274 réponses à ce sujet

[joshynoob]

 Thanks! Nice to have an update from BW, im so deprived of feedback from the whole team that ill be happy to get even a completely emotionally dissociated balance change post to keep me feeling involved in the ME3 experience.

[Serkevan]

Cyonan wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

social.bioware.com/forums/forum/1/topic/343/index/11485213/1

According to this, you need something like 133% DR to take 0 damage... meaning the game tooltip, ONCE AGAIN, is lying to you when it says it reduces damage by 50%.

We need to take this into account.

According to the formula he linked, 50% DR equates to 37.5% of true DR. This translates into a 60% increase in effective health for people with a 50% DR Tech Armour.

Compare this to pre-buff, and it was around 30% true DR, with an increase in effective health of 42.9%.

So, instead of 2500 effective health with a 6/6/6/5/3 build, we get 2000 effective health. Still better than the full fitness build if we only look at health.

[Omega-202]

Cyonan wrote...

And it was still an eyeballed estimate. You asked someone to prove your math wrong and I did it. Your math isn't correct and it never will be without definite numbers. Saying that TA off only gives 0.5 more DPS under ideal situations is not something we know right now.

That's not proving the math wrong.  That's a disagreement over a premise.  You're arguing with a scientist here.  If you feel that my premises are faulty, but have no way to show a more appropriate or accurate way to discern a value, then you disagree with a theory.  Disproving me would involve you coming up with a proof, either statistical or concrete, that shows that my method and logical conclusions are faulty.  

In addition, this is an excercise in mathmatics, inherently something that's not a direct representation of the real world.  If you look back to my original statement where I argued for the cooldown difference, my argument hasn't been that one is un-arguably superior to the other in a sheer DPS calculation.  My argument always was that the difference is literally unnoticeable.  

All my math showed, an all I ever set out to show, was that when put out into the field, the difference in total potential power based DPS is literally non-existant due to a myriad of other factors at play all being more significant than both the 30% power boost and the 20% cooldown penalty.

So, no, you didn't disprove anything.  You just disagree with my method.  

[molecularman]

40% DR is about +350 health on human sentinel according to egermano's awesome thread. Feel free to calculate the rest of them yourselves http://social.biowar...ndex/11481777/1 .

BE (warp+throw) damage on gold is 3000+, my estimate is at least 3200 or something. Try using a couple of BEs on a brute and see how it goes

Modifié par molecularman, 22 mai 2012 - 11:17 .

[Rahabzu]

This just buffed everything I use, tech armor, batarian sentinel, and sentry turrets+rockets... Feeling good today.

[Longhammer808]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

nuculerman wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Longhammer808 wrote...

After some consideration, point to Nuculerman. Good use of "ad hominem" to describe someone who just straight up called you names.

Straight up calling someone a name isn't an ad hominem.


Not an ad hominem -
Person A: I like candy. Candy is the best.
Person B: You're a ****ing idiot and can go die in a fire. Ice cream is the best!

An ad hominem -
Person A: I like candy. Candy is the best.
Person B: Of course you'd say that, you own a candy store. Ice cream is the best.

Which was his point.  He gave the point to me, despite the fact I incorrectly used "ad hominem" which he pointed out with sarcasm.  However, I called it "laced" with ad hominem because the implication was I didn't know or couldn't do simple math, and therefore my point was irrelevant.  Considering he didn't address "potential" DPS at all, I think it's a valid analysis.

An insulting implication that you read into a statement is also not an ad hominem argument.

Look, getting involved in any debate and saying "my opponent's view on damage rates is invald because he is a [insert deragatory term for unintelligent here]" is technically an ad hominem attack, because the debate was over damage rates, not the level of someone's intelligence. I know Omega's argument wasn't just name calling; I get that.

Maybe it was a kneejerk reaction to support the Nuc-man, I guess I got a little weirded out when names start flying during what should be a riveting debate. Both Nuc and Omega seem to have the chops to defend their positions.

In the end, I would say both positions have validity. The time difference for a new Tech Armor shouldn't be significantly noticeable, but if you did a time trial, perhaps the non-Tech Armor caster might have a slight edge. It should all break down to individual playing style.

[molecularman]

Wait, does force really affect BE damage? I have never really figured that out for sure

Modifié par molecularman, 22 mai 2012 - 11:21 .

[GodlessPaladin]

Longhammer808 wrote...
Look, getting involved in any debate and saying "my opponent's view on damage rates is invald because he is a [insert deragatory term for unintelligent here]" is technically an ad hominem attack

  Except Omega never said anything like that.  He said Nuc was an idiot because he was wrong, not wrong because he was an idiot.  Those statements are very importantly distinct.  One is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad hominem, one is not.

because the debate was over damage rates, not the level of someone's
intelligence.

  Inserting extra commentary that is not directly relevant to the debate is not any kind of logical fallacy, let alone an ad hominem argument.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 22 mai 2012 - 11:35 .

[Omega-202]

Longhammer808 wrote...


Maybe it was a kneejerk reaction to support the Nuc-man, I guess I got a little weirded out when names start flying during what should be a riveting debate. Both Nuc and Omega seem to have the chops to defend their positions.

In the end, I would say both positions have validity. The time difference for a new Tech Armor shouldn't be significantly noticeable, but if you did a time trial, perhaps the non-Tech Armor caster might have a slight edge. It should all break down to individual playing style.

Please look back in the thread.  Nuc literally never refuted a thing I said other than making blanket statements and trying to discredit me for calling him names.  

A real world trial is the only way to conclusively determine this, but the facts shown with my math is that the bonuses up and down from Tech Armor in regards to its damage potential are infinitely more irrelevant than so many other factors.  

A single poorly timed reload, a single instance of getting stuck on a wall, a single server hiccup all add up to a larger reduction in your damage per second than the effects of Tech Armor.  Hell, if you sneeze during a match, you're wasting more time and damage than Tech Armor would either up or down.

The only place that the 30% power bonus matters is taking out Troopers, Husks and Cannibals.  30% is the difference between a 1-shot kill and having an enemy on the floor with a bar of health left.

The fact is, you're sacrificing nothing (in terms of the power itself) in order to gain a power that gives you 40% damage resistance and the ability to stun everything around you in an emergency.  You can't make an argument in regards to the sustained explosion DPS.  You will be more durable than you could be from just Fitness.  

Modifié par Omega-202, 22 mai 2012 - 11:29 .

[Cyonan]

Omega-202 wrote...
That's not proving the math wrong.  That's a disagreement over a premise.  You're arguing with a scientist here.  If you feel that my premises are faulty, but have no way to show a more appropriate or accurate way to discern a value, then you disagree with a theory.  Disproving me would involve you coming up with a proof, either statistical or concrete, that shows that my method and logical conclusions are faulty.  

In addition, this is an excercise in mathmatics, inherently something that's not a direct representation of the real world.  If you look back to my original statement where I argued for the cooldown difference, my argument hasn't been that one is un-arguably superior to the other in a sheer DPS calculation.  My argument always was that the difference is literally unnoticeable.  

All my math showed, an all I ever set out to show, was that when put out into the field, the difference in total potential power based DPS is literally non-existant due to a myriad of other factors at play all being more significant than both the 30% power boost and the 20% cooldown penalty.

So, no, you didn't disprove anything.  You just disagree with my method.  

I actually pointed out that your theory relies on information that we do not know to be true. There's a possibility it's true, but it's not confirmed fact right now. You can call that proving it wrong or disagreeing with your methods or whatever you want.

Though while I might be arguing with scientist, you're arguing with a programmer. We do not deal in estimates, we deal in solid definate numbers =P

[Xaijin]

Cyonan wrote...

aaronisbla wrote...

it got a 10% increase, what more do u want?

More damage reduction isn't going to let things tank unless the DR because so high that nothing can deal enough damage in the duration of a firefight to kill you.

The Krogan Sentinel has 5600 effective health now under the right conditions(not counting rage because of how unreliable it is). The Human Vanguard has 1650.

The Human Vanguard tanks better than the Krogan Sentinel. provided you're hosting and don't run into the Vanguard bug.

Pretty much this.

[GodlessPaladin]

Xaijin wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

aaronisbla wrote...

it got a 10% increase, what more do u want?

More damage reduction isn't going to let things tank unless the DR because so high that nothing can deal enough damage in the duration of a firefight to kill you.

The Krogan Sentinel has 5600 effective health now under the right conditions(not counting rage because of how unreliable it is). The Human Vanguard has 1650.

The Human Vanguard tanks better than the Krogan Sentinel. provided you're hosting and don't run into the Vanguard bug.

Pretty much this.

Indeed.  The Sentinels are still bad tanks.

[Omega-202]

Cyonan wrote...

I actually pointed out that your theory relies on information that we do not know to be true. There's a possibility it's true, but it's not confirmed fact right now. You can call that proving it wrong or disagreeing with your methods or whatever you want.

Though while I might be arguing with scientist, you're arguing with a programmer. We do not deal in estimates, we deal in solid definate numbers =P

One of you people.....

When you spend a career using math to put you on the right track, you learn that estimates are all you can hold on to.  You can't see an atom, you'll never be able to weigh out a perfect amount of material, you'll never be able to guarantee that there isn't a frequency shift in an instrument.  When it comes to excercises like this all math does is put you in the ballpark.

That's all my math was attempting.  We don't have the numbers, we don't have the formulas.  Its a system too complex for our current understanding, so you do the best you can to model it and draw some conclusions.  See my previous post for what that conclusion is.

[DaDiddles]

This whole thread has gotten completely ridiculous. Everyone is arguing about nothing but semantics at this point.

[molecularman]

Please don't make the mods close their own thread

[Longhammer808]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Longhammer808 wrote...
Look, getting involved in any debate and saying "my opponent's view on damage rates is invald because he is a [insert deragatory term for unintelligent here]" is technically an ad hominem attack

  Except Omega never said anything like that.  He said Nuc was an idiot because he was wrong, not wrong because he was an idiot.  Those statements are very importantly distinct.  One is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad hominem, one is not.

because the debate was over damage rates, not the level of someone's
intelligence.

  Inserting extra commentary that is not directly relevant to the debate is not any kind of logical fallacy, let alone an ad hominem argument.

Point taken. I'm not trying to win any arguments here. It was simply my opinion, and I'm admitting that it clouded my perception of what was going on. I still feel that both arguments are essentially valid.

[Omega-202]

Longhammer808 wrote...

Point taken. I'm not trying to win any arguments here. It was simply my opinion, and I'm admitting that it clouded my perception of what was going on. I still feel that both arguments are essentially valid.

One argument was true, backed with math and came to a logical conclusion that showed that despite any preconceived notions by the debater (I didn't think that the math was going to come out so close, I was willing to bet 100 pts up or down) his point of view was correct.

The other was just a blank statement with no proof to back it, revolved solely around discrediting the character of the other person even though they were the first person to begin speaking condescendingly and came to no conclusion other than the original assertion that one option was inherently superior in the argued over facet.  

There's no validity to Nuc's argument.  It wasn't even an argument, it was a temper tantrum.

[Longhammer808]

Omega-202 wrote...

Longhammer808 wrote...


Maybe it was a kneejerk reaction to support the Nuc-man, I guess I got a little weirded out when names start flying during what should be a riveting debate. Both Nuc and Omega seem to have the chops to defend their positions.

In the end, I would say both positions have validity. The time difference for a new Tech Armor shouldn't be significantly noticeable, but if you did a time trial, perhaps the non-Tech Armor caster might have a slight edge. It should all break down to individual playing style.

Please look back in the thread.  Nuc literally never refuted a thing I said other than making blanket statements and trying to discredit me for calling him names.  

A real world trial is the only way to conclusively determine this, but the facts shown with my math is that the bonuses up and down from Tech Armor in regards to its damage potential are infinitely more irrelevant than so many other factors.  

A single poorly timed reload, a single instance of getting stuck on a wall, a single server hiccup all add up to a larger reduction in your damage per second than the effects of Tech Armor.  Hell, if you sneeze during a match, you're wasting more time and damage than Tech Armor would either up or down.

The only place that the 30% power bonus matters is taking out Troopers, Husks and Cannibals.  30% is the difference between a 1-shot kill and having an enemy on the floor with a bar of health left.

The fact is, you're sacrificing nothing (in terms of the power itself) in order to gain a power that gives you 40% damage resistance and the ability to stun everything around you in an emergency.  You can't make an argument in regards to the sustained explosion DPS.  You will be more durable than you could be from just Fitness.  

Clearly, I wandered into the middle of a fire fight and I deserve what I get.

But I'm offering my acknowledgement that your theory is sound (you get better damage protection and sacrifice no significant cooldown loss, let me know if I'm misinterpreting your position), just as the other argument that cooldowns are faster without Tech Armor is also valid. I am not going to say one or the other is mire right: if you use tech armor and like it, the new buff is a boon, if you operate without tech armor, it's not going to affect you.

I would submit maybe a time trial would be for everyone's benefit. I admit I've only seen one:w a fairly thorough Black Widow vs. Javelin on a Gold Atlas that seemed to put that question to rest.

[Omega-202]

molecularman wrote...

Please don't make the mods close their own thread

The fact that nothing has happened to this thread speaks so many volumes.  The questions start now:

A) Have they left it because facts and real debate give it enough validity to not be editted?

Have they left it because they're working on other things that are more important?  They've been awful quiet lately.

C) Have they left it because they're currently understaffed?  ME3 multiplayer has been out for a few months and I'm sure BioWare has better places for mods, community advocates and developers to spend their time.  Again, they've been awfully quiet lately.

[Omega-202]

Longhammer808 wrote...

But I'm offering my acknowledgement that your theory is sound (you get better damage protection and sacrifice no significant cooldown loss, let me know if I'm misinterpreting your position),

Correct for the most part.  You get better damage protection and the cooldown loss and power boost are both a wash and insignificant in the end.  

Longhammer808 wrote... just as the other argument that cooldowns are faster without Tech Armor is also valid. 

That wasn't his argument.  It was the DPS is inherently better without TA.  He made claims (page 4) that the Asari Adept was inherently a better DPS caster than the Sentinel which by my argument is shown to be completely false.  The only significant difference is Stasis vs Durability and all facets of Warp/Throw are in all practical cases identical.

So his original assertion (page 3) is wrong.  There's no validity to it.

[Longhammer808]

Omega-202 wrote...

Longhammer808 wrote...

But I'm offering my acknowledgement that your theory is sound (you get better damage protection and sacrifice no significant cooldown loss, let me know if I'm misinterpreting your position),

Correct for the most part.  You get better damage protection and the cooldown loss and power boost are both a wash and insignificant in the end.  

Longhammer808 wrote... just as the other argument that cooldowns are faster without Tech Armor is also valid. 

That wasn't his argument.  It was the DPS is inherently better without TA.  He made claims (page 4) that the Asari Adept was inherently a better DPS caster than the Sentinel which by my argument is shown to be completely false.  The only significant difference is Stasis vs Durability and all facets of Warp/Throw are in all practical cases identical.

So his original assertion (page 3) is wrong.  There's no validity to it.

Sir, clearly I am not going to convince YOU that the other argument is valid! 

Let us meet on the field of battle and smite the Reapers/Geth/Cerberus over and over and over again, for there is no fourth option to be smoten! 

[Drummernate]

Whoever says the Krogan Sentinel cannot tank is obviously terrible...

I played a few matches with him earlier before the patch buffing TA and I was still taking hits from 3 Geth troopers at once and still having time to get to cover before I got to 1 bar of health.

Unlike the Geth Infiltrator who would have died to one 4 shot burst from only one Trooper.

I also had time to reload my Claymore without reload glitching while being burned by a Pyro and then shotgun melee it. (With 3 bars of health left.)

Not to mention that I only had the first 5% damage reduction upgrade and level 3 fitness. I was using a cyclonic modulator though, but that is still tons better than all the other characters.

Modifié par Drummernate, 23 mai 2012 - 12:14 .

[tfoltz]

XxTaLoNxX wrote...

tfoltz wrote...

I do 6/6/6/3/5 on human sentinel. It will be even greater now.

You should probably change that to a 6/6/6/4/4 build. The shield recharge is negligible at best.

I find the increase in power and/or weapon damage negligible. Still 190% cooldown w/ carnifex X and one shot husks with throw...and ultimately I prefer the shield recharge a lot more. Different strokes.

Modifié par tfoltz, 23 mai 2012 - 12:16 .

[Cyonan]

Omega-202 wrote...

One of you people.....

When you spend a career using math to put you on the right track, you learn that estimates are all you can hold on to. You can't see an atom, you'll never be able to weigh out a perfect amount of material, you'll never be able to guarantee that there isn't a frequency shift in an instrument. When it comes to excercises like this all math does is put you in the ballpark.

That's all my math was attempting. We don't have the numbers, we don't have the formulas. Its a system too complex for our current understanding, so you do the best you can to model it and draw some conclusions. See my previous post for what that conclusion is.

The only thing is we aren't looking at atoms, but rather how a computer calculates damage. I don't entirely disagree with your statement that the amount is insigificant(actually I completely agree with it), however I do disagree with how you came about getting it, because it isn't a guarantee'd thing.

There are a few things we do know. Biotic Explosions have a max damage of 250 and 1000 force(Datamined from game files). With 100% from perks, that means 500 damage and 2000 force. In your example of 2500 damage per biotic explosion, that means that 1 force = 1 damage.

Using Warp - Detonate, Expose, Pierce and Throw - Radius, Detonate, Force/Damage with 35% power/force from Alliance Training and 200% recharge from weapon weight. I also used your +0.13 and +0.08 seconds for Tech Armour's casting speed penalty.

Without Tech Armour

Warp - 387.5 Damage or 512.5 Damage vs armour/barriers
Throw - 300 Damage and 1290 force
Biotic Explosion - 500 damage and 2000 force
Time for 1 cycle - 3.69 seconds

186.31 DPS or 220.19 DPS vs armour/barriers
891.60 Force/Second

1077.91 Total/Second or 1111.79 vs armour/barriers

With Tech Armour

Warp - 462.5 Damage or 587.5 Damage vs armour/barriers
Throw - 360 Damage/1290 Force
Biotic Explosion - 500 Damage and 2000 Force
Time for 1 cycle - 3.9 seconds

210.90 DPS or 242.95 DPS vs armour/barriers
843.59 Force/Second

1054.49 Total/Second or 1086.54 vs armour

The only problem with using 1 force = 1 damage, is that we all know Throw isn't hitting that hard. However, no matter what the damage values are too close to matter.

I am also aware that this math only reinforces your point, but my point was never that you were wrong, but merely that you used the wrong methods to get the wrong answer =P

Modifié par Cyonan, 23 mai 2012 - 12:23 .