Bug/Undocumented Feature: Damage Bonus diminishing returns

pantagruel01 · August 2015

Regular damage bonuses (superstat, form, etc), when used by a freeform character, have diminishing returns (this is easily visible by looking at your tooltips with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc, stacks of Concentration/Enrage/whatever, and checking how much damage increases). When used by an archetype, these bonuses to not have diminishing returns. It seems probable that at least one of these behaviors is not intended.

aiqa · August 2015

As a reference, there are some dev posts about this in this thread:
http://www.arcgames.com/en/forums#/discussion/227894/archetype-freeform-damage/p1

championshewolf · August 2015

This has been talked about ad nauseum, and for the most part, seems to be an intended feature to give the Archetype's an advantage in a world that is designed for freeforms.

kaiserin · August 2015

From what developers have said in the past it's definitely not intended behavior.
Arhetypes do have diminishing returns, it's just far less strict than freeforms.

Isometry figured out a formula that pretty closely relayed it: http://perfectworld.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1800905#Comment_1800905

eiledon · August 2015

We have to remember that this is ostensibly still an FTP game now (with some sub benefits) the majority of silver players won't buy a free form slot even during the sale simply because the don't see it as a value purchase.

Should a wholesale nerf of AT DR happen or a wholesale buff of FF DR happen? No fracking way. Doing either of these would simply end up pushing those silver players who feel their characters are then even further underpowered away from the game and into the waiting arms of the competitors. It would reinforce the belief that the game is pay to win. Which it really isn't for the most part.

Should DR be looked at - probably but as part of a whole re-evaluation of the AT/FF dynamic.

aiqa · August 2015

If archtypes need any help it's in healing (and there are more options for that now than when AT's were first added). As far as I am concerned artificially boosting their damage is a bad balance mechanic which only gets worse as new and stronger gear is added.

pantagruel01 · August 2015

kaizerin wrote: »

Isometry figured out a formula that pretty closely relayed it: http://perfectworld.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1800905#Comment_1800905

Tried out his formula on some testing I did recently, and I'm pretty confident that his formula is wrong, at least for freeforms -- it looked a lot more like 900 than 1400 to me, though neither one is quite correct. I should test on an AT, though it's harder to do because you can't create one that has powers but no superstats.

pantagruel01 · August 2015

So, doing some testing. I copied a toon over to pts twice, and made one a Behemoth, while the other has the same active powers, but is a freeform:
Baseline buffs: Str 192 (30% melee strength, 13% superstat), Con 400 (20% superstat), Rec 68 (6.1% superstat), 3 stars (8%); total 77% (or so). Tank role. Also some offense from gear, since I wasn't bothering to respec.
Behemoth stats:
With no other buffs, Haymaker R3 full charge is listed at 2,354
With Aggressor r3, 3,264 (+910)
With Retaliation R3, 4,003 (+739; +1649 vs base, implying base is 1,374. This is a calculated buff of 71% on the base damage, which implies that stars are some other type of bonus -- possibly Offense?)
With both, 4,913 (+910)
Freeform stats:
With no other buffs, Haymaker R3 full charge is listed at 2,328 (+71% -> +69%)
With Aggressor r3, 3,111 (+783) (+138% -> +126%
With Retaliation R3, 3,651 (+640; +1333 vs base; +191% -> +166%)
With both, 4,200 (+549; +258% -> +206%)

championshewolf · August 2015

pantagruel01 wrote: »

kaizerin wrote: »

Isometry figured out a formula that pretty closely relayed it: http://perfectworld.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1800905#Comment_1800905

Tried out his formula on some testing I did recently, and I'm pretty confident that his formula is wrong, at least for freeforms -- it looked a lot more like 900 than 1400 to me, though neither one is quite correct. I should test on an AT, though it's harder to do because you can't create one that has powers but no superstats.

Well neither are correct as GMC stated flat out that formula was wrong. Considering it's evident the damage difference is there, and we've been told that the code for ATs is working as intended, I am left to believe it is intended they have a lower DR value. I wouldn't think something like this would be so devastatingly hard or impossible to fix at the time it was reported that the ATs had a lower DR value. Especially since GMC was making a few sweeping changes at the time.

pantagruel01 · August 2015

championshewolf wrote: »

Well neither are correct as GMC stated flat out that formula was wrong. Considering it's evident the damage difference is there, and we've been told that the code for ATs is working as intended.

We have? I'm not aware of that ever happening, though it's not impossible.

championshewolf wrote: »

Especially since GMC was making a few sweeping changes at the time.

Making sweeping changes is a recipe for bugs, and there are plenty of other bugs that remain unfixed. In any case, there's a reason I labeled this thread "bug/undocumented feature" -- it might be deliberate, but if so, it should probably be actually explicitly stated somewhere.

championshewolf · August 2015

pantagruel01 wrote: »

championshewolf wrote: »

Well neither are correct as GMC stated flat out that formula was wrong. Considering it's evident the damage difference is there, and we've been told that the code for ATs is working as intended.

We have? I'm not aware of that ever happening, though it's not impossible.

championshewolf wrote: »

Especially since GMC was making a few sweeping changes at the time.

Making sweeping changes is a recipe for bugs, and there are plenty of other bugs that remain unfixed. In any case, there's a reason I labeled this thread "bug/undocumented feature" -- it might be deliberate, but if so, it should probably be actually explicitly stated somewhere.

This DR "bug" has been around since the ATs were first introduced back at F2P. It's not something that just happened to spring out of nothing. I made the statement of when GMC was making sweeping changes is because that is when people were getting the most vocal about it since GMC was talking with people in and out of game frequently then.

And really, going to fall back on the "it should be documented" argument when there is so much in this game that is basically considered an undocumented feature at this point?

rtma · August 2015

Would like FF DPS to do the same damage as AT's

it's sad that when I tested FF Devestator vs AT on PTS, Lvl 40, used Both Primary/Secondary Samurai Gear for test, AT was doing ~double damage compared to FF, it's frustrating, and the AT damage felt like as Heavy Weapons should be, slow but hits like a truck!

for those that are curious on Damage, Rank 3 Cleave for FF on lvl 40 test dummies was about 1-2K per hit and AT was 2-4k -..- non crit.

hasukurobi · August 2015

rtma said:
Would like FF DPS to do the same damage as AT's

it's sad that when I tested FF Devestator vs AT on PTS, Lvl 40, used Both Primary/Secondary Samurai Gear for test, AT was doing ~double damage compared to FF, it's frustrating, and the AT damage felt like as Heavy Weapons should be, slow but hits like a truck!

for those that are curious on Damage, Rank 3 Cleave for FF on lvl 40 test dummies was about 1-2K per hit and AT was 2-4k -..- non crit.

That just hurts... It really does.

somebob · August 2015

Yeah, AFAIK this is a 'mostly known issue' with the devs, but last I heard, they have no idea what's actually causing it (as they've looked into it in the past). So consider it an 'undocumented bonus for ATs, but it's classified as a bug'.

Bug/Undocumented Feature: Damage Bonus diminishing returns

Comments