Author Topic: Defense Bonuses and IO Sets page  (Read 5152 times)

CmdrAdeon

  • Minion
  • **
  • Posts: 33
Defense Bonuses and IO Sets page
« on: February 27, 2010, 04:54:29 AM »
So sometime back the devs changed defense bonuses for IO sets so that every typed bonus affected two damage types and added a second half-value defense bonus of the opposite type (positional bonuses got a secondary typed bonus and typed bonuses got a secondary positional bonus).

Someone went through and updated the individual set pages (or at least the vast majority of them) but the summary pages never got updated.
http://wiki.cohtitan.com/wiki/Invention_Origin_Enhancement_Sets
http://wiki.cohtitan.com/wiki/Invention_Origin_Enhancement_Set_Bonuses

I'd like to go through and add this information tot hose pages but I'm not sure how best to format it.

I've come up with three ideas, but I'm not sure which will work best:

1. Color the bonuses using the current system and include a note at the top of the page explaining that they are actually half

2. Color the bonuses the same and add a comment such as (Sec) or (Half) to each one

3. Do a new color system for these bonuses


My inclination is for number 2. Number 1 is potentially confusing for people and number 3 breaks the fact that we are basically using the current con system for the strength of bonuses.

I've done a mockup on my talk page to show what I'm thinking of. It's kinda clunky so I wanted to see what people think before I do it for the entire page:
http://wiki.cohtitan.com/wiki/User_talk:CmdrAdeon#IO_Sets_Defense_Formatting

Zombie Man

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 296
Re: Defense Bonuses and IO Sets page
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2010, 05:38:11 AM »
I'm leaning toward #2 myself. Although we'll have to make clear that the 'half' refers to the bonus of the main attribute and not the base value of the secondary attribute.

E.g., in the example you give on your talk page, Zephyr's AoE Defense bonus is orange/level 4, that's a 2.5 multiplier to the base of AoE Defense which is 1.25% for a total of 3.13%. The Cold/Fire half-bonus is half of that value, 1.565%.

However, if someone was looking at the colored chart they would see Cold/Fire Defense (Half) in orange and think... 2.5 multiplier x .5 (half) x the Cold/Fire base of .63% = .79%, but that would be wrong.

Perhaps writing it as: +Half(Fire/Cold Def) would help remind everyone that it's half the value of the main component.


Aggelakis

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,001
Re: Defense Bonuses and IO Sets page
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2010, 05:45:57 AM »
#1 and #2. There should be an explanation up top what (Half) means, otherwise it's just a random word that isn't explained.
Bob Dole!! Bob Dole. Bob Dole! Bob Dole. Bob Dole. Bob Dole... Bob Dole... Bob... Dole...... Bob...


ParagonWiki
OuroPortal

CmdrAdeon

  • Minion
  • **
  • Posts: 33
Re: Defense Bonuses and IO Sets page
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2010, 06:24:11 AM »
E.g., in the example you give on your talk page, Zephyr's AoE Defense bonus is orange/level 4, that's a 2.5 multiplier to the base of AoE Defense which is 1.25% for a total of 3.13%. The Cold/Fire half-bonus is half of that value, 1.565%.

However, if someone was looking at the colored chart they would see Cold/Fire Defense (Half) in orange and think... 2.5 multiplier x .5 (half) x the Cold/Fire base of .63% = .79%, but that would be wrong.
I should've mentioned this but the summary page is outdated too. Basically they eliminated all the single typed bonuses (except Psychic) and increased the multipliers for the double types. I plan to update that page to, but want to double check the math first.

EDIT: Ok, I've just taken a closer look and basically what they did was combine the various defense bonuses. The single Typed Bonuses were removed completely (except Psychic) and replaced with a two-type bonus. The two type bonuses were upgraded from 0.63% to 1.25%. In addition every defense bonus (except psychic) had an opposite bonus with a magnitude of 0.63% added to it. The pairings are consistent (presumably for Rule of Fives reasons) and are
Melee <> Smashing and Lethal
Ranged <> Energy and Negative Energy
AoE <> Fire and Cold

EDIT2: Ok. Damage sets are done but sleepy time now.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2010, 08:12:23 AM by CmdrAdeon »

Zombie Man

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 296
Re: Defense Bonuses and IO Sets page
« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2010, 09:05:47 AM »
Hunh, I didn't realize that's what the underlying magic Castle did in order to add in the extra def bonuses.

CmdrAdeon

  • Minion
  • **
  • Posts: 33
Re: Defense Bonuses and IO Sets page
« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2010, 09:08:30 PM »
Ok, done. As a side note I noticed while doing it that there are several bonus types we don't have a scale in place for. Most of them are unique (i.e. the 3 point Kb protection on a few sets and some of the PvP set bonuses) but the status resistance bonus appears in multiple different magnitudes so we should be able to do a scale for that one. Unfortunately I don't have any slotted so I can't check the naming convention.

Zombie Man

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 296
Re: Defense Bonuses and IO Sets page
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2010, 11:37:29 PM »
The KB Protection form the Special Global IOs (Steadfast, Zephyr, and Karma) are named after the IO, just like Luck of the Gambler's 7.5% recharge bonus.

The KB Protection that comes from IO Sets have the generic small/large/etc... naming convention. 3-slotting Kinetic Crash and having the Steadfast Special looks like this under Real Numbers Combat Attributes:


    Steadfast Protection: Knockback Protection +4.0 from Self
    Small Knockback Protection Bonus +3 from Self


The other sets that give a KB Prot are from the PvP sets and they're also +3 protection. So, all we know is that +3 KB Mag Protection is called 'Small.' *If* KB Protection is not on a unique scaling system, then the base KB Mag Protection is 2.

Base 2 x 1.5 Small = +3 Mag Protection.

CmdrAdeon

  • Minion
  • **
  • Posts: 33
Re: Defense Bonuses and IO Sets page
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2010, 01:22:50 AM »
I think we might as well assume that it follows the normal scale until proven otherwise. I'll add a note to the summary page stating that though