dev1069 Phantom Roll Effect Adjustments feedback

[Malamasala]

I find it hilarious that SE are working on changing pet rolls, when the issue really is that they only effect pets. All rolls need to hit all party members and pets. And when that is fixed, you need to change BST, PUP and DRG roll into something new. Right now you are sitting there and making meaningless changes to the pet rolls instead of correcting the flaws of the system.

It is also good to see that we have fixed attack BST roll, so that pet jobs will fall behind melee jobs from level 50 and forward. A handy proof when you want to talk about how SE tries their best to remove pet jobs from the game. And they got what they wanted in FFXIV.



It is kind of funny to read about the Gallant's roll defense choice though. I thought you hated Summoner when you gave Titan defense bonus aura, but apparently it was just your delusions that defense aura was the best defensive aura we could ever have.

PS. I've never had anyone ever request defense aura. Do you honestly believe someone would request a defense roll? No they wouldn't. Go change Gallant's roll to something useful, and FIX THE AURA ON TITAN while you are at it.

[Greatguardian]

I really should have included "effectively" because yeah, that is technically how defense works. In retrospect, saying "Much like my wiener is an effective device for extinguishing flames. Let me at that forest fire in rural Nevada, Chief!" would have been cleverer anyway.

I've been trying to find a decent explanation or model of monster pDIF/player defense effects/etc. so I can complain harder about this. I keep finding stuff about avatars and various pets instead. You actually have a concrete number for a concrete thing, so I'm hopeful you could point me towards some of this stuff or just provide a relatively thorough explanation if you can be bothered?

To be perfectly honest, I'm having the same problems finding the data that I originally read. The 1.0 cRatio bound for monsters was something that was brought up years ago at this point, I just have a fairly wonky memory. A lot of the current pDif discussion is focused on players rather than monsters, and it doesn't seem like BGWiki has been updated with the old monster pDif data (or if it has, I'm being dumb and can't find the page). A lower bound on cRatio makes sense, however, because you can see that monsters of any level never, ever have less than 0.38 cRatio as this would allow them to hit for 0 regardless of their base damage.

An exact lower bound on cRatio is fairly easy to test if someone needs to recreate the original data, it would just be immensely time consuming. As far as I know, the model it follows is the same as it is for players, aside from the lower bound and the general lack of level correction for monsters (aside from Signet). Byrth probably has a better idea of where to find data this old, if you want to pursue it further.

What this means in practice, however, is that the minimum pDif roll that any monster can hit with 1.0 cRatio is 0.699 on a non-crit - which is to say, even with "Capped" defense a monster will still be able to hit you for 70% of his total weapon damage (base + fStr). Considering the kind of base damages that the monsters you'd want to cap defense on have, and the stagnant curve for player HP growth, this isn't exactly stellar.

[doctorugh]

Is the mobs attack (at a given level) calculated just like its defense is?

http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/wiki/Defense

[Greatguardian]

I couldn't say with certainty. It's probably fairly similar.

[SpankWustler]

Thanks. That explanation makes sense to me and I'm happy to go with it.

It's easy for anyone to rule out that getting hit works like hitting because stuff with decent base damage never hits for 0 regardless of a player's defense. From there, the only two options are that every monster in the game has vastly higher attack than anyone would ever expect or that there's a lower bound of some sort. The first obviously isn't true, so yeah, a floor of 1.0 on cRatio makes sense to me.

I'd feel bad pestering Byrth about where to find information about something that sucks just so I can more bitterly express how hard Gallant's Roll is going to suck. It's not like anything will be changed either way.

[Huevriel]

We plan on setting the value of the defense boost at around 30% when the highest number is rolled. This boost will be applied to the final defensive value after the effects of gear, abilities and spells are factored in and will reduce physical damage taken. This effect will vary based on the opponent’s strength and the player’s defense stats, but we expect this defense boost to be more significant than the originally planned Phalanx effect. (In addition, players can still reduce damage even further through gear and Phalanx.)

I'm still ok with this. I am saddened, however, because I was really hoping for a phalanx roll that stacked with phalanx.
I hope the tests show positive results.
I'm biased with the player side on this one. Phalanx would be preferred in the situational sense that I'd like to see myself pull off 0 - 1 damage during parry skill ups, allowing me to pull groups of mobs at a time and expedite skill up rates.

If they say the def boosts will give better results than phalanx boost, then I'll wait and see.

I want to note that they talk about how this roll greatly affects jobs that already have high defense (i.e. PLD).
Corsair does not have too high of a defense. Will this new gallant's roll still have greater results than a phalanx roll?

[Neisan_Quetz]

No, it never will, ever, never. A phalanx type roll would at least be situationally useful. A defense roll won't be useful.

It's pretty clear the devs don't play this game or do not know how their own game works.


EDIT: Actually, whoever the flying hell on a handbasket said a defense roll would be useful needs to be taken over the hills and put down with a shotgun.

[Mirabelle]

No, it never will, ever, never. A phalanx type roll would at least be situationally useful. A defense roll won't be useful.

It's pretty clear the devs don't play this game or do not know how their own game works.


EDIT: Actually, whoever the flying hell on a handbasket said a defense roll would be useful needs to be taken over the hills and put down with a shotgun.

Yeah you'd think they'd know by now. I mean how many times have they seen a BRD use Knight's Minne?

[Camate]

There have been some comments from players mentioning that they don’t see the point of defense as a stat, so I’d like to go into some detail on it.

As defense increases over an enemy’s attack power, the amount of damage reduced gradually tapers off. If the enemy you are fighting is lower level and your defense is way higher, it becomes more difficult to gain large benefits even if you increase your defense.

In instances where your defense is reduced via an enemy action, where your character’s defense would normally be higher than an enemy’s attack power, and the gap between the two is narrowed, the amount of damage being reduced will start to vary largely. This shows that you’ll take more damage when your defense is lowered, giving meaning to the value of your defense.

Another easy way of feeling the effects of defense is to face off against an even match enemy and compare the damage received with your armor equipped and off.

Since the effects of defense increase as defense is stacked, the benefits are by no means small, so it would be really helpful if we could receive feedback with this in mind.

For reference, Mocchi provided some test data.

Setup

• Compared physical damage taken between the following situations when fighting warrior-type monsters that were 15 levels higher than the level 99 PLD/WAR (defense 460) used for testing.

Naked/with Defender active/with Defender active + food effects (black curry bun)

Results

• Naked (Defense 460): 245 damage
• Defender (Defense 575): 216 damage
• Defender + food (Defense 663): 197 damage

Depending on the situation, the numbers may not be the same, but this is simply intended to serve as reference.

[Nightfyre]

The feedback you've received has absolutely been made with that fact in mind... and Mocchi's data really only proves our point. Not trying to shoot the messenger here, but this isn't helpful. If the devs really felt that it would be informative after several pages in which the benefits and limitations of defense have already been expounded in detail, I have to admit I'm kind of insulted.