspective, Arcana's suggestion does seem more consistent, if nothing else. And again, I don't intend to denigrate the work and thought that he put into his post.

Unfortunately, because of the way the math works, I don't think any amount of tweaking the DEF powers themselves would help much. Basically, anyone with a total DEF of under 100% will be nerfed against reasonable opponents, and anyone with 100% or more DEF will be uber against everything. There's really not much middle ground. They could, I suppose, adjust mobs' BTH values across the board, but that sounds like a rather massive task.


[/ QUOTE ]

(Emphasis mine)

LOL at "anyone with 100% or more DEF."

Its interesting when I think about it, that we basically hit on just about every possible reasonable suggestion in those acc vs defense threads, even the notion of tweaking base tohit of villains, because it ultimately spawned this idea in response:

Me:

[ QUOTE ]

Ah, actually, this idea has a lot of conceptual tangles that have to be addressed, and this is one of them. For each +1 level a foe is higher than you, they get an accuracy buff of +7.5% or so, at least that is the number I've read and work with. You assume under my scheme that this number would affect the base to-hit. It shouldn't, because it is, in effect, an accuracy buff. Old style thinking says the 7.5% should be *additively* combined, Arcana-style thinking says that should be *multiplicatively* combined.


[/ QUOTE ]

"Multiplicative combined." Hey, younger and more ignorant version of me, thats an accuracy buff, sheesh. :p

If Stargazer had found that thread and corrected my goofed up tohit equation, I might have been shouting something a little less gibberishy much earlier. :eek: :D

[Mieux]

[ QUOTE ]
In that specific tangent, you were talking about how Elude is like Unstoppable

[/ QUOTE ] Not really. What I said is that if there were +DEF mitigation caps, they shouldn't be ignored by Elude. You want to dismiss Elude as some anomally, then argue that it is allowed to do such a thing for balance reasons. That argument is lacking. At least five power sets across three AT's have Elude level defense...hardly something you can dismiss for convience of your argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Unstoppable could be perma and Invincibility was incredibly powerful

[/ QUOTE ] That's irrelevalnt to the discussion about whether there are caps. "Caps" are not ignored for balance sake. You seem to act like Elude was never permable at the same time Elude was permable. They were.

[ QUOTE ]
I pointed out that when the change was made, Unstoppable could be perma and Invincibility was incredibly powerful, so pointing to that as a reason that scrappers should have a different to-hit floor than tankers

[/ QUOTE ] This statement doesn't make any sense. I'm not pointing to them as a reason for anything at all. You are the one who is arguing the balance consideration of those powers as justification for why there is no separate +DEF cap for scrappers versus tankers.

[ QUOTE ]
completely ignores the factors that made changing the resist cap necessary for balance

[/ QUOTE ] As I stated, the resist caps were imposed on everybody not just /lnv sporting P-Uns and Invinc. In addition, those caps have not been changed despite massive nerfing of those powers..why? Because those caps have nothing to do with any notion of maximum mitigation of +DEF versus +RES. They are strictly imposed so that Tankers will be the toughest. For that exact and very same reason, the same limitation should be put on non-tankers for defense if you are going to spout notions of dmg mitigation maximums. Hell, Arcana even agrees in theory.

I don't. Imposing mitigation maximums is arbitrary. While I agree that since this is a game, there should always be some risk, there is no reason why a defensive scrapper couldn't be just as difficult to hit as a tanker and arguably more so. While I can understand that no scrapper could be as "tough" as a tanker, +DEF is used for elusiveness...avoidance of damage...not mitigation of it. The mitigation is only applicable when we talk about statistic performance over a long term. +RES and +DEF have fundamental differences in a game with secondary effects.

The problem arises when you use +DEF to simulate something other than avoidance...except that's what it does, regardless of the conceptual justification. As Arcana acknowledges, each AT could argue why it could be the best at deflecting damage.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, when it's pointed out, you move the goalposts.

[/ QUOTE ] I haven't moved the goal posts one milimeter. You just can't seem to hit them so you're shifting the blame.

[Arcanaville]

[ QUOTE ]

I haven't moved the goal posts one milimeter. You just can't seem to hit them so you're shifting the blame.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're not really supposed to hit the goalposts.

[BellaStrega]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In that specific tangent, you were talking about how Elude is like Unstoppable

[/ QUOTE ] Not really. What I said is that if there were +DEF mitigation caps, they shouldn't be ignored by Elude. You want to dismiss Elude as some anomally, then argue that it is allowed to do such a thing for balance reasons. That argument is lacking. At least five power sets across three AT's have Elude level defense...hardly something you can dismiss for convience of your argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't dismiss Elude as an anomaly. I said that it does not duplicate - now - the conditions that - then - prompted the decision to reduce the resist cap.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unstoppable could be perma and Invincibility was incredibly powerful

[/ QUOTE ] That's irrelevalnt to the discussion about whether there are caps. "Caps" are not ignored for balance sake. You seem to act like Elude was never permable at the same time Elude was permable. They were.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? I'm talking about the state of the game - now - when we got the news about the change to defense scaling as compared to the state of the game - then - when resist caps were changed. I'm not talking about how Elude worked then, because it does not work exactly the same now, and how it worked over a year ago is not relevant to how it might be balanced now.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I pointed out that when the change was made, Unstoppable could be perma and Invincibility was incredibly powerful, so pointing to that as a reason that scrappers should have a different to-hit floor than tankers

[/ QUOTE ] This statement doesn't make any sense. I'm not pointing to them as a reason for anything at all. You are the one who is arguing the balance consideration of those powers as justification for why there is no separate +DEF cap for scrappers versus tankers.

[/ QUOTE ]

When resist caps were added, some scrappers (invuln) could hit the 90% caps with ease and keep them there. That's why the resist caps were added. That is explicitly why they were added. Now? Without buffing, or without a power that can massively buff defense all the time, the fact that scrappers can achieve the same 90% mitigation as resistance could isn't as big of a deal, because scrappers can't achieve that 90% mitigation all the time without buffing.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
completely ignores the factors that made changing the resist cap necessary for balance

[/ QUOTE ] As I stated, the resist caps were imposed on everybody not just /lnv sporting P-Uns and Invinc. In addition, those caps have not been changed despite massive nerfing of those powers..why? Because those caps have nothing to do with any notion of maximum mitigation of +DEF versus +RES. They are strictly imposed so that Tankers will be the toughest. For that exact and very same reason, the same limitation should be put on non-tankers for defense if you are going to spout notions of dmg mitigation maximums. Hell, Arcana even agrees in theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason that the cap was imposed on all non-tankers is because it would be unbalanced and stupid to just apply it to invuln scrappers to keep them from hitting the caps. It certainly wasn't an issue that blasters or controllers were hitting the resist caps at the time.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't. Imposing mitigation maximums is arbitrary. While I agree that since this is a game, there should always be some risk, there is no reason why a defensive scrapper couldn't be just as difficult to hit as a tanker and arguably more so. While I can understand that no scrapper could be as "tough" as a tanker, +DEF is used for elusiveness...avoidance of damage...not mitigation of it. The mitigation is only applicable when we talk about statistic performance over a long term. +RES and +DEF have fundamental differences in a game with secondary effects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I acknowledged this.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem arises when you use +DEF to simulate something other than avoidance...except that's what it does, regardless of the conceptual justification. As Arcana acknowledges, each AT could argue why it could be the best at deflecting damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

And potentially creates more problems than it solves.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, when it's pointed out, you move the goalposts.

[/ QUOTE ] I haven't moved the goal posts one milimeter. You just can't seem to hit them so you're shifting the blame.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this:

I explain the conditions that lead to the reduction of the resist cap. While it was applied to every AT but tankers, the reason was specifically that /Invulnerability scrappers could hit the resist cap against everything but psi and toxic, and the fact that they could also get enough defense from Invincibility to floor just about any enemy made it possible for them to tank well enough to replace tankers and deal ~150% the damage a tanker could. I then point out that defense does not have an extreme outlier that even remotely compares to this, which probably makes the need to give different ATs different "defense caps". You then say, and I quote:

"That's irrelevant to the discussion."

Goalpost. Shifted. You come across points you don't like and dismiss them out of hand.

The sad thing is, I didn't come in to start an argument, but simply to point out why the devs might have chosen to not start with different floors. I don't know how it'll play out on test, and am not trying to predict the future. However, I do remember the past: (http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1772034&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1) [ QUOTE ]
2. Tankers damage is way out of whack compared to Scrappers' Resistance. Previously, I stated that Scrappers couldn't reach the Resistance cap. And they can't - UNLESS they resort to the Power Pool. That was my error. A correctly built Scrapper (with a lot of Enhancement slots) CAN reach the 90% cap. But a Tanker can NEVER do the same amount of damage as a Scrapper. This needs to be rectified. A Tanker should be as good at Resistance as a Scrapper is at Damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Arcanaville]

[ QUOTE ]

The sad thing is, I didn't come in to start an argument, but simply to point out why the devs might have chosen to not start with different floors. I don't know how it'll play out on test, and am not trying to predict the future. However, I do remember the past:


[ QUOTE ]

2. Tankers damage is way out of whack compared to Scrappers' Resistance. Previously, I stated that Scrappers couldn't reach the Resistance cap. And they can't - UNLESS they resort to the Power Pool. That was my error. A correctly built Scrapper (with a lot of Enhancement slots) CAN reach the 90% cap. But a Tanker can NEVER do the same amount of damage as a Scrapper. This needs to be rectified. A Tanker should be as good at Resistance as a Scrapper is at Damage.


[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Your memory of the past is not in error. The resist caps were originally 90% for everyone because they were not originally meant to be easily reachable - by anyone. That was strongly hinted at back then. In effect the 90% resist cap was equivalent to the 5% tohit floor in the sense that it wasn't meant to be a specific limit on any one AT, but a general limit on the game as a whole. In essence, a "physics" limit.

That changed when the devs decided to reduce the non-tanker resistance limit to 75%; that was specifically done because at the time they did not want to monkey around with powers too much, but did want to in essence *ensure* that scrappers could not reach the same resistance number - and therefore damage mitigation - as tankers: no matter what they did or how they might have been buffed. I almost get the feeling that Statesman, having been wrong about scrappers being able to hit the caps once, decided to trump high resistance scrapper builds once and for all by capping scrapper resists off.

The 5% floor has lasted as long as it has simply because a similar issue between scrappers and tanks hasn't come up for defense as it did for resistance. Weirdly, the tanker set with the best defense was invuln with invincibility (invincibility with normal - for that time - numbers in its field was effectively perma-elude). Its not fair to compare the 75% resistance scrapper cap differing from the 90% resistance tanker cap relative to everyone having the same tohit floor, because the 75% resistance cap was added later. Originally, everyone had the same resistance cap, and everyone had the same tohit floor.

The scrapper resist cap was lowered *specifically* to deal with scrappers approaching tanker mitigation value: SR does not encroach on Ice in quite the same way, because while SR and Ice now have the same defensive mitigation numbers (something that goes a long way towards erasing one of the few differences of opinion Circeus and I have: factoring in elude) but Ice has much more mitigation extras than SR (in particular, hoarfrost - really the only *other* difference of opinion I have with Circeus), SR does not encroach on Ice in nearly the same way that invuln scrappers used to encroach on invuln tankers. The specific triggering reason for adjusting resistance caps doesn't exist for defense so the situation isn't really analogous.

What we are left with is SR gaining too much of an advantage against invuln by having the lower mitigation maximum. But curiously, the only way for SR to really take advantage of that maximum is to use elude and this change *lowers* the effectiveness of elude.


Conceptually, I can see fiddling with the tohit floors - but other compensating adjustments might need to take place. But the specific *reason* for doing it to resistances doesn't exist for defense. The 75% resistance cap was a sledgehammer solution to the problem of scrapper (resistance) encroachment on tankers. No such defensive analogy currently exists to force such a change.

In fact, the *best* example of such a potential problem was really the two invincibilities: both scrapper and tankers could floor villains, making them basically equal in strength if not equal numerically. But the devs elected that time to make a surgical change, and not a sledgehammer one: they altered invincibility. That suggests that any other defense encroachments that *might* exist will more likely be addressed with defensive value changes, and not a change to the tohit floor (had the I5 reductions happened in '04, there might not have even needed to be a change to the resist caps, which further suggests the situation creating the need to alter the tohit floors also might no longer exist).

*IF* they were going to make the tohit floor variable, the time to do so would be now, when they are already making changes to the tohit formula. So I doubt any such change is currently being planned.

[DamageSponge]

Wow. That has got to be one of the most articulate, well thought-out, and rational posts I've ever read on these forums. Kudos to you!

DS

[Mieux]

Let's look at an inconsistent argument you put forth...

[ QUOTE ]
It certainly wasn't an issue that blasters or controllers were hitting the resist caps at the time.


[/ QUOTE ] None the less it was imposed on them...so regardless of the context, a hard limit was set.

[ QUOTE ]
I then point out that defense does not have an extreme outlier that even remotely compares to this

[/ QUOTE ] First off, that's wrong. Perma-Elude allowed /SR to tank as well as anyone in the game in an normal situation. Hell, perma-Elude scrappers were soloing AV's. This is total encrouchment on needing an Ice tanker for anything.

Second, please show what % of stuff an Ice tanker could cap defensively that a perma-Elude scrapper back in I3 could not.

Third, while a scrappers +RES was reduced to 75%...there was no cap placed on how much +DEF a scrapper could get from Invinc.

The bold face truth is the changes were made to /Inv were done strictly to appease people on a mathmatical level. /Inv was still tanking like there was no tomorrow, but the devs could say, "well all their powers are only 75% effective." And they still did not impose any +DEF mitigation max. Invinc scrappers were arguably getting more defense than Ice Tankers.

Even if we accept your argument that there is no +DEF counterpart, so what? Blasters and Controllers got the limit..as well as every other non-tank in the game...regardless of whether they can get that +RES. Your counter is that it would be stupid not to impose it on everyone? Kind of out-of-hand ignores any reason that they might specifically want to impose it on everyone. They could have imposed it just on scrappers...after all Kheldians have a different limit.

[ QUOTE ]
I then point out that defense does not have an extreme outlier that even remotely compares to this, which probably makes the need to give different ATs different "defense caps".

[/ QUOTE ] And we know this is wrong because they nerfed perma-Elude...but they didn't do it by imposing a +DEF mitigation cap.

Putting global caps in the game is an exercise that does not focus on specifics, but on design philosophy. There is a 5% to hit floor regardless because every thing should have some chance to hit you. This is a completely separate concept from +DEF max mitigation. The two can have absolutely nothing to do with one another, evidenced by the fact that we have a 95% accuracy limitation....simply a philosophical based design choice.

[ QUOTE ]
I then point out that defense does not have an extreme outlier that even remotely compares to this

[/ QUOTE ] This whole assertion of yours was based on ignoring Elude. Your rationale "a) overkill...b) not available all the time." Putting Elude back in to the status of the game now, then, or whenever, delivers a karate chop to the neck of your argumnet. Elude/Overload/Moment of Glory..etc... all allow +DEF mitigation equal to Ice tankers. In team of 8, we can take down a Hatched Kraken in under 3 minutes. With Hasten, Fort, Speed, boost, etc, Elude can be up a whole lotta the time, elminating the need for an Ice Tanker..if it were not for Gauntlet. Remember, you can't bring in the more hit point factor because that was true for Inv/ vs /Inv as well and didn't stop the imposition of the +RES cap.

[ QUOTE ]
I explain the conditions that lead to the reduction of the resist cap.

[/ QUOTE ] The conditions were all about how the numbers came out. The devs were simply making the numbers look right. They did not go in and prove that a tanker could still out tank a scrapper because he had more hit points and got more value from Dull Pain, which they could have. The simply made a global decision that scrappers could not hit the same +RES cap, regardless, because they never touched those caps after powers changed.

So even now when /Inv can't reach the cap, or even come close to it in non-S/L, they still haven't removed the caps. Thus, the actual "power" of the powers is irrelevant. It was and remains about the numbers of Tankers vs Scrappers. If it was just about those powers and the context, they could have surgically made the changes.

If we are talking about 'now' where 1==2, then scrappers/stalkers/brutes, are getting the same +DEF mitigation that Tankers are...which by extension is the same +RES mitigation. If the to-hit floor is linked to a max mitigation philosophy in the same vein as that imposed by the +RES cap, then Elude violates those +RES numbers for Scrappers vs Tankers in our brand new 1==2 paradigm.

I see no evidence linking the to-hit floor with any notions of a +DEF mitigation max philosophy. We'll see if that changes.

Goal posts firmly planted. Wide left.

[firebane]

[ QUOTE ]
FYI: Darkest Night

Its base Scale is 1.5. It has been since at least I3 (that's as far back as I checked.) Defenders multiple is .125 and enhancements are 1.98 (my calcs before were thinking ToHit Debuffs were Schedule B.)

1.5 * 0.125 * 1.98 = .37125 or a tad over 37%.

Any guide that says it is Base 30 Probably meant 30% mitigation, since that lines up with the 1.5 base.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you telling us that Darkest Night has never been able to floor a minions ACC to 5%, even in I3???

Sorry _Castle_ I must call bogus on this. There's even spreadsheats with thousands of samples showing this was possible.

Something is fishy here...

[Mieux]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you telling us that Darkest Night has never been able to floor a minions ACC to 5%, even in I3???


[/ QUOTE ] Castle's post is about ED DN.

The 1.98 would be 2.98 under I3 and the debuff would be around 55% if my math is correct...so yeah..it was close to capping +2 minions back in I3...assuming you slotted it with six debuffs.

[Mieux]

Let me just restate something from one of my earlier posts for the record.

I can see how the devs might have set the resistance cap based on the minion to-hit floor. They couldn't ever let us cap +0's because we would and then there would literally be zero risk for gaining xp. Once they decided 5% is as low or they were willing to go, 90% would have been the corresponding cap for res against minions

However....if that was their thinking, then they never should have gotten out the front door because their method of implementation never got them past +0 Lt's, Bosses. I have a hard to accepting that the 10% concept would be abandon as soon as one faced a Lt. or Boss of the same level.

The idea that's its taken them over 2 years to discover the formula that allows them to suddenly scale defense and preserve the 10% floor is also less than compelling. It wasn't until recently that Statesman even stated that defensive scaling was a problem.

...and for the record../SR's passive resitance doesn't scale either. As we faced higher level mobs, the higher damage means our health based resistance is in effect for a narrower window of time.

[BellaStrega]

Edit:

Whatever, Mieux. Go on thinking what you want. I'm not interested in fighting with you again over something irrelevant and trivial. That is, arguing with you over what I said vs. your interpretation of what I said. I don't feel my actual posts are irrelevant or trivial.

[Futurias]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me just restate something from one of my earlier posts for the record.

I can see how the devs might have set the resistance cap based on the minion to-hit floor. They couldn't ever let us cap +0's because we would and then there would literally be zero risk for gaining xp. Once they decided 5% is as low or they were willing to go, 90% would have been the corresponding cap for res against minions

However....if that was their thinking, then they never should have gotten out the front door because their method of implementation never got them past +0 Lt's, Bosses. I have a hard to accepting that the 10% concept would be abandon as soon as one faced a Lt. or Boss of the same level.

The idea that's its taken them over 2 years to discover the formula that allows them to suddenly scale defense and preserve the 10% floor is also less than compelling. It wasn't until recently that Statesman even stated that defensive scaling was a problem.

...and for the record../SR's passive resitance doesn't scale either. As we faced higher level mobs, the higher damage means our health based resistance is in effect for a narrower window of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, defense versus resistance scaling has been a "known" issue for quite a while. And while determining how to fix it may have taken a while, *implementing* it has taken a bit of time too.

We all wish it could have been sooner, but the fact that it has been (mostly) fixed is very good.

[Mieux]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not interested in fighting with you again over something irrelevant and trivial.

[/ QUOTE ] Agreed. Props to you for saying it first.

[Kitteh]

Has anyone seen a little, gray kitty scamper through here?

[Futurias]

The problem with debuffing is that it is too good at even mobs and a cliff that falls off against "plus" mobs.

Let's compare it against 18.6% bubbles against +0 Minions and AVs, then +3 Minion and AVs.

50% - 18.6% = 31.4%. So a +0 Minion is 31.4% and an AV is going to be 47.1% (which is pretty dang good and a lot better than it used to be. Those are i3 numbers divided by two, as I couldn't find i6 numbers.)

31.4% * 1.4 = 43.96% +3 minion accuracy (still less than half a hit chance.) 66% +3 AV accuracy. Not great, but I'm trying to be cautious with my numbers.)

31.4% *1.55 = 48.67% +4 minion accuracy. 73% +4 AV accuracy. Not bad at all, actually for what are considered "low" numbers.

50% - 37.125 = 12.88% minion accuracy. 19.3% AV accuracy. Accuracy debuffing wins hands down on even mobs (something I totally expected.) It is gaining a lot more agro than the bubbler, of course, and has no mezzing protection.

50% - 26.5% = 23.5% * 1.4% = 32.88% minion accuracy. 49% AV accuracy. This is actually better than I expected, but isn't good. In the high level game, trying to use this as a primary defense for a team is death on the debuffer. Between 1/3 and ½ of the first attacks are going to hit when you attack with this debuff. Most likely, the debuff is going to be turned off very shortly. As no accuracy debuffer can protect itself from mezzing and being detoggled, you end up stunned, detoggled and then killed.

50% - 16.71 = 33.3% * 1.55 = 51.6% + 4 minion accuracy. 79.98% +4 AV accuracy. At this point, it's starting to lose out (and it loses out badly if you consider that without mezz protection you turn on the debuff, the counter-attack will likely detoggle you instantly. That will leave the 2nd (arguably the 1st) squishiest class one the receiving end of all agro.

A quick form of suicide that only gets worse as you increase beyond this.

It takes about three powers to get that much defense in Force Fields, of course. So it should be better. But it gains no specific agro either. Accuracy debuffing is much better at lower levels and then starts dropping off quickly by +4s or so, all the while gaining a horrendous amount of agro with no mezz protection.

So FF is going to be slightly boosted here and more effective (yay!) Debuffing getting hit by double-purple penalties means that debuffing has to be over-effective at lower plus, then dropping off effectiveness.

To be quite truthful, I almost never use Darkest Night anymore. It is either redundant or suicide. It's very hard to use without heavy support. Even though I'm supposed to be doing the supporting.

I'd advocated a lower base value, but making debuff only get affected by the purple patch {once}. That way it can less potent near your level, but possibly more effective against higher cons at later levels.

{If anyone is listening anymore.}

[UberGuy]

Here's a question for you, Futurias. Why are you engaging a +4 AV? I mean honestly, that doesn't happen much, and I don't know if I recommend anyone do much of anything to a +4 AV. I would say no one should be tossing effects on anything above, say, a +2 AV unless they are willing to risk getting seriously squished.

I use DN all the time on teams on things up to +4 bosses. but the only time I'm looking at something that much bigger than me is when I'm on a large team, and/or where there are other things soaking up foe aggro, like Brutes who lead the charge or Mastermind pets mixing it up. Certainly there is someone who's higher level than me. Does it get me in trouble? Sure, sometimes. Does it do my team no good? Hardly. Especially if anyone else is in there debuffing. Especially if I can stack debuffs, which I can and do (Fearsome Stare, Tenebrous Tentacles, Twilight Grasp).

I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, but I am disagreeing a little bit with the doom you seem to suggest it means for those of us with ACC debuff powers.

[Futurias]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a question for you, Futurias. Why are you engaging a +4 AV? I mean honestly, that doesn't happen much, and I don't know if I recommend anyone do much of anything to a +4 AV. I would say no one should be tossing effects on anything above, say, a +2 AV unless they are willing to risk getting seriously squished.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sidekicked to a person that is -1 on an eight man team will pit you against a +4 AV. Or just being -2 on an eight man team.

[ QUOTE ]
I use DN all the time on teams on things up to +4 bosses. but the only time I'm looking at something that much bigger than me is when I'm on a large team, and/or where there are other things soaking up foe aggro, like Brutes who lead the charge or Mastermind pets mixing it up. Certainly there is someone who's higher level than me. Does it get me in trouble? Sure, sometimes. Does it do my team no good? Hardly. Especially if anyone else is in there debuffing. Especially if I can stack debuffs, which I can and do (Fearsome Stare, Tenebrous Tentacles, Twilight Grasp).

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been on big teams a lot too. Generaly, I've found that shadow fall and twighlights grasp are not likely to get me killed and help more on big teams.

Suicide or overkill, with a sharp, cutting edge.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, but I am disagreeing a little bit with the doom you seem to suggest it means for those of us with ACC debuff powers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not "gloom" per se, but if we are fixing "defensive" powers, why not fix debuffs while we are at it? It's a defensive power too.

[UberGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Sidekicked to a person that is -1 on an eight man team will pit you against a +4 AV. Or just being -2 on an eight man team.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose if you hang with people that do all their AVs in Invinicible/Relentless. That's not something I recommend. Not with at least of third of the ones I can come up with off the top of my head.

Remember that (at least in CoV - I haven't been in a large CoH team since it came out) foe levels no longer scale with team size. An 8-man team no longer adds +2 to the level of spawned mobs. If this is different in CoH, I assume it's an error, since it seems an appropriate change with I5/ED.

[Starsman]

Thee is one thing i find odd on the TohitDebuff/Def stacking, altough once enemies hit the floor it is rare more to be needed, its just me being nitpicky, but:

If i got this right, having 10 debuf and 15 def would be the same as having 25 def. But this also means that having 45% debuff, you may as well turn off al def granting toggles because they are doing nothing.

On the other hand, -DMG can go as far as it go, but whatever is left will also then be cut down to up to 10% of what it was. So an enemy with a 1000 points attack being -dmg debuffed by 90% of its damage and then the hero having 90% resist, will end in a 10 dmg hit.

Having 45 def and -45 to hit on the enemy will always yield just 10% chance to be hit, not 1%.

And EVEN if it was, the minimun 5% chance to hit would kick in, yet there is no Minimun 10% damage done (as far as i know, may be wrong.)

[Starsman]

The devs original intention was for everyone to fight evens. End of the tale.

[MrQuizzles]

[ QUOTE ]
Minimun 10% damage done (as far as i know, may be wrong.)


[/ QUOTE ]

10% of base is indeed the -damage floor from debuffs alone.

[Starsman]

Yes i know, but then you can resist up to 90% of that already debuffed damage for a max mitigation of 99%

[Pilcrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes i know, but then you can resist up to 90% of that already debuffed damage for a max mitigation of 99%

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting observation.

FWIW, two counterpoints:

-DMG + DMG RES doesn't protect you from secondary effects, -ACC +DEF does.
-DMG + DMG RES is more rare than, -ACC +DEF is.

[Futurias]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes i know, but then you can resist up to 90% of that already debuffed damage for a max mitigation of 99%

[/ QUOTE ]

As a damage debuffer, that is not what I recall. 90% is the maximum that you can resist/debuff. They are not cumalitive.

[Pilcrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes i know, but then you can resist up to 90% of that already debuffed damage for a max mitigation of 99%

[/ QUOTE ]

As a damage debuffer, that is not what I recall. 90% is the maximum that you can resist/debuff. They are not cumalitive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose it would be easy to test with a Tanker, a Sonic, a Kin and a bunch of grey MOBs.

I have the KIN.

[Starsman]

I may be wrong but i THINK thats what i got with my ice tanker. I mean, after the 14% damage debuff then i would use my resitances against ice only for the reminder, not the whole.

Again, i may be recalling wrongly.

Will have to run that test again tonight.

[Futurias]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes i know, but then you can resist up to 90% of that already debuffed damage for a max mitigation of 99%

[/ QUOTE ]

As a damage debuffer, that is not what I recall. 90% is the maximum that you can resist/debuff. They are not cumalitive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose it would be easy to test with a Tanker, a Sonic, a Kin and a bunch of grey MOBs.

I have the KIN.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tested with Darkest Night and Twighlights grasp with the Ancillary dark armor power.

[Hanged_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a question for you, Futurias. Why are you engaging a +4 AV? I mean honestly, that doesn't happen much, and I don't know if I recommend anyone do much of anything to a +4 AV. I would say no one should be tossing effects on anything above, say, a +2 AV unless they are willing to risk getting seriously squished.

[/ QUOTE ]

It happens all the time IMX. I'm at -2 to the mission, at highest difficulty and 5+ teamates. +2 AV to the mission holder, +4 AV to me. If you fight on big teams, that happens a lot IMX. If you don't fight on big teams, or don't fight w/ mixed-level teams, it doesn't happen much at all.

But IMX the double-whammy of the purple patch starts hitting debuffers at +2.

[Frozen_Icicle]

[ QUOTE ]
So FF is going to be slightly boosted here and more effective (yay!) Debuffing getting hit by double-purple penalties means that debuffing has to be over-effective at lower plus, then dropping off effectiveness.

[/ QUOTE ]
This change isn't making debuffs worse than before in any way. A single acc debuff doesn't have to be more usefull than the entire FF set in every AV fight, for things to be balanced.

Besides, non-FF sets have -dmg, -recharge and healing which more than makes up for any acc/def advantage in an AV fight.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd advocated a lower base value, but making debuff only get affected by the purple patch {once}. That way it can less potent near your level, but possibly more effective against higher cons at later levels.

[/ QUOTE ]
You know the most realistic implementation of this would be about the same against +3, slightly better against +4, and suck horribly for anyone soloing +0s.

[Nerfadomus]

alright thats great news for us poor sr scrappers..just one question left to answer.

Will we all be getting a free respec to adjust to yet another defence change it may now be worth slotting some powers like cj, hover, and maybe even weave?

If you dont give us a respec there's no real point since alot of us have used up our respecs trying to adjust to i3 and i6.

I cant see why handing out a free respec along with i7 being too much to ask :)

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes i know, but then you can resist up to 90% of that already debuffed damage for a max mitigation of 99%

[/ QUOTE ]

As a damage debuffer, that is not what I recall. 90% is the maximum that you can resist/debuff. They are not cumalitive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose it would be easy to test with a Tanker, a Sonic, a Kin and a bunch of grey MOBs.

I have the KIN.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tested with Darkest Night and Twighlights grasp with the Ancillary dark armor power.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK i just did a test with Damage Resist and debuff.

I took on an enemy that did 20.71 damage normaly.
I used chilling embrase and i got 17.81. Thats 14% less damage.
Then i poped up a 5% resist inspiration. He did 16.92 damage. Thats a total of 18.3% less damage, and that is definitively not 14 + 5. It does however fit with the debuff taking effect first and the resist taking effect later, so they do not stack.

I did not test if there is a total mitigation cap though, that may be a thing for tonight.

[UberGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
OK i just did a test with Damage Resist and debuff.

I took on an enemy that did 20.71 damage normaly.
I used chilling embrase and i got 17.81. Thats 14% less damage.
Then i poped up a 5% resist inspiration. He did 16.92 damage. Thats a total of 18.3% less damage, and that is definitively not 14 + 5. It does however fit with the debuff taking effect first and the resist taking effect later, so they do not stack.

I did not test if there is a total mitigation cap though, that may be a thing for tonight.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tested this with just Dark Miasma powers some time back so I knew what I was getting with my Corruptor. Like you, the behavior I encountered is the separate powers are multiplicative, not additive. Darkest Night and Twilight Grasp left a foe dealing damage that looked more like:

NewDamage=BaseDamage * (1-TG) * (1-DN)

Not:

NewDamage=BaseDamage * (1- TG -DN)

Moreover, multiple applications of Twilight Grasp were also multiplicative.

Testing with other similar debuffs, such as Sonic's DR debuff, seem to provide consistent effects.

I should add that I would have always expected +DR to be multiplicative with -DAM.

[Arcanaville]

[ QUOTE ]

OK i just did a test with Damage Resist and debuff.

I took on an enemy that did 20.71 damage normaly.
I used chilling embrase and i got 17.81. Thats 14% less damage.
Then i poped up a 5% resist inspiration. He did 16.92 damage. Thats a total of 18.3% less damage, and that is definitively not 14 + 5. It does however fit with the debuff taking effect first and the resist taking effect later, so they do not stack.


[/ QUOTE ]

To the best of my knowledge, (foe) damage debuff and (self) damage resist never stacked. The debuff always reduced the outgoing damage at the target, and then the (self) resistance always reduced the damage that was *seen* by the resistance; the resistance never somehow "knew" that the damage had been originally debuffed.

Resistance stacks with resistance, defense stacks with defense, etc. Dissimilar things do not stack. What confuses people is when someone says "tohit debuffs stack with defense." They don't: not really. But the way the tohit formula works, *numerically* they have the same effect: they subtract from base tohit. So they combine in the formula *as if they stacked*. This makes some people think that perhaps related effects stack: -DMG and +RES being related. But in fact tohit buff/debuff and defense buff/debuff are the exception to the rule, not indicative of how things work in general.

[Captain Fabulous]

One point that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread (yes I read the entire thread and Jesus Mary Joseph you guys can babble, prattle, and otherwise say in 10 paragraphs what can simply be said in one) are the effects of foe defense debuffs, typically found in great quantity via lethal attacks?

The -5% def in unyielding was touched upon and noted that the -def will now scale. But then so would the -def from lethal attacks, no?

If your overall defense stays 0 or greater after calculating the -defs, then there's no problem. But if you're a toon with no defense, or your adjusted defense becomes negative, then scaling will occur under the new system and you'll actually get hit MORE.

My guess is that solo or on small teams it won't amount to much, but on large teams that are +2s and higher the difference could be quite significant, especially if you rely upon defense (if you don't foes quickly hit the 95% cap). Some melee sets get a def debuff resistance which helps lessen the blow (no idea what the % is on that), but what about defense powers that don't have that resistance, like force fields and invulnerability? The difference in foe accuracy current vs. new could often be greater than the protection given from powers like dispersion bubble or invincibility.

Are there plans to address this issue or does this mean that non-defense based toons will now suffer in these situations at the expense of defensive sets?

[Arcanaville]

[ QUOTE ]
One point that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread (yes I read the entire thread and Jesus Mary Joseph you guys can babble, prattle, and otherwise say in 10 paragraphs what can simply be said in one)


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll try to be brief.

[ QUOTE ]
are the effects of foe defense debuffs, typically found in great quantity via lethal attacks?


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, covered a couple times.

[ QUOTE ]

The -5% def in unyielding was touched upon and noted that the -def will now scale. But then so would the -def from lethal attacks, no?

If your overall defense stays 0 or greater after calculating the -defs, then there's no problem. But if you're a toon with no defense, or your adjusted defense becomes negative, then scaling will occur under the new system and you'll actually get hit MORE.

My guess is that solo or on small teams it won't amount to much, but on large teams that are +2s and higher the difference could be quite significant, especially if you rely upon defense (if you don't foes quickly hit the 95% cap). Some melee sets get a def debuff resistance which helps lessen the blow (no idea what the % is on that), but what about defense powers that don't have that resistance, like force fields and invulnerability? The difference in foe accuracy current vs. new could often be greater than the protection given from powers like dispersion bubble or invincibility.

Are there plans to address this issue or does this mean that non-defense based toons will now suffer in these situations at the expense of defensive sets?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[jackdrek]

oops double post

[jackdrek]

[ QUOTE ]
I look forward to a detailed explanation of how this will work.
Glad you asked. Basically, Level advantage in PvE, Lts, Bosses, AV's, and Monsters had To Hit bonuses. This made Defense not scale properly. We changed them so that instead of To Hit bonuses, they have Accuracy bonuses. What that means is, Defense is applied before their bonus, rather than after. Since Accuracy is a multiplier, it is multiplying a small base value than before.

For instance, an AV had a base To Hit of 75%. If a player had 25% Defense, the AV would have had a 50% chance to hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank bleep! I was long waiting for some sort of switch between acc and tohit was made. Of course, this does nothing for PvP, but it sounds like it'll make it so I can run missions again and spend some more time PvEing in PvP zones, without expecting the mobs to get me long before a player even sees me.