Jedi Archive
Thread: -40 Combat Speed Debuff. Does It Need a Nerf? Hard Numbers Inside.
mauvros wrote:
MLS= 120 Speed
Force Speed 2= 20 speed
----------------------------------
Total speed= 140
Warcry= -40 speed
Jedi Speed= 140
-40 speed is 29.59 percent if 140 speed. Edit: sorry its 28.95%
Ternque01 wrote:
Weapon-specific speed effects operate from a logarithmic scale which means diminishing returns.
This is very true. 40 points off 120 is a different decrease than 40 points off 100, etc.
antares
Ternque01 wrote:
mauvros wrote:
MLS= 120 Speed
Force Speed 2= 20 speed
----------------------------------
Total speed= 140
Warcry= -40 speed
Jedi Speed= 140
-40 speed is 29.59 percent if 140 speed. Edit: sorry its 28.95%
This is erroneous. Weapon-specific speed effects operate from a logarithmic scale which means diminishing returns. I'll get the figures for it later, but even if you look at it your way, the change is probably less than 10%!!!!
Secondly, I defend the debuff because the devs have always stated that a debuff that must be applied in combat should be greater than a buff that can be applied during times of peace and calm. That is their rationale to it, so please digest it.
If thats the case than it needs diminishing returns. There is no reaon a debuff of this power should be able to be chained for an entire fight. Its pretty much counters having speed buffs by more than 100% in some cases.
Its to powerful and will be brought into balance in the near future, you will see.
Weapon-specific speeds have diminishing returns after they reach a certain cap. This does not apply to MLS and the +20 speed added by Force Speed 2.
mauvros wrote:
You couldnt be more wrong (See above highlight)
MLS= 120 speed
Warcry= -40 speed
------------------------------
-34% speed
If I didn't have a class to go to right now, I'd shred your numbers completely apart the difference in modified speed arising between someone with +100 and +140 weapon-specific modified speed is probably MUCH less than 10% and probably less than 15% between 80 and 120 because these values are on a logarithmic scale. Lemme get back from class so I can find the chart for you showing this in detail.
Your math is faulty right off the bat here (not being mean), and, even so, you will not be convincing me when I have actual test numbers and a knowledge of the diminishing returns of weapon speeds that get that high.
Gimme about 2 hours, and I'll destroy what you are telling me.
antares_Kauri wrote:
Ternque01 wrote:
Weapon-specific speed effects operate from a logarithmic scale which means diminishing returns.
This is very true. 40 points off 120 is a different decrease than 40 points off 100, etc.
antares
Correct, and that counters his argument of "No matter what speed you have the decrease is only 26.4%"
That is false information collected from a crude test with to many variables to be 100% accurate.
Ternque01 wrote:
WookieOgre wrote:
Ah, just a second. AB sliced for 75% will reduce the extra damage dealt by 75%. So a Jedi will only get 25% of the extra damage which = almost nothing while non-Jedi can do an AB on regular Jedi and get FULL damage since Jedi can not slice their armor.
Point is Armor Break actually hurts Jedi more than helps. It's just people are too stupid to not get their armor sliced or use AB on a Jedi to understand why.
btw, a Jedi with no Speed2 (like me) will have a 40% decrease in speed period (I think that is too strong). Even if I had Speed2 (20% increase in speed) that is only reducing your buff by 50%. Funny how AB slicing can reduce our damage Debuff by 75% though. If you want to be fair, perhaps the debuff should be reduced by 10 points (so a reduction of 30% in speed). That seems more fair than anything. And i think saying you have to be in combat to put the special on someone so it should remain this powerful is crap.....look at our Armor Break, we have to be within 5 dam meters in combat yet it still gets reduced by 75%.
WookieeOgre, I'll say this one more time. The 75% armor break slice gives a 75% CHANCE that the effects of armor break will be mitigated. That DOES NOT read as "reducing the effects of armor break by 75%". I'm not sure many people really know the amount that Armor Break mitigates the damage. I will also say that Armor Break is the PERFECT counter to the speed debuff.
Secondly, a Jedi with +100 lightsaber speed WILL NOT have their speed cut by 40% if they have the combat speed debuff on. Have you not read anything in this thread? I'll state this again: you will only see a decrease in attack speed of approximately 26.4% regardless of your combat speed. I have gotten the same number on pikets, huurtons, and a Jedi with Force Speed 1 turned on and off. PLEASE recognize these numbers, man.
As you can see below, I didn't even bother believing your numbers as you had no idea what Armor break slice really does. You think it gives a chance, sorry it's a straight reduction by 75%. If the Jedi speed2 can reduce your Speed debuff by 75%, then I agree that is fair. Btw, I have less than 100 LS speed (non-MLS Jedi here), so what does that mean with your numbers.
Armour Break Reduction
This slice reduces the effect of the
Armour Break ability when this armour piece is hit in combat.
Order | Reduction | Customisation rate
1 | 25% | +20%
2 | 50% | +20%
3 | 75% | +20%
The first column is the order in which the slice must be made, the second is the amount in percentage terms that the Armour Break effect is reduced, with the third column being the amount added to the piece’s customisation rating
Ternque01 wrote:
mauvros wrote:
You couldnt be more wrong (See above highlight)
MLS= 120 speed
Warcry= -40 speed
------------------------------
-34% speed
If I didn't have a class to go to right now, I'd shred your numbers completely apart the difference in modified speed arising between someone with +100 and +140 weapon-specific modified speed is probably MUCH less than 10% and probably less than 15% between 80 and 120 because these values are on a logarithmic scale. Lemme get back from class so I can find the chart for you showing this in detail.
Your math is faulty right off the bat here (not being mean), and, even so, you will not be convincing me when I have actual test numbers and a knowledge of the diminishing returns of weapon speeds that get that high.
Gimme about 2 hours, and I'll destroy what you are telling me.
LOL... run off to college.. I graduatedwith aComputer Science Major with an Advanced Calculus Minorover8 years ago.
Unless you have hard data of diminishing returns from in game code your point is moot. You cant present all the facts, thus you cant come up with any number other than the hard numbers ive presented.
This isnt Quantum Mechanics. Present all the code on diminishing returns to me and ill give you exact figures. We both know we cant get our hands on that code so the discussion can only carry as far as hard numbers presented to us.
Aside from that im not even giving you exact percentages, im just roughing it. If you like based on the hard data I can give you exact percentages of infinitesimal differences.
Dont flex your brain with me son, Iwill break you... 
mauvros wrote:Unless you have hard data of diminishing returns from in game code your point is moot. You cant present all the facts, thus you cant come up with any number other than the hard numbers ive presented.
Actually, you're very wrong and shouldn't argue this point. Diminishing returns is what it is now, it was in the CU discussions, presented in alpha, and there are approximate speed equations posted here showing that. You shouldn't be brandishing words like "Dont flex your brain with me son, I will break you.." when you're incorrect on an assumption. The speed equations are driven by diminishing returns now.
antares
Point proven, thank you, drive through...
antares_Kauri wrote:
mauvros wrote:
Unless you have hard data of diminishing returns from in game code your point is moot. You cant present all the facts, thus you cant come up with any number other than the hard numbers ive presented.
Actually, you're very wrong and shouldn't argue this point. Diminishing returns is what it is now, it was in the CU discussions, presented in alpha, and there are approximate speed equations posted here showing that. You shouldn't be brandishing words like "Dont flex your brain with me son, I will break you.." when you're incorrect on an assumption. The speed equations are driven by diminishing returns now.
antares
and why dont you just stick to your debate with me. I love how you dodge questions when it suits you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several other effects that are unresistable and were intended to be that way, warcry and intimidate are the only things that make pikeman any different from the other professions, they are the defining specials and the only methods of tanking available for the profession.
Should there be resists for the Jedi effects that are unresistable?
antares
I can live with that,But the effect needs to be lowered then. -40 is to damn high considering our speed buffs have been nerfed and so have Docs, and Speed food.
Its only a matter of time until that debuff turns into -20.
What effects are you talking about anyway?
Sap? Nerfed
Stasis? Thats a 0 DPS for both.
Froce shock? Yeah, im sure that hurts so much
Stun? Resistable
Blind? Resistable
Armor break? Resistable
Choke? Resistable I think, either was its an offensive special
Weaken? Not sure, but who cares really
Intimidate? Ahhh there is one!! woot!
I was talking about any Jedi state effect that isn't resisted, whether you personally think it's useless or not, doesn't matter. You want to make pikeman's primary effects half as useable as they are now, and resisted, then I asked you if you thought it fair that jedi get all of their effects resisted. I wasn't talking about ones already resisted like blind, clearly.
So, still doubt the existance of diminishing returns somehow?
antares
Im very aware they exist. The point is we dont have exact data on how they work thus you cant come up with a 100% number on how it effects combat other than from ingame data that is not 100% accurate due to many factors.
antares_Kauri wrote:
No, point not proven. You didn't even look at the link. Approximate because it's a 3rd order polynomial derived from test data. What is your problem? Diminishing returns has been talked about for a very long time.
antares
mauvros wrote:
Im very aware they exist. The point is we dont have exact data on how they work thus you cant come up with a 100% number on how it effects combat other than from ingame data that is not 100% accurate due to many factors.
antares_Kauri wrote:
No, point not proven. You didn't even look at the link. Approximate because it's a 3rd order polynomial derived from test data. What is your problem? Diminishing returns has been talked about for a very long time.
antares
But you can very easily say that a -40 decrease at 140 speed will have a very different effect that a -40 decrease at 100 speed, or 80 speed, etc.
And as a "CS major" you should understand that good approximations are useable and in some cases all you can get or need to do what has to be done.
antares
Message Edited by antares_Kauri on 08-18-2005 09:24 AM