Difference between revisions of "Talk:Invention Origin Enhancements"

Revision as of 03:08, 24 February 2007

I have a full list of the projected Set Bonuses (granted when you slot 2 to 6 enhancements from a single Set), but I'm not sure how to implement it here on the site. For now, here's a rough list of the Set Bonus names, in the order in which they are granted:--Iakona 19:49, 13 February 2007 (PST)

I've deleted the info dump, as I have now formatted it onto the page itself in table format. I placed it in it's own section, in alphabetical order, for a couple of reasons. In a perfect world the info would be added to the same tables as the existing effects/level info. But those tables are already quite wide, and the new info is even wider in many cases. Putting them all together in one table would result in an extremely wide table, with IMHO likely bad formatting problems for some or many browsers. So I've left it in a separate table for the bonus effects. And I put it alphabetically so it can serve as an easy lookup for people who have gotten the rest of the info from the first set of tables.

On a different issue, we are getting some contradictory info that may not be resolved until we start seeing things go to Test. For instance, Positron talked about the 3-slot bonus for the Manticore set being "Energy/Negative Energy resistance". But the data dump lists it as "Increased Positive/Negative Energy Def". Resistance != Defense. Which is it? Is the dump inacurate? Did Positron misspeak? Has it changed? Who knows? Not us. For now, I'm leaving it as the dump stated, just taking note of the contradiction. I'm sure a lot of this data will change as we get into the testing of it.

And one final note. Someone mentioned this on the boards. There appear to be some glaring holes in the sets. There's no Taunt buffs. No ToHit buffs. No Debuffs at all. Are there going to be nothing in the rare sets for these types, or are we still missing some sets? No way of knowing yet. - Sister Leortha 07:30, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Table Background Color

Personally, I'd rather see a lighter color of yellow like the following. Anyone else have any thoughts? The following is LightGoldenRodYellow - Snorii 07:56, 16 February 2007 (PST)

I prefer SeaShell (way down at the bottom) --Konoko 08:12, 16 February 2007 (PST)

I don't have a strong preference for which color is used, I just wanted to place the "groups" ones in a separate color to make it much more readable as to how the pairs of tables flowed. If someone wants to tinker with which colors are used, go ahead, please do so.

Group Bonuses LightGoldenRodYellow

Group Bonuses LightYellow

Group Bonuses OldLace

Group Bonuses PapayaWhip

Group Bonuses SeaShell

Questions for Iakona

Now that I have the information in parallel tables, I can start comparing the enhancements with the rewards and spot some inconsistencies. When I refer to your info, Iakona, I'm referring to what you have posted on the main CoH boards. Here are what I see so far:

1. Essence of Curare - listed in your notes as a 6 IO set, but you only list five. We appear to be missiong one.
2. Enfeebled Operation - Same thing. Apparently a six item set, but missiong an IO.
3. Steadfast Protection - On your post, you list the 2nd IO as "Resist & +Def". Resistance and Defence in a single IO? Or a typo of some sort. This would be a totally new twist to have both those in a single enhancement.

Sister Leortha 10:10, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Essence of Curare has the following enhancements: Damage, Accuracy; Damage, Hold; Accuracy, EnduranceDiscount; Hold, Range; EnduranceDiscount, Range, Recharge; and Recharge, Hold, Damage

Enfeebled Operation has the following enhancements: Damage, Accuracy; Damage, Immobilize; Accuracy, EnduranceDiscount; Immobilize, Range; EnduranceDiscount, Range, Recharge; and Accuracy, Immobilize

Steadfast Protection has an enhancement that enhances the damage resistance of the power, and grants a +3% Def(All) buff

--Iakona 10:24, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Thank you very, very much. Now I just have to figure out how to effective list that quirky little one in SP. :) - Sister Leortha 10:27, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Plot of data Table

I think this makes it nice and clear on the progression of the numbers. Level 28 is where an IO gets equivlance to an even SO. After that there is a diminishing return from upgrading the level. Pretty much any character apart from the most serious of minmaxxers will be happy just collecting IO sets starting round about level 30.

Interesting piece of design. My Hats off to the Devs

How best to present this, is the question. Comments as always actively sought Catwhoorg 05:07, 20 February 2007 (PST)

What are A, B, C, & D? - Snorii 06:16, 20 February 2007 (PST)

Schedule A B C and D Catwhoorg 06:49, 20 February 2007 (PST)

Ah, sorry, I thought A might be IO's and B might be SO's. I still don't think I'm reading it right, but ignore me. :) - Snorii 07:26, 20 February 2007 (PST)

Thanks for clarifying the table, Catwhoorg. - Snorii 11:11, 23 February 2007 (PST)

Cripes. Its even more elegant than it appears at first Glance. Level 28 = White SO value Level 50 = +3 Green SO value (115% of the level 28 number) Catwhoorg 11:00, 20 February 2007 (PST)

This plot works for all of the scehdules of enhancements. I think working a variant of this one into the main article would be useful. Again feedback so I can make it clearer to users appreciated. Catwhoorg 12:13, 20 February 2007 (PST)

One side note. Iakona has stated that the tables on this page apply only to the Set-based IOs. That the Common IOs will have a slightly different scale. I suspect those are the ones long rumored to go up to 40% values. - Sister Leortha 13:04, 20 February 2007 (PST)

Color based bonus level

One piece of data that's been floating around, but not on this page, was the strength of the various set bonuses. The raw data for this is in the very first revision of this talk page, on Iakona's info-dump. I've been thinking about how to present the data, and I think I have a plan. Looking for feedback at this point.

I have edited the Invention Origin Enhancements#Heal Enhancements set section as a sample of this idea. Basically I would color-code the text for the different levels of bonus. From Iakona's comments on the boards, for any type of bonus, the level 1 gets 100% of the base, level 2 gets 150%, 3 == 200%, 4 == 250%, and level 5 == 300%. There is supposed to be code in place for levels 6 and 7, but no set implemented yet that use bonuses at these high levels.

For the coloring, I have chosen to use familiar colors from the Con System to make things easier to tell for regular CoH players. Level 1 - Green. Level 2 - Blue. Level 3 black (White would not work). Level 4 - Orange (Yellow would be too hard to read). Level 5 - Red. That leaves Purple for eventual use for levels 6 and/or 7.

Anyone see any problem with this, before I do the rest of the tables in the same way? - Sister Leortha 09:14, 21 February 2007 (PST)

The colors used in the Con System article are bold solid colors. Colors in this article should be more subdued. --Konoko 10:19, 21 February 2007 (PST)

I'm going ahead and working on doing more. If colors are vetoed altogether, it's a simple revert to remove them. If colors are changed, it's a simple global search/replace to change them. I'm a little worried about subduing the text colors too much. We're already on a colored background. These things have got to be readable, which is why I skipped yellow and white as choices. Orange is already borderline, IMHO, for readability against the background. I've also veryu deliberately Bolded the text to increase readability once the text is colored. Readability of these things is a key concern of mine in this whole thing. - Sister Leortha 10:38, 21 February 2007 (PST)

Please use these templates in place of style="color:color", and do not bold the text. Each template has a font-weight parameter.

{{IOlevel1}}
{{IOlevel2}}
{{IOlevel3}}
{{IOlevel4}}
{{IOlevel5}}
{{IOlevel6}}
{{IOlevel7}}
{{IOlevelbold}} (this defines the font-weight for all templates)

Hmm... I can't seem to get a font-weight in between "bold" and "normal". Oh well. At least we can play with colors a little bit more.--Konoko 11:33, 21 February 2007 (PST)

Did the basic conversion to the templates. Still to do are to template up the level 3s, which up until the most recent set I did were just bolded, no actual color style, and to remove the manual bolding I did on all the early ones. For now, I'm going to finish getting the actual coding data in, as that's the most important thing. Cleanup will then follow. And thank you for the great templating idea. That lets us tweak the colors in the future via minor edits to the templates, much easier than mass search&replaces. - Sister Leortha 11:39, 21 February 2007 (PST)

Example table

Heal Enhancements

Group Bonuses

Special/Procedure option columns

Ssyrie has removed the extra columns that I had placed in the tables. Instead of just reverting, I'm coming here for additional opinions. There were several reasons that I segregated those items out into a separate column. They are all the things that are not standard enhancers. Chance of procs and other global enhancements. Putting them into separate columns made them stand out. Made it obvious that they were different, which they were. Also, people wanting to know what the special ones were would be able to easily see them, separated slightly from the regular enhancements. And finally, the special ones are generally longer, more wordy, than the simple enhancements. Giving them a seperate colume let there me one extra-wide column per table. Mixing them into the rest of the table makes multiple columns wide in some cases, like the Defense buff and Resistance tables. DOes anyone else have any opinions on which format the tables should be in? - Sister Leortha 04:32, 23 February 2007 (PST)

Number based bonus level

Is it ok to add numbers to the group bonuses? i.e. Confuse Enhancements > Befuddling Aura > + Recovery would have 1% + Recovery instead of just the + Recovery part. I'm not sure if it would make the page too complicated? Thanks. gSOLO 11:11, 23 February 2007 (PST)

I would have to wonder where the numbers came from. With maybe one exception, Iakona, the source for 99% of the info on this page, has refused to say what the base set values are. I kinda get the feeling that the bonuses are one of the things we figures is most likely to change, but that could easily be me reading too much into it. Anyway, unless new info has leaked out in the last few hours or you have a hidden info source independant of Iakona, I would have to wonder from exactly where you would get the info to use.

That all said, I've been thinking forward to how to present the number when we eventually do get the base level 1 values. IMHO putting them directly into the tables is far from ideal, as the tables are already fairly cluttered. But since we aleady have the numbers for percentages off of the level one bonus, we really only need to detail that bonus once, somewhere, and people can put it together with the data already in the tables. I was thinking of eventually having one more table, two elements, with Bonus Type and Bonus Value, to give the base values. - Sister Leortha 12:26, 23 February 2007 (PST)

Ya, I thought it would be a bit cluttered. I agree that the data is most likely outdated and may have been significantly changed. Best thing to do may be to wait it out until this hits test. In any case, below is is the current data I have on the Level 1s. Should be as good as the source that Iakona is using; he may be able to vouch for my credibility.

Set Bonus: Value

Mez_Resist: 10.00%

Immob_Res: 1.10%

Sleep_Res: 1.10%

Fear_Res: 1.10%

Confuse_Res: 1.10%

Hold_Res: 1.10%

Stun_Res: 1.10%

Immob_Dur: 2.00%

Sleep_Dur: 2.00%

Fear_Dur: 1.10%

Confuse_Dur: 1.00%

Hold_Dur: 1.00%

Stun_Dur: 1.00%

Increased_Health: 0.75%

Accuracy: 2.50%

Increased_Endurance: 90.00%

Increased_AoE_Def: 1.25%

Increased_Melee_Def: 1.25%

Increased_Ranged_Def: 1.25%

Increased_Cold_Def: 1.25%

Increased_Cold_Res: 1.25%

Increased_Smashing_Def: 1.25%

Increased_Smashing_Res: 1.25%

Increased_Lethal_Def: 1.25%

Increased_Lethal_Res: 1.25%

Increased_Fire_Def: 1.25%

Increased_Fire_Res: 1.25%

Increased_Energy_Def: 1.25%

Increased_Energy_Res: 1.25%

Increased_Negative_Energy_Def: 1.25%

Increased_Negative_Energy_Res: 1.25%

Increased_Pos_Neg_Def: 0.63%

Increased_Pos_Neg_Res: 0.63%

Increased_Psionic_Def: 1.25%

Increased_Psionic_Res: 1.25%

Increased_Toxic_Res: 1.25%

Increased_Fire_Cold_Def: 0.63%

Increased_Fire_Cold_Res: 0.63%

Increased_Smashing_Lethal_Def: 0.63%

Increased_Smashing_Lethal_Res: 0.63%

Increased_Toxic_Psionic_Res: 0.63%

Increased_Damage: 1.00%

Debt_Prot: 1.00%

Improved_Recharge_Time: 2.50%

Improved_Heal: 2.00%

Improved_Knockback: 2.00%

Knockback_Protection: -200.00%

Improved_Recovery: 1.00%

Improved_Regeneration: 4.00%

Improved_RunSpeed: 2.00%

Improved_SpeedFlying: 2.00%

Improved_SpeedJumping: 2.00%

Improved_Slow: 1.00%

Increased_Move: 0.00%

gSOLO 13:56, 23 February 2007 (PST)

Wow. Either you are hoaxing big time, or you do have a source.  :) If Iakona was not already leaking major info, and everyone taking that info at face value, I would lean towards beleiving the former. As it is, I do intend to ask Iakona to vouch for you. If he does, then we are good to go, and we'll get this info out to the page in one form or another.

Two data points catch my eye as being out of line. 0% for Increased_Move. Increased Move on the page is just a shorthand I used for when a bonus increased Fly, Run, and Jump all together. Is this supposed to be what this means, and why 0%?

Increased Endurance at 90% looks totally out of line. Got to be a typo in there somewhere, or people are going to be getting AV level END totals. - Sister Leortha 14:28, 23 February 2007 (PST)

I don't have anything on Increased Move 1-3, so they are at 0. I believe this is the only Level 1 I have no info on.

Set Bonus: Value

Increased_Move_1: 0.00%

Increased_Move_2: 0.00%

Increased_Move_3: 0.00%

Increased_Move_4: 5.00%

Increased_Move_5: 6.00%

Increased_Move_6: 7.00%

Increased_Move_7: 8.00%

I have not Idea what is up with Endurance. Here's what I've got anyway.

Set Bonus: Description

Increased_Endurance_1: Increases maximum Endurance by 90%.

Increased_Endurance_2: Increases maximum Endurance by 135%.

Increased_Endurance_3: Increases maximum Endurance by 180%.

Increased_Endurance_4: Increases maximum Endurance by 225%.

Increased_Endurance_5: Increases maximum Endurance by 270%.

Increased_Endurance_6: Increases maximum Endurance by 315%.

Increased_Endurance_7: Increases maximum Endurance by 360%.

gSOLO 14:49, 23 February 2007 (PST)

The Move ones fit right in with the separate Run/Fly/Jump values, so I think it's safe to extrapolate that one back to a base of 2%. As for the END, I'm sorry, but there's no way that value is correct. Even if it's in the code like that, it's totally game-breaking at that level. So, even if it's there like that, it's gotta be a bug, and will almost certainly be brought to a more reasonable level. Something like 0.9% as a base is a level I could easily believe. - Sister Leortha 16:32, 23 February 2007 (PST)

I held off on posting these Set Bonus numbers because the only source I know of for them so far is the text descriptions in the piggs (where GSOLO most likely got these numbers), which I don't really consider to be a good source for hard numbers. The +END numbers are obviously a decimal error, either in the data or (more likely) in the devs' transcription from data to text. The other numbers I've posted are from actual data values, not text descriptions, so I feel they are relatively solid values.--Iakona 17:23, 23 February 2007 (PST)

Ok. Very well. I'll use them, but place a very big warning on them about reliability. At this point, it's better than nothing. - Sister Leortha 18:03, 23 February 2007 (PST)

I figured out what happened with the +END values. They use the "Abs" aspect instead of "Cur" in the devs' data tables, so it adds an absolute value (0.9) to your base 100 Endurance, rather than adding a percentage (90%) of the base attribute value like the other buffs. Whatever the devs used to translate the data to text didn't take this into account, and just saw 0.9 and spat out 90%.--Iakona 19:08, 23 February 2007 (PST)

Group vs Set

Shouldn't Group Bonus, Group Name &c say Set Bonus, Set Name? I don't think I've seen them referred to Groups anywhere. I havn't looke that hard anyway so maybe it has. Just want to see it be consistent with what the game says &c. gSOLO 12:13, 23 February 2007 (PST)

Good thought. Easy enough change to make. - Sister Leortha 12:27, 23 February 2007 (PST)