105 réponses à ce sujet

[Catastrophy]

I'd say lag, long animations and a dodge that gets you to places you don't want to be in. I don't know about character speed but that could be a factor, too.

 

I play a lot characters fitnessless and it's probably just a subtle thing that makes a character more tanky / evasive. Take for example the Phoenix classes - there was a big discussion back then whether their shields were bugged. AFAIK they weren't and I just related their higher squishyness to longer animations, that leave them exposed to fire, especially under lag conditions.

[Deerber]

I still can't believe the Seeker Swarms give the stated DR, though.

Test it yourself then, it should be decently easy to get a rough idea of how much DR they give. Remember that out of cover DR is on a 140 basis, so 40% is what you usually call 28%, roughly. Bioware, I know...

+2 for not whinging about L2P issues with quarian

-1 for crutch scanner

If you're not using the scanner on him, I have bad news for you man...

[Quarian Master Race]

If you're not using the scanner on him, I have bad news for you man...

Does scanner increase deeps? No? There are 8 enemies, not 800, and they're all dumb and predictable.

Real quarians use their superior intellect and occasionally tac scan to wallbang, not inferior technology co-opted from uppity toasters.

Crutch scanner confirmed useless and thrown out the airlock along with other pointless junk like fitness, damage reduction and caster/power builds.

[Deerber]

Does scanner increase deeps? No? There are 8 enemies, not 800, and they're all dumb and predictable.

Real quarians use their superior intellect and occasionally tac scan to wallbang, not inferior technology co-opted from uppity toasters.

Crutch scanner confirmed useless and thrown out the airlock along with other pointless junk like fitness, damage reduction and caster/power builds.

 

Lol. Putting aside your roleplaying stubborness, try the scanner on him. It makes it a completely different kit

[JohnnyQPublic]

ACA is one of those kits that it took me a few respecs to find a build I was happy with. 

 

 

This is the exact same build I use (including weapon, mods, and equipment), except I put 6 into Dark Channel and no fitness.  I also take radius at rank 4 of Dark Sphere.

[Dovakiin_N7]

There are so many ways to play him that in a single match he goes from squishy(No fitness and you have thrown all your 4 SS)  to decently tanky (no swarms are thrown). What you need to remember that even if he (really) is decently tanky you cannot expect to stand face to face to a phantom, Collector captain,  goon or marauder squads. When sneaked up enemy started shooting you, while truly squishy characters would be dead, ACA could survive a first few hits... but not the barrage. When you start to get hi, use wings. They are incredible.

[capn233]

Test it yourself then, it should be decently easy to get a rough idea of how much DR they give. Remember that out of cover DR is on a 140 basis, so 40% is what you usually call 28%, roughly. Bioware, I know...

 

40% is 40%.

 

Also 1+ 0.4 - 0.4 = 1

[Marksmad is waving goodbye]

40% is 40%.

 

Also 1+ 0.4 - 0.4 = 1

Deerber means that the 40% DR bonus component then comprises 28% of the total DR.

 

Although now that I think about it, that doesn't seem the correct way to look at it. One could equally say that the kit's defences only need to deal with 60% of the damage, depending on from which direction the DR is applied...and Biovar's understanding of percentages is radically different from mine.

[Deerber]

40% is 40%.

 

Also 1+ 0.4 - 0.4 = 1

 

You mean that the DR and the opponents' out of cover damage bonus stack additively one with the other? It was my understanding that they had to be multiplied...

[q5tyhj]

The whole point is a kit with 1000+ shield and DR bonuses should be tanky and I would play him accordingly otherwise I'd just stick to Drelling...

He is tanky- relative to most other adepts, not relative to, say, a Krogan. And as Deerber pointed out earlier when he was talking about Drell and the advantages of speed, this game is all messed up as far as the enemy damage levels proportional to player health and shield/barriers on the higher difficulties, which ends up fairly drastically devaluing health/shields/barriers in general on those levels (as well as increasing the value of speed and player DPS).

[capn233]

You mean that the DR and the opponents' out of cover damage bonus stack additively one with the other? It was my understanding that they had to be multiplied...

 

Damage Taken effects all just add together.

 

The reason people thought it was inefficient was because they made incorrect assumptions about enemy damage.

[akots1]

Does scanner increase deeps? No? There are 8 enemies, not 800, and they're all dumb and predictable.

Real quarians use their superior intellect and occasionally tac scan to wallbang, not inferior technology co-opted from uppity toasters.

Crutch scanner confirmed useless and thrown out the airlock along with other pointless junk like fitness, damage reduction and caster/power builds.

I don't think Deerber got it. You win this round though by a margin.

[PurpGuy1]

+2 for not whinging about L2P issues with quarian

-1 for crutch scanner

 

Take a Geth apart, this is in his head.  Who put it in there?

 

That's Quarian technology you're talking about...

[Deerber]

Damage Taken effects all just add together.

The reason people thought it was inefficient was because they made incorrect assumptions about enemy damage.

I'm sorry, disregard my last post, I got confused.


Still, 40% "listed" DR equals roughly a 28% "real" DR, in the sense that it saves you 40 damage every 140, which is roughly 28 damage every 100. This is what I mean when I say it actually is 28% DR. If you expect it to save you 40 damage out of 100, you're gonna find it underwhelming.

[TheBunz]

That huge dome is so easy to headshot.

[capn233]

I'm sorry, disregard my last post, I got confused.


Still, 40% "listed" DR equals roughly a 28% "real" DR, in the sense that it saves you 40 damage every 140, which is roughly 28 damage every 100. This is what I mean when I say it actually is 28% DR. If you expect it to save you 40 damage out of 100, you're gonna find it underwhelming.

 

 

It will indeed save you 40 damage out of 100, as long as you are docked in cover and don't have the out of cover penalty applied.

[Deerber]

It will indeed save you 40 damage out of 100, as long as you are docked in cover and don't have the out of cover penalty applied.

 

Right, which is about 1% of the time of a game. And, only if your enemies are shooting from the back or the flank, so it's more something like 0.1%.

 

I'll stick with calling it 28%, thanks

[capn233]

Right, which is about 1% of the time of a game. And, only if your enemies are shooting from the back or the flank, so it's more something like 0.1%.

 

I'll stick with calling it 28%, thanks

 

Or from the front if you are leaning out.

 

Call it what you want but don't post it.  It just adds to confusion about DR.

[Deerber]

Or from the front if you are leaning out.

 

Call it what you want but don't post it.  It just adds to confusion about DR.

 

Right, so... 0.3%?

 

Actually, I think it makes things very easy: just divide by 1.4 and know what your true DR is. What's hard about that?

[capn233]

You're calling it "true DR" which is already a fallacy.  It isn't true except compared to theoretical damage and not true rated damage.

 

If you want something true then it would be the opposite of the sum of the damage taken bonuses and penalties.  Or you could go with the final multiplier, which is just 1 + sum of bonuses and penalties.

 

An ACA with SS-40%DR has a true DR of 0 out of cover, or 40% in cover.  The multiplier would be 1 or 0.6.

 

An HA with no stat DR would have a true DR of -40% out of cover, or 0% in cover, for multipliers of 1.4 or 1 respectively.

 

This means that if an enemy attack has a value of 100 (on Gold that means it would be one with a base of 40 since there is a 2.5x multiplier), it still has that value before damage taken modifies it.  It may finally become a 140 damage applied if you had 0 stat DR and -40% true DR, but that doesn't mean it is "supposed" to be 140.

[Deerber]

You're calling it "true DR" which is already a fallacy.  It isn't true except compared to theoretical damage and not true rated damage.

 

If you want something true then it would be the opposite of the sum of the damage taken bonuses and penalties.  Or you could go with the final multiplier, which is just 1 + sum of bonuses and penalties.

 

An ACA with SS-40%DR has a true DR of 0 out of cover, or 40% in cover.  The multiplier would be 1 or 0.6.

 

An HA with no stat DR would have a true DR of -40% out of cover, or 0% in cover, for multipliers of 1.4 or 1 respectively.

 

This means that if an enemy attack has a value of 100 (on Gold that means it would be one with a base of 40 since there is a 2.5x multiplier), it still has that value before damage taken modifies it.  It may finally become a 140 damage applied if you had 0 stat DR and -40% true DR, but that doesn't mean it is "supposed" to be 140.

 

... You do realise that your whole logic relies on a simple definition of what the damage stats are, right? Which means, that you're talking semantics. ... Right?

[Marksmad is waving goodbye]

You're calling it "true DR" which is already a fallacy.  It isn't true except compared to theoretical damage and not true rated damage.

 

If you want something true then it would be the opposite of the sum of the damage taken bonuses and penalties.  Or you could go with the final multiplier, which is just 1 + sum of bonuses and penalties.

 

An ACA with SS-40%DR has a true DR of 0 out of cover, or 40% in cover.  The multiplier would be 1 or 0.6.

 

An HA with no stat DR would have a true DR of -40% out of cover, or 0% in cover, for multipliers of 1.4 or 1 respectively.

 

This means that if an enemy attack has a value of 100 (on Gold that means it would be one with a base of 40 since there is a 2.5x multiplier), it still has that value before damage taken modifies it.  It may finally become a 140 damage applied if you had 0 stat DR and -40% true DR, but that doesn't mean it is "supposed" to be 140.

 

This is the kind of post that makes me feel that I really don't drink enough.

[capn233]

... You do realise that your whole logic relies on a simple definition of what the damage stats are, right? Which means, that you're talking semantics. ... Right?

 

I am telling you how damage is calculated but you don't want to pay attention.

[PurpGuy1]

TL;DR:

 

"More is good"

[Deerber]

I am telling you how damage is calculated but you don't want to pay attention.

 

I am paying attention, man. And I still didn't see anything that convinced me that saying that 40% listed DR translates to 28% in reality is wrong