Stop complaining about the nerf and use that FREE RETCON TOKEN THEY GAVE YOU to adapt!
Turando abused the hell out of dodge (Mostly Quarry). It allowed him to be a Tanky Healer with Decent DPS (Roaming around with only 5k HP might I add). Never had to worry about a thing, now I've got something to pay a little more attention to aside from my teammates.
SO YAY!
Accept the change, adapt to it, and move on. Sitting around complaining about something because "Oh, I'm not OP anymore" is by far the stupidest thing you can do.
I remember that character! Made me wonder what items you were using. :biggrin:
Oh boy, I feel you. I'm mostly offense based, with a few crit boosts here and there, and look at the screenshot I just took. This kind of damage is totally unacceptable. I should be doing more.
quarry sucks now too. I mean, I'm using it and everything, but it's just terrible.
In game, I am @EvilTaco. Happily killing purple gang members since May 2008. RIP Caine
Oh boy, I feel you. I'm mostly offense based, with a few crit boosts here and there, and look at the screenshot I just took. This kind of damage is totally unacceptable. I should be doing more.
quarry sucks now too. I mean, I'm using it and everything, but it's just terrible.
Cool story. Play an at and see if the story holds.
We should be. We're not. LR really didn't need to go up. But Way of the Warrior has been hit hard by the changes, same for NW and Quarry. WotW is specifically a melee passive. So why is it so squishy?
Quarry is so bad I can still tank alerts.
I have to like, heal and block stuff though, which is a huge pain. I wish it wasn't underperforming so bad and I could... uh... tank more, deal more top damage and survive more?
I guess?
-Campaign: Spells and Coin
--Part 1: Spells and Coin (NW-DHM3XQVQK)
--Part 2: A Blind Eye (NW-DI3QTHZGJ)
--Part 3: Dodo's Dinner (NW-DHPA8O253)
We should be. We're not. LR really didn't need to go up. But Way of the Warrior has been hit hard by the changes, same for NW and Quarry. WotW is specifically a melee passive. So why is it so squishy?
To compensate for the huge damage bonuses they receive, especially at R3?
I've done a personal check for a mid-level 25 toon. Both dodge and avoidance percentages average around 30% for all mentioned passives at R3, without affected by gear or anything else. 30% for both dodge and avoidance is hardly what I'd consider "hit hard".
At level 40 my Quarry toon with the Heroic breastplate and Gambler's Gem give 33% dodge and over 53% avoidance. For my WotW toon at 40, it's near 40% dodge and a little over 50% avoidance with the same gear. The patch already made gear give less significant dodge bonuses too, and I'm still getting pretty decent dodge and avoidance percentages.
In a nutshell, offensive-based toons should definitely be expected to be squishier than defensive-based ones for the inherent passive damage bonuses they get, but they don't look drastically squishy enough to me.
To compensate for the huge damage bonuses they receive, especially at R3?
I've done a personal check for a mid-level 25 toon. Both dodge and avoidance percentages average around 30% for all mentioned passives at R3, without affected by gear or anything else. 30% for both dodge and avoidance is hardly what I'd consider "hit hard".
At level 40 my Quarry toon with the Heroic breastplate and Gambler's Gem give 33% dodge and over 53% avoidance. For my WotW toon at 40, it's near 40% dodge and a little over 50% avoidance with the same gear. The patch already made gear give less significant dodge bonuses too, and I'm still getting pretty decent dodge and avoidance percentages.
In a nutshell, offensive-based toons should definitely be expected to be squishier than defensive-based ones for the inherent passive damage bonuses they get, but they don't look drastically squishy enough to me.
What is the actual damage advantage of a ranged passive user, that make you believe they deserve such drastically less mitigation?
Also, in case you were unaware. 30% and 30% is about 9% average mitigation. 40% and 50% is about 20% mitigation. 33% and 53% is 17.5% mitigation on average.
That's not -low- enough for you? Would you rather just remove all the dodge/resistance from offensive passives, or is it that you'd rather 1%/5% for dodge/avoid gained from these passives. Something that exists, and you can say is there, but doesn't actually -do- anything.
I don't play this game for more data to build spreadsheets with. If I wanted to do that, I'd play EvE.
I play this game to have fun. And since the "nerf", the only problem I've encountered was a period of about two days when everything was running at a really low FPS rate. It's improved since, though, and my fun level has risen to its previous position - that is to say, I'm having it. I have no idea how the "numbers" compare with pre-patch, as I never paid any attention to them anyway.
I'm especially enjoying the way that Sharknado can avoid attacks simply by using his Squall powers - the bad guys have trouble hitting me while they're being forced backward by the wind... And it was a kick when I was running Delivery of the Dead, in the Queen City arc, and while using my AoE, I not only took out the Dogz I was fighting, I also (completely accidentally) destroyed a Suspicious Crate and the zombies that came out of it.
"Science teaches us to expect -- demand -- more than just eerie mysteries. What use is a puzzle that can't be solved? Patience is fine, but I'm not going to stop asking the universe to make sense!"
I don't play this game for more data to build spreadsheets with. If I wanted to do that, I'd play EvE.
I play this game to have fun. And since the "nerf", the only problem I've encountered was a period of about two days when everything was running at a really low FPS rate. It's improved since, though, and my fun level has risen to its previous position - that is to say, I'm having it. I have no idea how the "numbers" compare with pre-patch, as I never paid any attention to them anyway.
I'm especially enjoying the way that Sharknado can avoid attacks simply by using his Squall powers - the bad guys have trouble hitting me while they're being forced backward by the wind... And it was a kick when I was running Delivery of the Dead, in the Queen City arc, and while using my AoE, I not only took out the Dogz I was fighting, I also (completely accidentally) destroyed a Suspicious Crate and the zombies that came out of it.
That is very cool. I did some alerts with Sharknado while on Lord Illuminatus. Sorry you had to die so many times, Hadn't figured out that the EB was messing up my targeting so bad, and couldn't seem to get a bubble on you to save...well...your live :biggrin:.
Thing is, I have two phases. The first is the numbers phase, the second is the play phase. Both are fun for me. I understand that numbers may not be fun for others, but they are fun for me. I'm a bit of a contridiction actually, because when I get ingame I might farm, I may just stand around a Cape Radio DJ, I may perk hunt, I may go and blast level 5's while screaming "DIE NONBELIEVER" at my monitor, it really doesn't matter. Whatever seems fun at a whim, but the Min/Max portion is different. I'm groovy with difficulty. Challenges are all love, but when the attempt to introduce challenge creates imbalance, I see that. Every time, it's like a little mosquito that you cant quite swat.
That's why -I- was against the change. People talk about all the survivability Offensive passives get, and how they could tank Gravitar or cosmics, and it's so good they can't anymore, ignoring the min/max defensive or support passive builds that can solo Gravitar or cosmics.
They're welcome to make challenge without me crying foul, so long as it doesn't mean "@#!$ you" to half my list of characters, and "You Chose Wisely on character Creaton!" to the other half.
If team content really needs teams, then they still have work to do, if not, repeal and replace the dodge patch
I wish the highlighted part were actually true for a single week. If it ever were people would see just how much all the changes to the game over the years aren't based around the min/maxers so they could stop repeating this empty statement.
If that were true you'd actually see a far harder game, with far higher diminishing returns on just about everything, a steeper nerf on dodge, a nerf to healing, a removal of cooldown reduction, a nerf to cost reduction, diminishing returns placed on CON, INT removed as a stat to give END more of an overall purpose, more defense penetration from mobs, self healing added to more mobs, a hard cap on crit severity, soft cap on crit chance lowered to 25% or lower, removal of specs and advantages that grant flat crit chance, etc. It would take pretty much all of that and yet we see almost none of it. To be frank, none of the changes implemented within the last year plus have really affected any of the min/maxers beyond the changes to devices for those people who relied so heavily on them. But most people knew better than that so basically none of the changes did squat. So if the dev targeted baseline is the min/maxers then we'd have to agree their aim is off as that's who has been hit the least...
He was talking about the forum, Einstein, not the game itself.
What is the actual damage advantage of a ranged passive user, that make you believe they deserve such drastically less mitigation?
With my main SS at 150 and secondaries at 100, the primary type damage bonuses are well above 80%. I can also remember off-hand that Quarry also gives between 50 - 60% secondary non-physical damage bonus.
Also, in case you were unaware. 30% and 30% is about 9% average mitigation. 40% and 50% is about 20% mitigation. 33% and 53% is 17.5% mitigation on average.
You're right, I was unaware; Unaware that this could be considered a believable way to calculate average mitigation, especially when dodge is based on RNG.
The following variables important in determining average mitigation were ignored:
1) Total health points
2) Duration of fight
3) Other forms of mitigation used in the fight
In any case, the one thing that's absolute in my example is a definite average 30% damage reduction when dodge successfully activates, which has a 30% chance to each time an attack hits you. In my personal game experience, 30% dodge already lets you dodge decently often.
With my main SS at 150 and secondaries at 100, the primary type damage bonuses are well above 80%. I can also remember off-hand that Quarry also gives between 50 - 60% secondary non-physical damage bonus.
That's not a result, that's data. You have to -do- something with those numbers to reach a conclusion. It's also, funny enough, not even all the data you'd need to know what the damage difference would be between an offensive passive and a defensive passive. My personal estimation is that an offensive passive does between 1.25x-1.55x more damage depending on role and levels of other damage buffs. I haven't cared enough to test that theory yes, because nothing would be gained, but that's my estimate.
Also, funny thing I noticed about quarry, just to throw out there for giggles. It has a primary physical damage boost and smaller non-physical boost, but archery (The set it was designed with, and the powers available to the Marksman AT) has a grand total of 5 different damage types that are the primary damage type of a power. Sonic, Toxic, Fire, Electrical, and Piercing. Funny thing, how many of those are actually Physical damage.
You're right, I was unaware; Unaware that this could be considered a believable way to calculate average mitigation, especially when dodge is based on RNG.
The following variables important in determining average mitigation were ignored:
1) Total health points
2) Duration of fight
3) Other forms of mitigation used in the fight
In any case, the one thing that's absolute in my example is a definite average 30% damage reduction when dodge successfully activates, which has a 30% chance to each time an attack hits you. In my personal game experience, 30% dodge already lets you dodge decently often.
I don't even; what is this?
"Definite average 30% damage reduction when dodge successfully activates"
What does that mean? it's not an average, it's absolute. If you dodge, you subtract 30% of the damage. The average come from the random part (Dodge), not the absolute part (Avoidance).
Because dodge is random, you will see fluctuations, that's why -the- beliveable way to calculate mitigation is to establish weighted averages. You modify the absolute part that remains constant by the likelyhood that that result will occur.
100 attacks at 100 damage; total expected 10,000 damage -> 30%/30% dodge/avoid -> 70 attacks for 100 damage; total expected 7,000 (on average) damage -> 30 attacks for 70 damage; total expected 2,100 (on average) damage -> average expected damage taken 9,100 damage (on average) -> total mitigation (10,000 - 9,100) / 10,000 = .009 -> percentage form 9%
When damage varies, you may dodge the bigger attacks, or the smaller ones, creating some variance, but the best and most viable way to calculate mitigation due to dodge is to use the averages. Calculating dodge mitigation also has nothing to do with health or other forms of mitigation. They interact, but 30% is 30%, the question is, 30% of what?
That's not a result, that's data. You have to -do- something with those numbers to reach a conclusion. It's also, funny enough, not even all the data you'd need to know what the damage difference would be between an offensive passive and a defensive passive. My personal estimation is that an offensive passive does between 1.25x-1.55x more damage depending on role and levels of other damage buffs. I haven't cared enough to test that theory yes, because nothing would be gained, but that's my estimate.
You want results and not data? Okay then.
What I do with those numbers is wipe out enemies quickly as possible before they get the chance to use a prolonged assault to do the same to me. The kind of damage bonuses that the offense passives give allows me to do precisely that.
There you go. Player skill and ingame experience: Two important non-data factors.
Also, funny thing I noticed about quarry, just to throw out there for giggles. It has a primary physical damage boost and smaller non-physical boost, but archery (The set it was designed with, and the powers available to the Marksman AT) has a grand total of 5 different damage types that are the primary damage type of a power. Sonic, Toxic, Fire, Electrical, and Piercing. Funny thing, how many of those are actually Physical damage.
And giving a high universal damage bonus for all those types creates imbalance of its own.
"Definite average 30% damage reduction when dodge successfully activates"
What does that mean? it's not an average, it's absolute. If you dodge, you subtract 30% of the damage. The average come from the random part (Dodge), not the absolute part (Avoidance).
When I said "average", I was refering to the average between those three passives, which are either slightly lower or slightly higher than 30%.
Because dodge is random, you will see fluctuations, that's why -the- beliveable way to calculate mitigation is to establish weighted averages. You modify the absolute part that remains constant by the likelyhood that that result will occur.
100 attacks at 100 damage; total expected 10,000 damage -> 30%/30% dodge/avoid -> 70 attacks for 100 damage; total expected 7,000 (on average) damage -> 30 attacks for 70 damage; total expected 2,100 (on average) damage -> average expected damage taken 9,100 damage (on average) -> total mitigation (10,000 - 9,100) / 10,000 = .009 -> percentage form 9%
When damage varies, you may dodge the bigger attacks, or the smaller ones, creating some variance, but the best and most viable way to calculate mitigation due to dodge is to use the averages. Calculating dodge mitigation also has nothing to do with health or other forms of mitigation. They interact, but 30% is 30%, the question is, 30% of what?
You're over-complicated things with a bunch of random number variables pulled from whatever you personally deem as realistic. The problem with your formula is:
1) Assumption that the total duration of a single fight involving an offensive-based hero by default involves 100 attacks from enemies with a flat 100 damage for each attack.
2) Take into no consideration of healing and other forms of mitigation, that an offense player would most definitely use in a fight to stay alive.
It's simply unrealistic to determine a conclusive average mitigation percentage from dodge when you use consistent static figures from combat that simply do not exist in the game.
What I do with those numbers is wipe out enemies quickly as possible before they get the chance to use a prolonged assault to do the same to me. The kind of damage bonuses that the offense passives give allows me to do precisely that.
There you go. Player skill and ingame experience: Two important non-data factors.
*Sigh*
What I wanted was to know this huge damage gap that you seem to see, that requires such lesser ammounts of mitigation.
You provided some data, but not a result. A result would be showing how much more damage offensive passive users have over defensive passive users.
When I said "average", I was refering to the average between those three passives, which are either slightly lower or slightly higher than 30%.
Then you should have said that, because this:
In any case, the one thing that's absolute in my example is a definite average 30% damage reduction when dodge successfully activates, which has a 30% chance to each time an attack hits you. In my personal game experience, 30% dodge already lets you dodge decently often
Doesn't say that at all.
That quote implies you're refering you your 30%/30% example, because you say 30% reduction at 30% chance. Also, how are you getting an average of 30% from those three passives? Superman couldn't bend those numbers, that much, to get 30% average mitigation from them. That makes even less sense.
I read what you say, but if you don't say what you mean, I can't understand you.
You're over-complicated things with a bunch of random number variables pulled from whatever you personally deem as realistic. The problem with your formula is:
1) Assumption that the total duration of a single fight involving an offensive-based hero by default involves 100 attacks from enemies with a flat 100 damage for each attack.
2) Take into no consideration of healing and other forms of mitigation, that an offense player would most definitely use in a fight to stay alive.
It's simply unrealistic to determine a conclusive average mitigation percentage from dodge when you use consistent static figures from combat that simply do not exist in the game.
I'm not over-complicating anything. I'm taking the steps neccessary to understand what things mean. It may be tedious sometimes, and I know not everybody like numbers enough to do so, but it's what I'm doing.
Healing doesn't modify mitigation, it interacts with it, but you wouldn't say that Resistance reduces damage more, just because you add a heal. You say you survive more, but resistance is still mitigating the same ammount of damage. Same for dodge.
Averages aren't exact, but they provide an expectable ammount of performance baseline. People have been doing this, in more field than this, for longer than I've been alive. Might as well benefit from their experience.
What I wanted was to know this huge damage gap that you seem to see, that requires such lesser ammounts of mitigation.
You provided some data, but not a result. A result would be showing how much more damage offensive passive users have over defensive passive users.
It's called practical experience. It's called performance evaluation having an offensive passive in the build on the field to see how I fare compared to if I was using a defensive one instead, and not in some stuffy pristine powerhouse with a bunch of combat dummies that don't fight back.
Those are my results. Take it or leave it. It's up to you.
I'm not over-complicating anything. I'm taking the steps neccessary to understand what things mean. It may be tedious sometimes, and I know not everybody like numbers enough to do so, but it's what I'm doing.
Healing doesn't modify mitigation, it interacts with it, but you wouldn't say that Resistance reduces damage more, just because you add a heal. You say you survive more, but resistance is still mitigating the same ammount of damage. Same for dodge.
Averages aren't exact, but they provide an expectable ammount of performance baseline. People have been doing this, in more field than this, for longer than I've been alive. Might as well benefit from their experience.
The problem with your approach and your attempt at determining it with formulas is that it isn't at all within the context of the game's overall mechanics. Dodge is just another mitigation mechanic intertwined with other mitigation mechanics like block, defense, active defenses and so on.
Strip away all of that from the build, leave only dodge as the only form of damage mitigation, and you'd have a more solid case. Unfortunately the game doesn't work that way.
The problem with your approach and your attempt at determining it with formulas is that it isn't at all within the context of the game's overall mechanics. Dodge is just another mitigation mechanic intertwined with other mitigation mechanics like block, defense, active defenses and so on.
Strip away all of that from the build, leave only dodge as the only form of damage mitigation, and you'd have a more solid case. Unfortunately the game doesn't work that way.
Lets see what happens when you add other mitigation.
Add 100% resist to the previous example. 100% resists cut all damage in half, so:
100 hits for 50 damage; expeced damage 5000 -> 70 hits for 50 damage; expected damage 3500 damage (on average) -> 30 hits for 35 damage; 1050 expected damage (on average) -> 4550 expected total damage taken -> (5000 - 4550) / 5000 = .09 -> Percentage form 9%
If you go by the overall value you get 5,450/ 10,000 = 54.5% mitigated. This is why I started with resistance. Makes things easier to look at, but it works the other way around as well. We know resistance was 50% mitigation, but dodge was supposed to be 9%, so what happened? Well, 9% of 50% is 4.5% of 100%. So, no matter how you look at it, dodge mitigats 9% on average.
Like I said in a previous post. The question is 9% of what? This is an accurate numbers analysis that has been around for a while. As an old CoHer, you should recognize this from the scrapper forums. The approach is effective, and has worked for a long time.
It's called practical experience. It's called performance evaluation having an offensive passive in the build on the field to see how I fare compared to if I was using a defensive one instead, and not in some stuffy pristine powerhouse with a bunch of combat dummies that don't fight back.
I can back this up. Not with numbers, but with experience as well. I can go the whole game, level 1 to 40, without ever having to put on a defensive passive, except for during alerts (which are by no means a requirement). Powersets I play mostly are Might, Munitions, Force, Power Armor, Telekinesis, and other crap here or there.
Not since On Alert have I ever had a character perform so badly that I felt that I needed a Defensive Passive. Maybe I lucked out and the only sets I play deal way more damage than what other people are using, I dunno. But I've never built a character around using dodge and avoidance, and I usually go around in Melee or Ranged Damage mode with an Offensive Passive.
I am currently taking a character through their UNITY daily missions, on elite, with no passive. Since I'm bothering to do these, it should be obvious that I have no Champions Gear, just a mash up of random blues and greens, and no Heirloom gear. (Seriously)
Going by current performance I'm confidant in my experience that tells me that not having a passive is OP. I have yet to need to use an Active Defense, and support drones are sufficient for healing. (Not serious, well, I haven't died, or really come close to it, and support drones are sufficient for healing, and I don't even have an active defense.)
You don't need a defensive passive. You don't need an offensive passive. The game is fully playable with nothing slotted. The issue is, that when they provide these options to the player, it's their duty to ensure that there is a balance to the selection. Johnny Strong shouldn't get an inherantly greater room for growth at the high end, over Arrowhead, just because he has invuln and Arrowhead has Quarry.
That's my issue. Not saying the game isn't easy. I know full well how easy it is. I just don't feel that that excuses balance issues, because contrary to popular opinion, Difficulty =/= Balance. Balance is reflective of the relative value of options you give the players, while difficulty is a method for increasing player engagement.
It's also kind of silly, how little damage I lose when I completely remove my slotted passive that's supposed to be about a huge buff to damage, and compare to the survivability gains of a defensive passive or massive utility of a Support passive.
I am currently taking a character through their UNITY daily missions, on elite, with no passive. Since I'm bothering to do these, it should be obvious that I have no Champions Gear, just a mash up of random blues and greens, and no Heirloom gear. (Seriously)
Going by current performance I'm confidant in my experience that tells me that not having a passive is OP. I have yet to need to use an Active Defense, and support drones are sufficient for healing. (Not serious, well, I haven't died, or really come close to it, and support drones are sufficient for healing, and I don't even have an active defense.)
You don't need a defensive passive. You don't need an offensive passive. The game is fully playable with nothing slotted. The issue is, that when they provide these options to the player, it's their duty to ensure that there is a balance to the selection. Johnny Strong shouldn't get an inherantly greater room for growth at the high end, over Arrowhead, just because he has invuln and Arrowhead has Quarry.
That's my issue. Not saying the game isn't easy. I know full well how easy it is. I just don't feel that that excuses balance issues, because contrary to popular opinion, Difficulty =/= Balance. Balance is reflective of the relative value of options you give the players, while difficulty is a method for increasing player engagement.
It's also kind of silly, how little damage I lose when I completely remove my slotted passive that's supposed to be about a huge buff to damage, and compare to the survivability gains of a defensive passive or massive utility of a Support passive.
THANK YOU.
This is everything I've preached about since day one.
Who are you and how did you get in my head??
Seriously though, that statement is absolutely true, game balance =/= difficulty.
Question, what is gained from having excess mitigation.
Something like for more damage there is getting through the game faster... until you oneshot every single enemy..
Question, what is gained from having excess mitigation.
Something like for more damage there is getting through the game faster... until you oneshot every single enemy..
Space, room, time, options.
You Always have a larger margin for error. More time to respond to incomming damage. Fewer power options taken for the purpose of survivability. While under high ammount of damage, excess mitigation allows you to heal with less frequency, allowing for more time to attack.
Black Jack Williams is a concept build that shouldn't be able to do anything, and is an attempt at being as "Hybrid" as possible (Team support, ranged damage, Melee damage, survivability). Because of the survivability base granted by Invulnerability, and helped by IDF, he has excess time to respond to threats, Reconstruction circuts is still a lesser heal, but it can work, he has 7 attacks (For giggles), no active defense, and can run around in a Gravitar, rezzing people, debuffing her with minigun, and looking damn fly while ricochet throwing.
When you use a defensive passive, you get to tell the game to slow the @!$# down, and take things at your pace. You get to skip some of the survival powers, should you want, still be able to survive, and still be able to accomplish silly things, but with a little more incoming damage taken. However, because it's "Excess Mitigation" as you say, you don't loose terribly much.
Slapping a Heroic gear with a single mod onto a character to give them the near equivalent damage mitigation of R3 LR without actually needing to slot the defensive passive was the core issue of imbalance, especially when an offensive passive is slotted in place, was the only issue I ever cared to address when it comes to balance involving dodge.
Having played a Quarry toon pre and post alerts plus specializations, the great amount of damage I was outputting more than justified being squishier and having to pay more attention to survivability. When On-Alert hit with the introduction of specs and modded gear, it was even easier to manage survivability and output even more damage than I would have before, even with the current dodge and avoidance percentages. It wasn't a massive struggle to do so like some of the people around here are making it out to be. I performed. I didn't faceplant so consistently that I felt I had to give up the build and playstyle.
Also, the one important intangible factor into all of it is player skill, something that's hugely ignored and unaddressed.
I could care less if the proposed formula resulting 9% or whatever average mitigation gotten from dodge has any real relevance or accuracy, because it sure as heck doesn't translate to my gameplay experience at all.
Slapping a Heroic gear with a single mod onto a character to give them the near equivalent damage mitigation of R3 LR without actually needing to slot the defensive passive was the core issue of imbalance, especially when an offensive passive is slotted in place, was the only issue I ever cared to address when it comes to balance involving dodge.
Having played a Quarry toon pre and post alerts plus specializations, the great amount of damage I was outputting more than justified being squishier and having to pay more attention to survivability. When On-Alert hit with the introduction of specs and modded gear, it was even easier to manage survivability and output even more damage than I would have before, even with the current dodge and avoidance percentages. It wasn't a massive struggle to do so like some of the people around here are making it out to be. I performed. I didn't faceplant so consistently that I felt I had to give up the build and playstyle.
Also, the one important intangible factor into all of it is player skill, something that's hugely ignored and unaddressed.
I could care less if the proposed formula resulting 9% or whatever average mitigation gotten from dodge has any real relevance or accuracy, because it sure as heck doesn't translate to my gameplay experience at all.
If you don't care about the method for quantifying the value of a given ammount of dodge/avoid, that's fine. It is perfectly wonderful for people to not like some of the wierd things I like, such as the numbers behind game systems.
The thing is, when you start talking about how much mitigation an ammount of dodge gives, like you did, but don't actually seem to know how much mitigation is being provided, that's when you're going to get comments. You don't have to think the numbers are fun. You don't have to care about them. However, when you're saying things that don't make sense and with nothing to back it up, it's most likely not going to be left unmentioned. You still haven't said how the dodge values "Averaged" 30%, I'm very curious how you got that, and I still think you were talking about the 30%/30% example specifically.
You mention how much mitigation your different dodge values provide, but you obviously didn't know how much, because you're disagreeing with the way you find these values, and saying you don't care. You then try to justify lesser mitigation due to an ammount of damage that offensive passive do, which is supposedly massivlely more than defensive passives, but don't actually know how much the difference is. This is outright silly. It's like when you tried to justify the changes because, somehow, offensive passive have "as much or more" mitigation than defensive passives.
Player skill is irrelevant to balance. If I can take the worst options in the game, and solo elite difficulty content, that wouldn't make them balanced. That would make me a freak.
Heroic/Legion gear on offensive passives didn't eliminate Lightning reflexes or defensive passives. Diminishing returns because LR was Dodge rating, instead of chance, is what did it in. Invulnerability, Regen, PFF, and Defiance all did incredibly well with the gear, due to layering, and continue to do so with the change, to a lesser extent. LR is also much better, because it's finally chance rather than rating.
I said it before, I'll slip on my big boy pants and suck it up, when it comes to these changes, but when you say some of these things, Imma have to mention it.
So like things are now defence passives are for when you want to muck about, and offence passives for when you want to best possible performance?
Not really. Defensive passives give much greater room for mucking about, but Offensive passives don't really have the potential for best possible performance.
Right now I'd rate the passives (In terms of Min/max growth potential):
1. T1 Support passives (AoPM, AoRP)
2. Invuln, Defiance, Nightwarrior, LR (stealth and SS are too valuable in utility for general gameplay IMHO despite less mitigation potential)
3. Regen, PFF
3.5 AoED, Offensive passives (Not much difference between performance potential of these and Regen PFF IMO, but Regen and PFF have an easier time surviving)
4. Medical Nanites, AoAC
The Damage gap is just so much smaller than the mitigation gap, that the time needed activating defense abilities, which according to various posts is more common now, especially in the realm of big game hunting, that I felt there was fairly comprable performance before, with support passives, and some offensive passive edging out defensive passives a bit, that being in team encounters. But that's the always present issue with tank stacking, and devs have been trying to deal with that forever.
Right now I don't feel it's reasonable to say Offensive passive have the potential for best performance. Some, maybe, before the changes, in certain circumstances, and not by much. Not now though.
If you don't care about the method for quantifying the value of a given ammount of dodge/avoid, that's fine. It is perfectly wonderful for people to not like some of the wierd things I like, such as the numbers behind game systems.
I don't care for it because there's no real absolute way to come to a fixed percentage as to how much "average" mitigation dodge gives. You using some randomly pulled number like 100 attacks each dealing 50 or 100 damage is nowhere near what is realistically expected in combat, and then to proceed to conclude that oh, it's an average 9%.
The thing is, when you start talking about how much mitigation an ammount of dodge gives, like you did, but don't actually seem to know how much mitigation is being provided, that's when you're going to get comments. You don't have to think the numbers are fun. You don't have to care about them. However, when you're saying things that don't make sense and with nothing to back it up, it's most likely not going to be left unmentioned. You still haven't said how the dodge values "Averaged" 30%, I'm very curious how you got that, and I still think you were talking about the 30%/30% example specifically.
Look dude, all I was getting at is that for each of the stated passives, both dodge and avoidance each averages at 30%, which means that the value is either slightly lower or higher than 30% In my original post. I went back to read my original post and saw that perhaps I worded it poorly, but I clarified what I meant to say in the following post. Get over it already.
The ultimate point I was making is when dodge procs, its an absolute average 30% damage resistance, meaning you're guaranteed an average 30% damage resistance which is either slightly lower or higher than, and that from personal experience at 30% dodge procs decently often enough. 30% damage resistance from avoidance layered over other forms of damage mitigation like defense is not what I'd consider something abysmal either.
You mention how much mitigation your different dodge values provide, but you obviously didn't know how much, because you're disagreeing with the way you find these values, and saying you don't care. You then try to justify lesser mitigation due to an ammount of damage that offensive passive do, which is supposedly massivlely more than defensive passives, but don't actually know how much the difference is. This is outright silly. It's like when you tried to justify the changes because, somehow, offensive passive have "as much or more" mitigation than defensive passives.
I already said personal experience has shown it, which is more effective at concluding things than a whole bunch of theory-crafting and numerical analysis. I don't treat the game like a stupid spreadsheet where I have to perform a statistical analysis for every fight I'm involved in. If I'm dealing damage with three to four figure differences in my attacks along with dealing more frequent and bigger crit damage than I would with a defensive build, the dfference should already be plain to see.
Also I already mention that its well over 80% damage bonuses for the passives. Defensive passives do not give that kind of damage bonus. The distinction is there. The difference is there to see.
Player skill is irrelevant to balance. If I can take the worst options in the game, and solo elite difficulty content, that wouldn't make them balanced. That would make me a freak.
Actually it is. The basic critera of player skill has to exist on some level, unless you mean to say that we're expected to use a player, who is both careless in the way that they play and pays no attention to mechanics to improve themselves, should be the benchmark.
Heroic/Legion gear on offensive passives didn't eliminate Lightning reflexes or defensive passives. Diminishing returns because LR was Dodge rating, instead of chance, is what did it in. Invulnerability, Regen, PFF, and Defiance all did incredibly well with the gear, due to layering, and continue to do so with the change, to a lesser extent. LR is also much better, because it's finally chance rather than rating.
No, the gear didn't eliminate the defensive passives. When did I ever say that? It made it so that they could be substituted by using certain gear, so much so that it was pointless taking a defensive passive. That has already been proven several times in the past.
If you don't see what's wrong with an offensive build benefiting from damage mitigation almost equivalent to what a defensive one offers, you have no business lecturing about balance.
I don't care for it because there's no real absolute way to come to a fixed percentage as to how much "average" mitigation dodge gives. You using some randomly pulled number like 100 attacks each dealing 50 or 100 damage is nowhere near what is realistically expected in combat, and then to proceed to conclude that oh, it's an average 9%.
I pick 100 and 50 because they're easy to look at, and I don't have to do a full monte carlo simulation and pull an average from that. It works, you don't have to like it, or understand it, but when you talk numbers it helps to have some understanding of them.
Look dude, all I was getting at is that for each of the stated passives, both dodge and avoidance each averages at 30%, which means that the value is either slightly lower or higher than 30% In my original post. I went back to read my original post and saw that perhaps I worded it poorly, but I clarified what I meant to say in the following post. Get over it already.
The ultimate point I was making is when dodge procs, its an absolute average 30% damage resistance, meaning you're guaranteed an average 30% damage resistance which is either slightly lower or higher than, and that from personal experience at 30% dodge procs decently often enough. 30% damage resistance from avoidance layered over other forms of damage mitigation like defense is not what I'd consider something abysmal either.
Again: What?
Average 30% you're saying it again, and it still doesn't make sense. Funny enough you're saying "Absolute Average". Then when I do a weighted average, that's somehow voodoo. What does that mean, "Absolute Average" and when you're talking about Avoidance which is absolute, so it wouldn't have an average?
30% avoidance 100% of the time, wouldn't by abysmal, it'd actually be more than you'd have got from Silver Champions Gear pre patch. However, 30%, 30% of the time is incredibly little. 70% of the time you take 100% damage 30% of the time you take 70% damage. But, I guess, it feel like a lot?
I already said personal experience has shown it, which is more effective at concluding things than a whole bunch of theory-crafting and numerical analysis. I don't treat the game like a stupid spreadsheet where I have to perform a statistical analysis for every fight I'm involved in. If I'm dealing damage with three to four figure differences in my attacks along with dealing more frequent and bigger crit damage than I would with a defensive build, the dfference should already be plain to see.
No. Personal experience is not better than these analysis. Feel is subjective and varies. You don't have to like spreadsheets, you can keep playing the game screaming "I am the Batman!" at the screen and enjoying every minute of it, but saying I'm a "Theory-Crafter" as if I don't play the game, and ignoring actual facts doesn't work.
I play the game without a passive, can solo Elite Difficulty. ZOMG! Not having a passive is OP! Nerf not having a passive, my experience shows it!
Also, which passive boosts crit chance? Or are you just throwing the bigger crit chance line in for funzies? (if you can't guess, that's part of the whole "Experience is often clouded by things bussiness)
I have experience in the game, I double check things with analysis because: bias happens.
Also I already mention that its well over 80% damage bonuses for the passives. Defensive passives do not give that kind of damage bonus. The distinction is there. The difference is there to see.
Thing is, I'm actually looking, not closing my eyes and trying to feel it. It's not there to see. 80% doesn't give you 80%. That's why, when I removed my passive and played with an empty passive slot, I was astonished (Shouldn't have been I knew this already, but seeing it made me sad) at how little damage I gained from my passive vs how much mitigation I sacrifice for having that passive. It also made me feel better about not trusting peoples Feel and experience when they talk about how much more damage offensive passive users deal.
No, the gear didn't eliminate the defensive passives. When did I ever say that? It made it so that they could be substituted by using certain gear, so much so that it was pointless taking a defensive passive. That has already been proven several times in the past.
No, it wasn't. It was claimed, but nobody proved it. The defensive passive user had more defense by a large margin. Exception: Quarry VS LR, but that was due to applying stupid mechanics to LR causing huge DR where there shouldn't have been any.
If you don't see what's wrong with an offensive build benefiting from damage mitigation almost equivalent to what a defensive one offers, you have no business lecturing about balance.
When a defensive passive starts at Halving damage, adding another layer provides exeptional gain. Something Offensive Passives didn't get the benefit of, outside a damage type in some cases. If you cant take the time, or expend the effort to know what the actual difference is, you have no bussiness talking about the difference. Feel free to, obviously, but again don't expect me to not point out when you make no sense.
I pick 100 and 50 because they're easy to look at, and I don't have to do a full monte carlo simulation and pull an average from that. It works, you don't have to like it, or understand it, but when you talk numbers it helps to have some understanding of them.
Easy to look at sure. Realistic? Nope. Enemies don't deal a flat 50 - 100 damage for every encounter. In fact, I think it's safe to say that they don't for most encounters. Any offensive user worth their salt, depending on what the fight consists of, would clear the mob before they're allowed in 100 hits.
And yes, you have to do a full monte carlo simulation, because when you make sweeping, definitive claims like this...
Also, in case you were unaware. 30% and 30% is about 9% average mitigation. 40% and 50% is about 20% mitigation. 33% and 53% is 17.5% mitigation on average.
...naturally I would assume that you're basing the percentages off actual ingame figures, and not some random numbers you happen to use just because they're "easy" to work with.
Average 30% you're saying it again, and it still doesn't make sense. Funny enough you're saying "Absolute Average". Then when I do a weighted average, that's somehow voodoo. What does that mean, "Absolute Average" and when you're talking about Avoidance which is absolute, so it wouldn't have an average?
30% avoidance 100% of the time, wouldn't by abysmal, it'd actually be more than you'd have got from Silver Champions Gear pre patch. However, 30%, 30% of the time is incredibly little. 70% of the time you take 100% damage 30% of the time you take 70% damage. But, I guess, it feel like a lot?
Urm, no champ, that's not how you properly interpret dodge chance.
30% dodge doesn't mean you take 100% damage 70% of the time. Each time you get hit, it's a 30% chance out of a RNG to mitigate avoidance % of damage, or suffer 100% damage if the dodge check fails. Due to the RNG, it's impossible to determine exactly how many times that you do successfully dodge or not.
Are you really sure you know how the dodge mechanic works?
Also the context of "absolute average" refers to the 30% avoidance damage reduction that each mentioned passive at R3 has that is slightly lower or higher than 30%, hence the term "average", that you absolutely benefit from when dodge procs. I hope this finally clears things up.
No. Personal experience is not better than these analysis. Feel is subjective and varies. You don't have to like spreadsheets, you can keep playing the game screaming "I am the Batman!" at the screen and enjoying every minute of it, but saying I'm a "Theory-Crafter" as if I don't play the game, and ignoring actual facts doesn't work.
Also, which passive boosts crit chance? Or are you just throwing the bigger crit chance line in for funzies? (if you can't guess, that's part of the whole "Experience is often clouded by things bussiness)
It's not a feel. I did mention that I see damage differences of three or four figures when I swap to an offensive passive. How am I feeling anything when I'm looking at obvious differences?
The mention of crit damage was meant to be supplemental and is from other sources, since you know, it makes sense to build an offensive-based toon to focus on crit to maximize DPS.
No, it wasn't. It was claimed, but nobody proved it. The defensive passive user had more defense by a large margin. Exception: Quarry VS LR, but that was due to applying stupid mechanics to LR causing huge DR where there shouldn't have been any.
There was a previous thread where spinnytop proved it with a screenshot comparison where she slotted out a R3 LR and left a heroic breastplate with gambler's gem in. Guess you missed it.
When a defensive passive starts at Halving damage, adding another layer provides exeptional gain. Something Offensive Passives didn't get the benefit of, outside a damage type in some cases. If you cant take the time, or expend the effort to know what the actual difference is, you have no bussiness talking about the difference. Feel free to, obviously, but again don't expect me to not point out when you make no sense.
Well GEE, it's an OFFENSIVE passive that focuses on more damage. Of course they're not going to get the same benefit as a defensive passive does. Are you seriously saying that anyone playing an offensive passive should be entitled to the kind of survivability that a defensive toon is able to have when it comes to passives?
100 attacks at 100 damage; total expected 10,000 damage -> 30%/30% dodge/avoid -> 70 attacks for 100 damage; total expected 7,000 (on average) damage -> 30 attacks for 70 damage; total expected 2,100 (on average) damage -> average expected damage taken 9,100 damage (on average) -> total mitigation (10,000 - 9,100) / 10,000 = .009 -> percentage form 9%
With your misunderstanding of how dodge really works, you assumed that with 30% dodge, 70% out of 100 attacks, equating to 70 attacks, will absolutely make it through and deal 100% damage each.
Since that's not how dodge works at all, your formula is invalid.
you assumed that with 30% dodge, 70% out of 100 attacks, equating to 70 attacks, will absolutely make it through and deal 100% damage each.
Since that's not how dodge works at all, your formula is invalid.
Honest question then, how does dodge work ? I have operated under the belief (perhaps mistaken) that a 30% dodge chance means that, on average, 70% of the time your dodge will not activate and so your avoidance will not apply.
Of course resistance is in a different layer of damage calculation so that even if your dodge does not activate you will still reduce incoming damage by some amount, but that is a separate calculation and not a function of how dodge works.
Honest question then, how does dodge work ? I have operated under the belief (perhaps mistaken) that a 30% dodge chance means that, on average, 70% of the time your dodge will not activate and so your avoidance will not apply.
Of course resistance is in a different layer of damage calculation so that even if your dodge does not activate you will still reduce incoming damage by some amount, but that is a separate calculation and not a function of how dodge works.
No, whenever you get hit by an attack, a RNG of some sort takes your current dodge % into consideration and does the necessary roll to determine whether or not you successfully get the attack damage reduced by your avoidance %.
It's a 30% chance for each incoming attack, not an assured 30 out of 100% of the time (how is that even determined?) that you will definitely dodge.
No, whenever you get hit by an attack, a RNG of some sort takes your current dodge % into consideration and does the necessary roll to determine whether or not you successfully get the attack damage reduced by your avoidance %.
It's a 30% chance for each incoming attack, not an assured 30 out of 100% of the time (how is that even determined?) that you will definitely dodge.
I seem to be missing a something here. Not trying to be difficult, its late and Ive worked more hours this week than I care to remember.
30% is the same thing as 30 out of 100. That is what "percent" (translates to "per hundred") means.
So every time you are attacked there is a 30% chance (assuming a 30% dodge stat of course) that you will dodge the attack and so apply your avoidance to the damage of the attack. That is comparable to saying that you will dodge (on average) 30 attacks per 100. Of course that average can mean not dodging any attacks at all out of any given hundred, or may even mean dodging every attack out of a given hundred, but on average one will dodge 30 per 100.
No, whenever you get hit by an attack, a RNG of some sort takes your current dodge % into consideration and does the necessary roll to determine whether or not you successfully get the attack damage reduced by your avoidance %.
It's a 30% chance for each incoming attack, not an assured 30 out of 100% of the time (how is that even determined?) that you will definitely dodge.
On a big enough number of attacks it should average out on 30% of the attacks being dodged. If not, the RNG is not working correctly.
None is saying that after 99 attacks of which 29 are dodged you have a 100% dodge chance on that 100th attack.
No, whenever you get hit by an attack, a RNG of some sort takes your current dodge % into consideration and does the necessary roll to determine whether or not you successfully get the attack damage reduced by your avoidance %.
It's a 30% chance for each incoming attack, not an assured 30 out of 100% of the time (how is that even determined?) that you will definitely dodge.
A 30% dodge chance does not guarantee that 30 attacks from a group of 100 will miss.
However, unless the RNG is broken, it will be very close to 30.
The larger your sample size gets, the closer you will get to actually having a 30% dodge rate. Because that is how random chance works.
You are correct that each has a 30% chance, regardless of previous rolls. Getting 30 dodges in a row does not guarantee that the next 70 will all hit. But again, with a large enough sample size, 30% of all attacks will be dodged.
We have no way to know if the dodged attacks will be the henchman throwing a rock for 10 damage, or Ripper Haymakering you for 100,000. Therefore, we are forced to average things out. Again, with a large enough sample, it balances.
Look at it this way:
Lets assume that you're fighting Ripper and a group of henchmen.
The henchmen shoot you 1000 times for 80-120 damage each. (Average 100 each)
They also fire 500 AoEs that hit you for 40-60 damage each. (Average 50 each)
Ripper punches you for 1,000 damage 250 times.
He also uses Haymaker for 100,000 damage 10 times.
Let's pretend that you have no Dodge, no Avoidance, and no Damage Resistance. You take full damage from each hit for 1,375,000 total.
With 30% Dodge, 30% Avoidance, and 0 Damage Resistance:
About 700 shots will hit you for 100 each. (70,000 damage)
About 300 shots will be dodged for 70 each. (21,000 damage)
About 350 AoEs will hit for 50 each. (17,500 damage)
About 150 AoEs will be dodged for 35 each. (5,250 damage)
About 175 punches will hit for 1,000 each (175,000 damage)
About 75 punches will be dodged for 700 each. (52,500 damage)
About 7 Haymakers will hit for 100,000 each. (700,000 damage)
About 3 Haymakers will be dodged for 70,000 each. (210,000 damage)
You've just taken 1,251,250 damage.
That's 1,251,250/1,375,000= 91% of the original damage.
Or 9%.
Yes, you might dodge one extra of the Haymakers. Or even two. Or none at all. But on average you will dodge 30%. And that's the only way to theoretically calculate the mitigation: 30% Dodge x 30% Avoidance = 9% mitigation.
Now, if you want to calculate the mitigation in practice, I welcome you to go out in-game on a character with 30% dodge, 30% avoidance and no damage reduction, and record a few hundred thousand attacks in your combat log. Add together all the base damage amounts, and then all the actual damage. Divide actual damage by base damage, and I'd bet that it's either 9% mitigation, or incredibly close.
Because that's how math works.
_________________________________________________ @flamingbunnyman in game. Formerly @Roderick in City of Heroes.
Thanks for going through the effort to explain it in detail bunnyman. I guess I wasn't putting enough thought into it and misunderstood what blackjack is saying.
I concede to the fact that in the event that attacks being made against the player are in the hundreds or even a thousand, it's a large enough sample size to be sure that 30% of the attacks will be dodged. I'm not going to go against the math.
I'm definitely going to try it out in practice to see for myself too.
I also guess this is why it's especially important that an offensive player has to ensure that they're able to take out mobs as quickly as possible, and it's highly necessary to use other forms of damage mitigation to back them up if things get hairy. I'm still in the opinion that the base dodge and avoidance I'm seeing at R3 for those particular passives seem justified.
The real benefit of Dodge is that it's on a different layer than Damage Resistance.
If you have 100% Resistance, you take half damage. (Base x 1/(100% + Resistance) = Base x 1/2).
Add 30% more resistance, and it's Base x 1/(100% + 130%) = 1/2.3 = 43.5% damage. You're only mitigating an extra 6.5%. And the higher your Resistance gets, the less benefit you get from each additional amount.
However, that 9% mitigation from 30% Dodge/30% Avoid will always mitigate 9% more damage, whether your Resistance is 0 or 600%.
The problem was that, before the change, people were getting Dodge up to 50% ir more and Avoid of 70% and higher, on characters with no Dodge in their passives. That's a 35% increase, minimum, in survivability. Far too high, IMO. I can still get that highon characters with Dodge Offensive passivers, and on LR, I can get stupidly high values of both.
I agree, the new numbers are just fine.
_________________________________________________ @flamingbunnyman in game. Formerly @Roderick in City of Heroes.
The real benefit of Dodge is that it's on a different layer than Damage Resistance.
As I recall it is also on an outer layer compared to flat damage reduction such as is provided by Invulnerability and IDF. One of the reasons for the emergence of the Invuln/Dodge builds a while back. Applying dodge based mitigation, then getting to subtract Invuln's flat reduction after that significant reduction to incoming damage numbers, particularly combined with the pre-nerf BCR/RR, meant truly astounding levels of survivability.
If you want to compare dodge to resistance, you need to do it like this:
When going from 50 to 43.5 incoming damage by increasing resistance from 100% to 130%, is a 12% extra mitigation (50-43.5/50).
With 100% resistance and when gaining 9% mitigation from dodge, on average you take 50*0.91=45.5 damage.
Comments
I remember that character! Made me wonder what items you were using. :biggrin:
quarry sucks now too. I mean, I'm using it and everything, but it's just terrible.
RIP Caine
Cool story. Play an at and see if the story holds.
Quarry is so bad I can still tank alerts.
I have to like, heal and block stuff though, which is a huge pain. I wish it wasn't underperforming so bad and I could... uh... tank more, deal more top damage and survive more?
I guess?
--Part 1: Spells and Coin (NW-DHM3XQVQK)
--Part 2: A Blind Eye (NW-DI3QTHZGJ)
--Part 3: Dodo's Dinner (NW-DHPA8O253)
-One Shots
--The Wizard of Eldeur (NW-DRKQNE4S7)
To compensate for the huge damage bonuses they receive, especially at R3?
I've done a personal check for a mid-level 25 toon. Both dodge and avoidance percentages average around 30% for all mentioned passives at R3, without affected by gear or anything else. 30% for both dodge and avoidance is hardly what I'd consider "hit hard".
At level 40 my Quarry toon with the Heroic breastplate and Gambler's Gem give 33% dodge and over 53% avoidance. For my WotW toon at 40, it's near 40% dodge and a little over 50% avoidance with the same gear. The patch already made gear give less significant dodge bonuses too, and I'm still getting pretty decent dodge and avoidance percentages.
In a nutshell, offensive-based toons should definitely be expected to be squishier than defensive-based ones for the inherent passive damage bonuses they get, but they don't look drastically squishy enough to me.
What is the actual damage advantage of a ranged passive user, that make you believe they deserve such drastically less mitigation?
Also, in case you were unaware. 30% and 30% is about 9% average mitigation. 40% and 50% is about 20% mitigation. 33% and 53% is 17.5% mitigation on average.
That's not -low- enough for you? Would you rather just remove all the dodge/resistance from offensive passives, or is it that you'd rather 1%/5% for dodge/avoid gained from these passives. Something that exists, and you can say is there, but doesn't actually -do- anything.
I play this game to have fun. And since the "nerf", the only problem I've encountered was a period of about two days when everything was running at a really low FPS rate. It's improved since, though, and my fun level has risen to its previous position - that is to say, I'm having it. I have no idea how the "numbers" compare with pre-patch, as I never paid any attention to them anyway.
I'm especially enjoying the way that Sharknado can avoid attacks simply by using his Squall powers - the bad guys have trouble hitting me while they're being forced backward by the wind... And it was a kick when I was running Delivery of the Dead, in the Queen City arc, and while using my AoE, I not only took out the Dogz I was fighting, I also (completely accidentally) destroyed a Suspicious Crate and the zombies that came out of it.
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
That is very cool. I did some alerts with Sharknado while on Lord Illuminatus. Sorry you had to die so many times, Hadn't figured out that the EB was messing up my targeting so bad, and couldn't seem to get a bubble on you to save...well...your live :biggrin:.
Thing is, I have two phases. The first is the numbers phase, the second is the play phase. Both are fun for me. I understand that numbers may not be fun for others, but they are fun for me. I'm a bit of a contridiction actually, because when I get ingame I might farm, I may just stand around a Cape Radio DJ, I may perk hunt, I may go and blast level 5's while screaming "DIE NONBELIEVER" at my monitor, it really doesn't matter. Whatever seems fun at a whim, but the Min/Max portion is different. I'm groovy with difficulty. Challenges are all love, but when the attempt to introduce challenge creates imbalance, I see that. Every time, it's like a little mosquito that you cant quite swat.
That's why -I- was against the change. People talk about all the survivability Offensive passives get, and how they could tank Gravitar or cosmics, and it's so good they can't anymore, ignoring the min/max defensive or support passive builds that can solo Gravitar or cosmics.
They're welcome to make challenge without me crying foul, so long as it doesn't mean "@#!$ you" to half my list of characters, and "You Chose Wisely on character Creaton!" to the other half.
If team content really needs teams, then they still have work to do, if not, repeal and replace the dodge patch
He was talking about the forum, Einstein, not the game itself.
With my main SS at 150 and secondaries at 100, the primary type damage bonuses are well above 80%. I can also remember off-hand that Quarry also gives between 50 - 60% secondary non-physical damage bonus.
You're right, I was unaware; Unaware that this could be considered a believable way to calculate average mitigation, especially when dodge is based on RNG.
The following variables important in determining average mitigation were ignored:
1) Total health points
2) Duration of fight
3) Other forms of mitigation used in the fight
In any case, the one thing that's absolute in my example is a definite average 30% damage reduction when dodge successfully activates, which has a 30% chance to each time an attack hits you. In my personal game experience, 30% dodge already lets you dodge decently often.
That's not a result, that's data. You have to -do- something with those numbers to reach a conclusion. It's also, funny enough, not even all the data you'd need to know what the damage difference would be between an offensive passive and a defensive passive. My personal estimation is that an offensive passive does between 1.25x-1.55x more damage depending on role and levels of other damage buffs. I haven't cared enough to test that theory yes, because nothing would be gained, but that's my estimate.
Also, funny thing I noticed about quarry, just to throw out there for giggles. It has a primary physical damage boost and smaller non-physical boost, but archery (The set it was designed with, and the powers available to the Marksman AT) has a grand total of 5 different damage types that are the primary damage type of a power. Sonic, Toxic, Fire, Electrical, and Piercing. Funny thing, how many of those are actually Physical damage.
I don't even; what is this?
"Definite average 30% damage reduction when dodge successfully activates"
What does that mean? it's not an average, it's absolute. If you dodge, you subtract 30% of the damage. The average come from the random part (Dodge), not the absolute part (Avoidance).
Because dodge is random, you will see fluctuations, that's why -the- beliveable way to calculate mitigation is to establish weighted averages. You modify the absolute part that remains constant by the likelyhood that that result will occur.
100 attacks at 100 damage; total expected 10,000 damage -> 30%/30% dodge/avoid -> 70 attacks for 100 damage; total expected 7,000 (on average) damage -> 30 attacks for 70 damage; total expected 2,100 (on average) damage -> average expected damage taken 9,100 damage (on average) -> total mitigation (10,000 - 9,100) / 10,000 = .009 -> percentage form 9%
When damage varies, you may dodge the bigger attacks, or the smaller ones, creating some variance, but the best and most viable way to calculate mitigation due to dodge is to use the averages. Calculating dodge mitigation also has nothing to do with health or other forms of mitigation. They interact, but 30% is 30%, the question is, 30% of what?
You want results and not data? Okay then.
What I do with those numbers is wipe out enemies quickly as possible before they get the chance to use a prolonged assault to do the same to me. The kind of damage bonuses that the offense passives give allows me to do precisely that.
There you go. Player skill and ingame experience: Two important non-data factors.
And giving a high universal damage bonus for all those types creates imbalance of its own.
When I said "average", I was refering to the average between those three passives, which are either slightly lower or slightly higher than 30%.
You're over-complicated things with a bunch of random number variables pulled from whatever you personally deem as realistic. The problem with your formula is:
1) Assumption that the total duration of a single fight involving an offensive-based hero by default involves 100 attacks from enemies with a flat 100 damage for each attack.
2) Take into no consideration of healing and other forms of mitigation, that an offense player would most definitely use in a fight to stay alive.
It's simply unrealistic to determine a conclusive average mitigation percentage from dodge when you use consistent static figures from combat that simply do not exist in the game.
*Sigh*
What I wanted was to know this huge damage gap that you seem to see, that requires such lesser ammounts of mitigation.
You provided some data, but not a result. A result would be showing how much more damage offensive passive users have over defensive passive users.
This doesn't seem to stop Night warrior. Heck, boost that damage buff and make it ranged damage. Then it's in-line with WoTW and Unstoppable.
Then you should have said that, because this:
Doesn't say that at all.
That quote implies you're refering you your 30%/30% example, because you say 30% reduction at 30% chance. Also, how are you getting an average of 30% from those three passives? Superman couldn't bend those numbers, that much, to get 30% average mitigation from them. That makes even less sense.
I read what you say, but if you don't say what you mean, I can't understand you.
I'm not over-complicating anything. I'm taking the steps neccessary to understand what things mean. It may be tedious sometimes, and I know not everybody like numbers enough to do so, but it's what I'm doing.
Healing doesn't modify mitigation, it interacts with it, but you wouldn't say that Resistance reduces damage more, just because you add a heal. You say you survive more, but resistance is still mitigating the same ammount of damage. Same for dodge.
Averages aren't exact, but they provide an expectable ammount of performance baseline. People have been doing this, in more field than this, for longer than I've been alive. Might as well benefit from their experience.
Oh you people... can't you just stop arguing and agree that big numbers are better than little numbers?
except when it is damage you are about to receive... arrghh splat
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
It's called practical experience. It's called performance evaluation having an offensive passive in the build on the field to see how I fare compared to if I was using a defensive one instead, and not in some stuffy pristine powerhouse with a bunch of combat dummies that don't fight back.
Those are my results. Take it or leave it. It's up to you.
The problem with your approach and your attempt at determining it with formulas is that it isn't at all within the context of the game's overall mechanics. Dodge is just another mitigation mechanic intertwined with other mitigation mechanics like block, defense, active defenses and so on.
Strip away all of that from the build, leave only dodge as the only form of damage mitigation, and you'd have a more solid case. Unfortunately the game doesn't work that way.
Go back and read that again and see if you can actually follow the whole thing the second time around since you didn't the first time.
My Amazon author page
How to build a freeform character...the Kenpo way
Demon Keypo's Building Guide
Freeform Builds Directory (Last updated: 04/23/2016)
Serving since September, 2009 / 65 Characters, 63 Level 40's
Lets see what happens when you add other mitigation.
Add 100% resist to the previous example. 100% resists cut all damage in half, so:
100 hits for 50 damage; expeced damage 5000 -> 70 hits for 50 damage; expected damage 3500 damage (on average) -> 30 hits for 35 damage; 1050 expected damage (on average) -> 4550 expected total damage taken -> (5000 - 4550) / 5000 = .09 -> Percentage form 9%
If you go by the overall value you get 5,450/ 10,000 = 54.5% mitigated. This is why I started with resistance. Makes things easier to look at, but it works the other way around as well. We know resistance was 50% mitigation, but dodge was supposed to be 9%, so what happened? Well, 9% of 50% is 4.5% of 100%. So, no matter how you look at it, dodge mitigats 9% on average.
Like I said in a previous post. The question is 9% of what? This is an accurate numbers analysis that has been around for a while. As an old CoHer, you should recognize this from the scrapper forums. The approach is effective, and has worked for a long time.
I can back this up. Not with numbers, but with experience as well. I can go the whole game, level 1 to 40, without ever having to put on a defensive passive, except for during alerts (which are by no means a requirement). Powersets I play mostly are Might, Munitions, Force, Power Armor, Telekinesis, and other crap here or there.
Not since On Alert have I ever had a character perform so badly that I felt that I needed a Defensive Passive. Maybe I lucked out and the only sets I play deal way more damage than what other people are using, I dunno. But I've never built a character around using dodge and avoidance, and I usually go around in Melee or Ranged Damage mode with an Offensive Passive.
Going by current performance I'm confidant in my experience that tells me that not having a passive is OP. I have yet to need to use an Active Defense, and support drones are sufficient for healing. (Not serious, well, I haven't died, or really come close to it, and support drones are sufficient for healing, and I don't even have an active defense.)
You don't need a defensive passive. You don't need an offensive passive. The game is fully playable with nothing slotted. The issue is, that when they provide these options to the player, it's their duty to ensure that there is a balance to the selection. Johnny Strong shouldn't get an inherantly greater room for growth at the high end, over Arrowhead, just because he has invuln and Arrowhead has Quarry.
That's my issue. Not saying the game isn't easy. I know full well how easy it is. I just don't feel that that excuses balance issues, because contrary to popular opinion, Difficulty =/= Balance. Balance is reflective of the relative value of options you give the players, while difficulty is a method for increasing player engagement.
It's also kind of silly, how little damage I lose when I completely remove my slotted passive that's supposed to be about a huge buff to damage, and compare to the survivability gains of a defensive passive or massive utility of a Support passive.
THANK YOU.
This is everything I've preached about since day one.
Who are you and how did you get in my head??
Seriously though, that statement is absolutely true, game balance =/= difficulty.
Question, what is gained from having excess mitigation.
Something like for more damage there is getting through the game faster... until you oneshot every single enemy..
Space, room, time, options.
You Always have a larger margin for error. More time to respond to incomming damage. Fewer power options taken for the purpose of survivability. While under high ammount of damage, excess mitigation allows you to heal with less frequency, allowing for more time to attack.
Black Jack Williams is a concept build that shouldn't be able to do anything, and is an attempt at being as "Hybrid" as possible (Team support, ranged damage, Melee damage, survivability). Because of the survivability base granted by Invulnerability, and helped by IDF, he has excess time to respond to threats, Reconstruction circuts is still a lesser heal, but it can work, he has 7 attacks (For giggles), no active defense, and can run around in a Gravitar, rezzing people, debuffing her with minigun, and looking damn fly while ricochet throwing.
When you use a defensive passive, you get to tell the game to slow the @!$# down, and take things at your pace. You get to skip some of the survival powers, should you want, still be able to survive, and still be able to accomplish silly things, but with a little more incoming damage taken. However, because it's "Excess Mitigation" as you say, you don't loose terribly much.
Having played a Quarry toon pre and post alerts plus specializations, the great amount of damage I was outputting more than justified being squishier and having to pay more attention to survivability. When On-Alert hit with the introduction of specs and modded gear, it was even easier to manage survivability and output even more damage than I would have before, even with the current dodge and avoidance percentages. It wasn't a massive struggle to do so like some of the people around here are making it out to be. I performed. I didn't faceplant so consistently that I felt I had to give up the build and playstyle.
Also, the one important intangible factor into all of it is player skill, something that's hugely ignored and unaddressed.
I could care less if the proposed formula resulting 9% or whatever average mitigation gotten from dodge has any real relevance or accuracy, because it sure as heck doesn't translate to my gameplay experience at all.
So like things are now defence passives are for when you want to muck about, and offence passives for when you want to best possible performance?
If you don't care about the method for quantifying the value of a given ammount of dodge/avoid, that's fine. It is perfectly wonderful for people to not like some of the wierd things I like, such as the numbers behind game systems.
The thing is, when you start talking about how much mitigation an ammount of dodge gives, like you did, but don't actually seem to know how much mitigation is being provided, that's when you're going to get comments. You don't have to think the numbers are fun. You don't have to care about them. However, when you're saying things that don't make sense and with nothing to back it up, it's most likely not going to be left unmentioned. You still haven't said how the dodge values "Averaged" 30%, I'm very curious how you got that, and I still think you were talking about the 30%/30% example specifically.
You mention how much mitigation your different dodge values provide, but you obviously didn't know how much, because you're disagreeing with the way you find these values, and saying you don't care. You then try to justify lesser mitigation due to an ammount of damage that offensive passive do, which is supposedly massivlely more than defensive passives, but don't actually know how much the difference is. This is outright silly. It's like when you tried to justify the changes because, somehow, offensive passive have "as much or more" mitigation than defensive passives.
Player skill is irrelevant to balance. If I can take the worst options in the game, and solo elite difficulty content, that wouldn't make them balanced. That would make me a freak.
Heroic/Legion gear on offensive passives didn't eliminate Lightning reflexes or defensive passives. Diminishing returns because LR was Dodge rating, instead of chance, is what did it in. Invulnerability, Regen, PFF, and Defiance all did incredibly well with the gear, due to layering, and continue to do so with the change, to a lesser extent. LR is also much better, because it's finally chance rather than rating.
I said it before, I'll slip on my big boy pants and suck it up, when it comes to these changes, but when you say some of these things, Imma have to mention it.
Not really. Defensive passives give much greater room for mucking about, but Offensive passives don't really have the potential for best possible performance.
Right now I'd rate the passives (In terms of Min/max growth potential):
1. T1 Support passives (AoPM, AoRP)
2. Invuln, Defiance, Nightwarrior, LR (stealth and SS are too valuable in utility for general gameplay IMHO despite less mitigation potential)
3. Regen, PFF
3.5 AoED, Offensive passives (Not much difference between performance potential of these and Regen PFF IMO, but Regen and PFF have an easier time surviving)
4. Medical Nanites, AoAC
The Damage gap is just so much smaller than the mitigation gap, that the time needed activating defense abilities, which according to various posts is more common now, especially in the realm of big game hunting, that I felt there was fairly comprable performance before, with support passives, and some offensive passive edging out defensive passives a bit, that being in team encounters. But that's the always present issue with tank stacking, and devs have been trying to deal with that forever.
Right now I don't feel it's reasonable to say Offensive passive have the potential for best performance. Some, maybe, before the changes, in certain circumstances, and not by much. Not now though.
I don't care for it because there's no real absolute way to come to a fixed percentage as to how much "average" mitigation dodge gives. You using some randomly pulled number like 100 attacks each dealing 50 or 100 damage is nowhere near what is realistically expected in combat, and then to proceed to conclude that oh, it's an average 9%.
Look dude, all I was getting at is that for each of the stated passives, both dodge and avoidance each averages at 30%, which means that the value is either slightly lower or higher than 30% In my original post. I went back to read my original post and saw that perhaps I worded it poorly, but I clarified what I meant to say in the following post. Get over it already.
The ultimate point I was making is when dodge procs, its an absolute average 30% damage resistance, meaning you're guaranteed an average 30% damage resistance which is either slightly lower or higher than, and that from personal experience at 30% dodge procs decently often enough. 30% damage resistance from avoidance layered over other forms of damage mitigation like defense is not what I'd consider something abysmal either.
I already said personal experience has shown it, which is more effective at concluding things than a whole bunch of theory-crafting and numerical analysis. I don't treat the game like a stupid spreadsheet where I have to perform a statistical analysis for every fight I'm involved in. If I'm dealing damage with three to four figure differences in my attacks along with dealing more frequent and bigger crit damage than I would with a defensive build, the dfference should already be plain to see.
Also I already mention that its well over 80% damage bonuses for the passives. Defensive passives do not give that kind of damage bonus. The distinction is there. The difference is there to see.
Actually it is. The basic critera of player skill has to exist on some level, unless you mean to say that we're expected to use a player, who is both careless in the way that they play and pays no attention to mechanics to improve themselves, should be the benchmark.
No, the gear didn't eliminate the defensive passives. When did I ever say that? It made it so that they could be substituted by using certain gear, so much so that it was pointless taking a defensive passive. That has already been proven several times in the past.
If you don't see what's wrong with an offensive build benefiting from damage mitigation almost equivalent to what a defensive one offers, you have no business lecturing about balance.
I pick 100 and 50 because they're easy to look at, and I don't have to do a full monte carlo simulation and pull an average from that. It works, you don't have to like it, or understand it, but when you talk numbers it helps to have some understanding of them.
Again: What?
Average 30% you're saying it again, and it still doesn't make sense. Funny enough you're saying "Absolute Average". Then when I do a weighted average, that's somehow voodoo. What does that mean, "Absolute Average" and when you're talking about Avoidance which is absolute, so it wouldn't have an average?
30% avoidance 100% of the time, wouldn't by abysmal, it'd actually be more than you'd have got from Silver Champions Gear pre patch. However, 30%, 30% of the time is incredibly little. 70% of the time you take 100% damage 30% of the time you take 70% damage. But, I guess, it feel like a lot?
No. Personal experience is not better than these analysis. Feel is subjective and varies. You don't have to like spreadsheets, you can keep playing the game screaming "I am the Batman!" at the screen and enjoying every minute of it, but saying I'm a "Theory-Crafter" as if I don't play the game, and ignoring actual facts doesn't work.
I play the game without a passive, can solo Elite Difficulty. ZOMG! Not having a passive is OP! Nerf not having a passive, my experience shows it!
Also, which passive boosts crit chance? Or are you just throwing the bigger crit chance line in for funzies? (if you can't guess, that's part of the whole "Experience is often clouded by things bussiness)
I have experience in the game, I double check things with analysis because: bias happens.
Thing is, I'm actually looking, not closing my eyes and trying to feel it. It's not there to see. 80% doesn't give you 80%. That's why, when I removed my passive and played with an empty passive slot, I was astonished (Shouldn't have been I knew this already, but seeing it made me sad) at how little damage I gained from my passive vs how much mitigation I sacrifice for having that passive. It also made me feel better about not trusting peoples Feel and experience when they talk about how much more damage offensive passive users deal.
No, it wasn't. It was claimed, but nobody proved it. The defensive passive user had more defense by a large margin. Exception: Quarry VS LR, but that was due to applying stupid mechanics to LR causing huge DR where there shouldn't have been any.
When a defensive passive starts at Halving damage, adding another layer provides exeptional gain. Something Offensive Passives didn't get the benefit of, outside a damage type in some cases. If you cant take the time, or expend the effort to know what the actual difference is, you have no bussiness talking about the difference. Feel free to, obviously, but again don't expect me to not point out when you make no sense.
Easy to look at sure. Realistic? Nope. Enemies don't deal a flat 50 - 100 damage for every encounter. In fact, I think it's safe to say that they don't for most encounters. Any offensive user worth their salt, depending on what the fight consists of, would clear the mob before they're allowed in 100 hits.
And yes, you have to do a full monte carlo simulation, because when you make sweeping, definitive claims like this...
...naturally I would assume that you're basing the percentages off actual ingame figures, and not some random numbers you happen to use just because they're "easy" to work with.
Urm, no champ, that's not how you properly interpret dodge chance.
30% dodge doesn't mean you take 100% damage 70% of the time. Each time you get hit, it's a 30% chance out of a RNG to mitigate avoidance % of damage, or suffer 100% damage if the dodge check fails. Due to the RNG, it's impossible to determine exactly how many times that you do successfully dodge or not.
Are you really sure you know how the dodge mechanic works?
Also the context of "absolute average" refers to the 30% avoidance damage reduction that each mentioned passive at R3 has that is slightly lower or higher than 30%, hence the term "average", that you absolutely benefit from when dodge procs. I hope this finally clears things up.
It's not a feel. I did mention that I see damage differences of three or four figures when I swap to an offensive passive. How am I feeling anything when I'm looking at obvious differences?
The mention of crit damage was meant to be supplemental and is from other sources, since you know, it makes sense to build an offensive-based toon to focus on crit to maximize DPS.
There was a previous thread where spinnytop proved it with a screenshot comparison where she slotted out a R3 LR and left a heroic breastplate with gambler's gem in. Guess you missed it.
Well GEE, it's an OFFENSIVE passive that focuses on more damage. Of course they're not going to get the same benefit as a defensive passive does. Are you seriously saying that anyone playing an offensive passive should be entitled to the kind of survivability that a defensive toon is able to have when it comes to passives?
With your misunderstanding of how dodge really works, you assumed that with 30% dodge, 70% out of 100 attacks, equating to 70 attacks, will absolutely make it through and deal 100% damage each.
Since that's not how dodge works at all, your formula is invalid.
Honest question then, how does dodge work ? I have operated under the belief (perhaps mistaken) that a 30% dodge chance means that, on average, 70% of the time your dodge will not activate and so your avoidance will not apply.
Of course resistance is in a different layer of damage calculation so that even if your dodge does not activate you will still reduce incoming damage by some amount, but that is a separate calculation and not a function of how dodge works.
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
No, whenever you get hit by an attack, a RNG of some sort takes your current dodge % into consideration and does the necessary roll to determine whether or not you successfully get the attack damage reduced by your avoidance %.
It's a 30% chance for each incoming attack, not an assured 30 out of 100% of the time (how is that even determined?) that you will definitely dodge.
I seem to be missing a something here. Not trying to be difficult, its late and Ive worked more hours this week than I care to remember.
30% is the same thing as 30 out of 100. That is what "percent" (translates to "per hundred") means.
So every time you are attacked there is a 30% chance (assuming a 30% dodge stat of course) that you will dodge the attack and so apply your avoidance to the damage of the attack. That is comparable to saying that you will dodge (on average) 30 attacks per 100. Of course that average can mean not dodging any attacks at all out of any given hundred, or may even mean dodging every attack out of a given hundred, but on average one will dodge 30 per 100.
Right ?
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
On a big enough number of attacks it should average out on 30% of the attacks being dodged. If not, the RNG is not working correctly.
None is saying that after 99 attacks of which 29 are dodged you have a 100% dodge chance on that 100th attack.
A 30% dodge chance does not guarantee that 30 attacks from a group of 100 will miss.
However, unless the RNG is broken, it will be very close to 30.
The larger your sample size gets, the closer you will get to actually having a 30% dodge rate. Because that is how random chance works.
You are correct that each has a 30% chance, regardless of previous rolls. Getting 30 dodges in a row does not guarantee that the next 70 will all hit. But again, with a large enough sample size, 30% of all attacks will be dodged.
We have no way to know if the dodged attacks will be the henchman throwing a rock for 10 damage, or Ripper Haymakering you for 100,000. Therefore, we are forced to average things out. Again, with a large enough sample, it balances.
Look at it this way:
Lets assume that you're fighting Ripper and a group of henchmen.
The henchmen shoot you 1000 times for 80-120 damage each. (Average 100 each)
They also fire 500 AoEs that hit you for 40-60 damage each. (Average 50 each)
Ripper punches you for 1,000 damage 250 times.
He also uses Haymaker for 100,000 damage 10 times.
Let's pretend that you have no Dodge, no Avoidance, and no Damage Resistance. You take full damage from each hit for 1,375,000 total.
With 30% Dodge, 30% Avoidance, and 0 Damage Resistance:
About 700 shots will hit you for 100 each. (70,000 damage)
About 300 shots will be dodged for 70 each. (21,000 damage)
About 350 AoEs will hit for 50 each. (17,500 damage)
About 150 AoEs will be dodged for 35 each. (5,250 damage)
About 175 punches will hit for 1,000 each (175,000 damage)
About 75 punches will be dodged for 700 each. (52,500 damage)
About 7 Haymakers will hit for 100,000 each. (700,000 damage)
About 3 Haymakers will be dodged for 70,000 each. (210,000 damage)
You've just taken 1,251,250 damage.
That's 1,251,250/1,375,000= 91% of the original damage.
Or 9%.
Yes, you might dodge one extra of the Haymakers. Or even two. Or none at all. But on average you will dodge 30%. And that's the only way to theoretically calculate the mitigation: 30% Dodge x 30% Avoidance = 9% mitigation.
Now, if you want to calculate the mitigation in practice, I welcome you to go out in-game on a character with 30% dodge, 30% avoidance and no damage reduction, and record a few hundred thousand attacks in your combat log. Add together all the base damage amounts, and then all the actual damage. Divide actual damage by base damage, and I'd bet that it's either 9% mitigation, or incredibly close.
Because that's how math works.
@flamingbunnyman in game. Formerly @Roderick in City of Heroes.
I concede to the fact that in the event that attacks being made against the player are in the hundreds or even a thousand, it's a large enough sample size to be sure that 30% of the attacks will be dodged. I'm not going to go against the math.
I'm definitely going to try it out in practice to see for myself too.
I also guess this is why it's especially important that an offensive player has to ensure that they're able to take out mobs as quickly as possible, and it's highly necessary to use other forms of damage mitigation to back them up if things get hairy. I'm still in the opinion that the base dodge and avoidance I'm seeing at R3 for those particular passives seem justified.
If you have 100% Resistance, you take half damage. (Base x 1/(100% + Resistance) = Base x 1/2).
Add 30% more resistance, and it's Base x 1/(100% + 130%) = 1/2.3 = 43.5% damage. You're only mitigating an extra 6.5%. And the higher your Resistance gets, the less benefit you get from each additional amount.
However, that 9% mitigation from 30% Dodge/30% Avoid will always mitigate 9% more damage, whether your Resistance is 0 or 600%.
The problem was that, before the change, people were getting Dodge up to 50% ir more and Avoid of 70% and higher, on characters with no Dodge in their passives. That's a 35% increase, minimum, in survivability. Far too high, IMO. I can still get that highon characters with Dodge Offensive passivers, and on LR, I can get stupidly high values of both.
I agree, the new numbers are just fine.
@flamingbunnyman in game. Formerly @Roderick in City of Heroes.
As I recall it is also on an outer layer compared to flat damage reduction such as is provided by Invulnerability and IDF. One of the reasons for the emergence of the Invuln/Dodge builds a while back. Applying dodge based mitigation, then getting to subtract Invuln's flat reduction after that significant reduction to incoming damage numbers, particularly combined with the pre-nerf BCR/RR, meant truly astounding levels of survivability.
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
When going from 50 to 43.5 incoming damage by increasing resistance from 100% to 130%, is a 12% extra mitigation (50-43.5/50).
With 100% resistance and when gaining 9% mitigation from dodge, on average you take 50*0.91=45.5 damage.
*spikes water supply with nyquil*
My Amazon author page
How to build a freeform character...the Kenpo way
Demon Keypo's Building Guide
Freeform Builds Directory (Last updated: 04/23/2016)
Serving since September, 2009 / 65 Characters, 63 Level 40's
My Amazon author page
How to build a freeform character...the Kenpo way
Demon Keypo's Building Guide
Freeform Builds Directory (Last updated: 04/23/2016)
Serving since September, 2009 / 65 Characters, 63 Level 40's