Jade_Dragon

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sure they have.... and batman and wolverine are in the backdrop laughing they're [censored] off.



[/ QUOTE ]

And everybody knows that the X-Men are constantly going, "We don't need Cyclops, Wolverine does just as much damage. And we don't need to hand hold Wolverine all the time. Cyclops, what a wuss... He can't fire a shot without being faceplanted. Even Jean can't protect him. And what's with him always knocking Colossus's foes away from him?"

[/ QUOTE ]

dude... why are you even bringing this crap up. you know and I know that comic book blasters don't translate in coh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, it was YOUR joke, man. I was just following along.

I dunno who the heck you think you're arguing with. But if you're going to start in with the personal attacks, then I've got nothing more to say to you. I've got no time for flame wars.

[ QUOTE ]

That's not much justification for putting all those melee attacks in the secondary.

[/ QUOTE ]

What "all those melee attacks" are you talking about? Have you even been reading my posts?

It you're talking about just eliminating all melee attacks but those in the Pool, well, I think that's a little extreme. We can keep one or two attacks. Even Devices has Taser. And there's something to be said for a melee attack that "follows theme", even if it's just one. Sure, Cyclops punches or kicks, but Green Arrow uses his bow as a staff. Starfire's strength is a buff, it makes her eyes turn green. And Dagger even once formed a sword out of light.

What you seem to be saying is, "If you don't use it all the time, you can't use it at all." Cyclops the character may have martial arts, but you can't have that as a Power because he doesn't use it all the time. I think you underestimate just how often he does use it.

[ QUOTE ]
sure they have.... and batman and wolverine are in the backdrop laughing they're [censored] off.



[/ QUOTE ]

And everybody knows that the X-Men are constantly going, "We don't need Cyclops, Wolverine does just as much damage. And we don't need to hand hold Wolverine all the time. Cyclops, what a wuss... He can't fire a shot without being faceplanted. Even Jean can't protect him. And what's with him always knocking Colossus's foes away from him?"

[ QUOTE ]
"Blasters have way more range and have more cones/AEs than scrappers, and it's not enough because..."

[/ QUOTE ]

... there is no real reason for a Blaster to stay at range.

THAT is the problem, IMHO. As long as the amount of time you survive at range is approximately the same as the time you survive in melee (two seconds compared to one second) there is no real advantage to range.

A Blaster should be able to survive considerably longer at range than he does in melee. By a large factor, maybe ten or more. I believe that's what the devs have intended, it's what Statesman is trying to say, and its true prior to 25.

[ QUOTE ]
[...] if you give blasters enough defense to deliver their full offense solo, why would they want to do anything but solo?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno. Scrappers have enough defense to deliver their full offense solo, so why would they want to do anything but solo?

It seems like there should be no problem for a Blaster to find a role on a team. Blasters shouldn't have any competition from Scrappers, since they will always be soloing and never on a team.

[ QUOTE ]
First... Starfire is no blaster. she's a ranged scrapper. She has superhuman strenght, and can take a lot of damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Starfire is a Blaster. She fights like a Blaster. She has abilities that put her in the tank mage category, but then, so does Iron Man. Also, she was not nearly so resiliant in earlier episodes. (She was knocked unconscious by one bullet from one of Slade's henchmen, and had to be rescued by Robin)

[ QUOTE ]
Next... you rarely EVER see cyclops use a melee attacks. his blasts can penetrate steel, pulverize mountain tops, and crush whole buildings. he has control of his power down to the most minute level. A richocheting blast that can clock enemies from any angle... and he CONTROLS his knockback.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yes, obviously. Who would use a karate chop when they can level a mountain with beams from their eyes?

Note, however, that this in no way contradicts the fact that he knows martial arts.

[ QUOTE ]
And yeah.... green arrow held his own for about 20 seconds... then that old man made a mockery of him. he could have easily have put him to waste in 3 or 4 shots. hell the black canary could have cleaned his longjohns in the same amount of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the whole point. Green Arrow knew he was outclassed. He knew good and well he wasn't going to win as long as he didn't use his ranged attacks. He was counting on that.

Perfect example of a Blaster. He has melee abilities, he can hold his own against a normal person, but he knows full well when going up against other superhumans, he needs to use his ranged attacks.

[ QUOTE ]
Blasters in comics "blast" that's all they have to do... hell if you were havock would you bother with an uppercut? super heated cosmic plasma...helllllooooooooo?

[/ QUOTE ]

So Havok has NEVER made an uppercut? He has NEVER punched another character? Cyclops has NEVER kicked or punched anyone? Green Arrow never has? No Blaster in the history of comics has EVER thrown a punch?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How bout the martial arts skills Storm used to defeat Cyclops and become leader of the Xmen when she lost her powers, for one example? Cyclops removing his visor for PBAE goodness. Dazzler's PBAE Flash. Gambit's Staff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably should have been clearer in my question. I'm taking issue with the idea that the comic-book blaster melee attacks are always a "last resort", and so Blasters in COH should always have to stay out of melee.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it was MY quote, so I want to say that I agree with you. I never wanted to imply that Blasters can't melee. Quite the opposite, in fact.

What I was trying to say is, a Blaster doesn't WANT to engage in melee, if he can possibly help it. He'll fight back if attacked, but would rather use range to his advantage, maybe closing once the foe is "softened up".

Also, he's more likely to avoid melee with a Tanker or Scrapper, but may close with a Defender or Controller, or even a Blaster. There's no reason to try and stay at range if the foe ATTACKS at range.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it's just a "perception" by some Blasters that some of the Secondary Sets aren't as useful as Devices or Energy Manipulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

If "by some" you mean the vast majority, then I would say I agree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well +1 isn't "vast". 3 bad, 2 good. At worst. Otherwise, the majority turns around, and it is equally "vast".

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he means the vast majority of the PLAYERS, not the POWER SETS.

Now I have to be concerned about Statesman's original quote. I mean, I love Fire Manipulation, I use it myself. But I know for a fact that I don't need Combustion, Fire Sword Circle AND Blazing Aura. I'm not going to take all of them. I'm not even going to take ANY of them.

Assuming I'm not in any way unusual in that, and that the datamining backs me up on that, in that the majority of people playing Blasters are taking less than 50% of the powers in their Secondary, then how the heck can Statesman look at that and say it's just a "perception"?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a Blaster had to stay away from melee, then his melee attacks would be more like the melee attacks of comic book Blasters. Something they use as a last resort, but would really rather avoid using. Plus, those who WANT to build in a little extra melee defense (or get some from a Defender) can use melee, if they want to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which comic book Blasters are you referring to? What "last resort" melee attacks do they use?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cyclops. He's a trained martial artist, but he doesn't attack hand to hand unless he has no choice.

Punisher. One quote I recall him using, when asked "Why do you carry a gun" is, "I have to constantly face superhuman opponents. It's to level the playing field". But against common thugs, he often just uses his fists.

Starfire. She has superhuman strength, and in fact, is remarkably resiliant for a Blaster. She's been driven through floors a couple of times. She still stays away from melee and even hover snipes.

Green Arrow. In one of the episodes of JLU, he took on Wildcat hand to hand. Although he didn't defeat him, he was still able to hold him off for some time.

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't know why it isn't:

Controller: Control/Buff
Defender: Buff/Ranged
Blaster: Ranged/Control

[/ QUOTE ]

Because Ranged/Control allows what is called "root and shoot", and the devs disallowed that from the start.

However, note that a Blaster's control powers are usually single target, instead of multiple target like a Controller. I think that concept can be extended to other Powers.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We can attack from range. No, some of the scrappers can do that as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scrapper ranged output is nothing compared to blaster ranged output, and scrapper range is at best half of the range of bread and butter blaster attacks.

Yes, some scrappers can do damage at range. No, it does not compare to blaster ranged damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's something I touched on in my thread.

It doesn't matter that it isn't exactly Blaster level damage, it's good enough to the point where a Blaster isn't needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe that's the reason Scrappers are preferred on a team over Blasters. Assuming the damage is the same, there is no reason to pick a Blaster over a Scrapper. Just pick whichever comes first, or flip a coin. There's no reason to say, "I'm always going to take the Scrapper".

No, the reason the Scrapper is preferred over the Blaster is because he doesn't have to be protected, like the Blaster does. He can attack freely, and even assuming he pulls some aggro off the Tanker, he can still survive it. The Blaster, on the other hand, can't survive if he draws any aggro. So more effort and energy is required to protect him. Yet, he does no more damage.

The other thing to remember about Scrapper ranged attacks is that while he can attack at range, he doesn't have enough range to keep his OPPONENT at range. The Scrapper usually uses his ranged attacks in melee, or just while closing. You aren't going to see a Scrapper "kite". It just doesn't happen.

While Mantid already pointed out Scorus's post, I thought this one sentence summed it up perfectly:

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't it just be "you can do damage at a greater distance, but if you get too close you are toast"?

[/ QUOTE ]

As for Blasters having some melee attacks, I look at it the same as Tankers or Scrappers having ranged attacks, Defenders having control powers, or Controllers being able to do damage. It's "crossover" powers. It's not the Blaster's primary ability, but it's there if needed.

If a Blaster had to stay away from melee, then his melee attacks would be more like the melee attacks of comic book Blasters. Something they use as a last resort, but would really rather avoid using. Plus, those who WANT to build in a little extra melee defense (or get some from a Defender) can use melee, if they want to.

Okay, I'm going to repeat what I've been saying here, in hopes that just maybe Statesman and the devs will notice it. First of all, Statesman's comments about ranged damage being less than melee damage, and Scrappers being at "greater risk" than Blasters once again demonstrates that the devs are still thinking about the conditions of other MMORPGs, and not the conditions of the one that they have created.

First of all, CoH is unique (except perhaps for SWG, and even that's not true for low levels) in having as many foes with ranged attacks as with melee attacks. Ranged attacks are common, and thus the condition that exists in most medieval themed MMORPGs, where the typical ranged attack is a bow or other weak attack, and magical "nukes" are rare, doesn't exist here. This IS fairly true for a good portion of the early game, when pistols and other extremely light damage attacks are common. Later on however, and even early on with foes such as the Clockwork, ranged damage is not an issue of "will you be attacked" but "how much damage are you taking from the attacks?" You can think of ranged damage as a constant threat that is continually draining HP, while melee damage is a greater drain that you expose yourself to by getting into melee range.

Second, there is the issue of damage being less at range. This is the main reason why Statesman believes that Blasters are at "less risk" than Scrappers, and at low levels, this is the truth. A Blaster can avoid damage by staying out of range, and can "pick and choose" his targets, minimizing his risk. Of course, at low levels a Blaster is not likely to hit the damage cap, so he actually has no limitations on his damage at this point. (Outside of the number of Enhancement slots he has earned so far)

The problem comes when the Blaster gets to much higher level, and the amount of damage done by foes, compared to his hit points, becomes much greater.

If we take a hypothetical situation where ranged damage is half of melee damage, and consider a low level where it will take 20 shots, at range, to kill a Blaster, then the Scrapper will take only 10 shots, half the time. On the other hand, if we consider the situation of a high level, where it will take only TWO shots to kill the Blaster, then he will still survive twice as long as the Scrapper. (Which for the moment we are imagining has no defense) However, the TIME required to kill the Blaster is still 1/10 of the time it took at the low level. Originally, the Blaster would survive 10 more shots than the Scrapper, but now he will survive only one more. This is not much of an advantage, as it doesn't give the Blaster as much time to try and attack. In other words, the "risk" is only slightly lower, instead of much lower as in the lower level. The more damage a foe does compared to the Blaster's (or even Scrapper's) total HP, the greater risk he is in.

Of course, the Scrapper is usually not going to be killed in only one shot, thus the ratio between the number of hits the Scrapper can take and the number of hits the Blaster can take is NOT dependent on the amount of the damage. And once again, THIS is the problem, the problem that I have been describing all along. The issue is not that melee attacks do more damage than ranged attacks, it is that Scrappers have defenses against both ranged AND melee. So their defenses reduce the damage they take, even if that damage is ranged. In fact, they reduce the amount of damage proportional to the amount they take IN MELEE, which again, is usually greater.

Since ranged damage must be balanced for the amount of defense that Scrappers have, then it is NOT balanced for the amount of defense that Blasters have. A Scrapper's defense can scale as he levels to keep pace with the increasing damage, but an archetype which has ZERO defense cannot scale, because you cannot scale zero. Anything times zero is still zero.

If a Blaster had defense that scaled with his level (and some Blasters can get defense through the Power Pool, or Devices, although I won't say that it's adequate) then at least his risk would stay CONSTANT compared to a Scrapper. But all this would mean is that he should have the same characteristics at high level as at low level. As mentioned above, the cap doesn't even effect low level Blasters, so it only penalizes the Blasters who are already at great risk to start with.

The primary defense that alleviates risk is Damage Resistance. This, also, is something that I have pointed out many times. Defense, or dodging, does not alleviate risk to quite the same extent, because while it lowers the chance of being hit, it increases the risk that a lucky hit WILL cause the player to have to retreat. In addition, defenses such as control powers and targetted debuffs are also inherently more risky, because they can miss. The more random factors you introduce into a defense, the more of a risk it is, and conversely, constant defenses are less risk.

Even in the choice of defenses that they do have available, Blasters are exposed to more risk, because their defenses are more random in nature. Therefore, if anything, a Blaster is at MORE risk than a Scrapper, given the same proportional defense. So the argument that the Blaster needs a lower cap because he is at less risk doesn't actually take into account the risk that is involved. A Blaster cannot avoid ranged attacks because they are common in this game, and cannot avoid the consequences of being hit, because damage is balanced for characters that do have damage resistance, and the Blaster does not.

Hopefully, the devs will recognize this as they look into the defenses of Tankers and Scrappers, and will keep it in mind when they start to look at Blasters. In all honesty, they could just as easily boost damage as boost defense. They would have to completely change the design principle of the Blaster, and raise its damage to a proportion above Scrappers, just as Tankers, Defenders and Controllers have damage proportionally below Scrappers. They will HAVE to graduate the damage, though, starting like it is at the early levels and only raising it after about level 20, when the other archetypes reach their final proportions, though. To do otherwise would be to make Blasters too powerful prior to 20, when their ratio of hit points to ranged damage is high enough to protect them.

The other alternative is to raise defense. Not Defense, the concept, or Damage Resistance or anything specific, but defense in general. Again, the issue is that defense due to range becomes too low after a certain level, to counter that decrease, simply introduce a ranged defense that equals it. Thus, when the Blaster reaches the higher levels, he will still be at the same risk as he was at low level, and at the same risk as a Scrapper. This defense could be in any form, control powers, buffs, debuffs, even stealth (i.e. aggro reduction) is a form of defense. It could even be in different forms for different Secondary sets.

Blasters need to be able to a) do as much damage as Scrappers, b) use their attacks freely, c) pull and otherwise "pick their targets" even at high level, and d) survive long enough that combat isn't an either/or proposition.

You didn't list how many Recharge SOs you put in Follow Up to make it perma, but I wonder if it might be an advantage to decrease its recharge SOMEWHAT, but not enough to stack it. The overall boost will be less, but you will be using Follow Up less as well, thus it will reduce the DPS by less. There may be a "break even" point where the DPS is higher than all Damage, but neither all damage nor all recharge.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With an attack fully slotted with SOs the increase from Rage is only around 30%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where are you getting this number? Even with all +3 SO damage enhancers in a power, that would bring you to roughly 228% extra damage, leaving you with 72% more you could enhance it with Rage. If you mean Rage would increase the increase (boy, that looks weird) by 30% (30% of 228 is 68.4), then yeah, but that's not what we're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, but it IS what were are talking about. What Lady_Tara was saying, what you agreed with, and what even I mentioned, is that the 80% damage buff for Rage applies only to its base damage. If you six slot an attack for damage, that's 300%. (328% for +3 as you pointed out) Plus Rage, that's 380%, which is about 27% over what you would have gotten without Rage.

So if you haven't Enhanced your attacks, you're getting 80% more damage, but if they're close to max, you're only getting about 30%. You probably know this, and so do most of the other people here, so maybe it is "what we're talking about". But it does seem as if some people think of Rage as giving a much larger bonus to damage.

Now, as for Ice not doing as much damage, while I can empathise, you've got far more powers to hold a foe and freeze him in place than Super Strength. So I wouldn't exactly call that comparing apples to apples. If you compare equivalent attacks to equivalent attacks, Ice actually does the more damage. It just doesn't get a big attack like Knockout Blow.

If you wanted to do high damage, then you should have gone with Mace or Battle Axe. But then you wouldn't be able to hold. You don't need to aggro what you have held. So while I do admit that it's kind of unfair that Ice Tankers don't do as much damage, it's not really imbalancing. Obviously, that's the way that Power Set is designed, and obviously you chose to go with that when you saw all those powers that hold your foes and don't damage them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about "the drawback doesn't make sense for a tank" argument, or the "it has four times the penalties of Hasten" argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

The drawback makes perfect sense to me. You pitch a fit and go beserk, hitting harder, so you need some downtime afterwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but what is the FORM of that downtime? That's what doesn't make sense. Is the hero winded, is he not able to punch as hard any more? Is he stunned, disoriented, is he about to "pass out"? Is he moving slower, because he burned so much adrenaline, and thus less able to dodge? Is he exhausted, out of energy, does he have to catch a breath before he can get back into the fight?

Or, does he just stand there like a lump, watching his allies getting clobbered because both of his hands just got tied behind his back?

For the drawback to make sense, it has to follow logically from the advantage. Losing Endurance makes sense. Losing Defense makes sense. Even losing damage makes sense, since you were GAINING damage. But being unable to attack OR Taunt does NOT make sense. It doesn't follow logically from either the Tanker's primary role on the team (to draw aggro) or the Tanker's purpose in using Rage on a team. (To increase his damage so he will draw more aggro)


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does it make sense for a tank to give up the ability to protect his teammates, for however short an amount of time, just to do a bit more damage?

[/ QUOTE ]

You get far greater benefit from Rage than 'a bit more damage'.

[...]

Because for the 2 minutes BEFORE it ran out, you got a lot of extra damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rage isn't that big of a difference. It's 80% more damage. That's a damage buff, it's 80% of your base more damage. If you've enhanced your attacks, that's only 380% maximum. It's not like you've doubled your damage or anything. In fact, Rage is MORE useful to the Tankers who DON'T enhance their Secondaries, because it allows them to draw more aggro without spending slots on damage. (They can slot for Taunt and still do 180% damage, which IS almost double...)

Plus, if the assumption is correct that Super Strength has less damage than the other Melee sets, that's what it's SUPPOSED to do. It's not there to give Super Strength a lot of advantage, it's there to give it the same damage as other sets. So if that's the case, Rage does not need a large penalty, because the low damage of the other attacks ARE the penalty.

The "penalty" for Rage is not because Rage is "uber" but to give it flavor. The Raging hero goes through a period not of downtime, but of disorientation, where he comes out of the berzerk fury and has lost a good deal of his strength and energy. That was the original concept behind the Disorient effect, and I agree with the concept, even though the implementation was flawed. This is an implementation, too, and it's still flawed, because it doesn't address the primary drawback of going berzerk. While berzerk, the bezerker is not trying to defend himself. THAT'S the trade-off, and Rage has never really addressed it. (Except for the Def reduction, but that's only a minor penalty, compared to the others)

If Rage had an animation that the time had expired, possibly with sound effect, then that could warn the other players of the effect. But I I think it's a bit much to expect the Tanker to warn his allies that he has lost the ability to aggro AND MAKE THAT PART OF THE GAMEPLAY. If it's going to be part of the gameplay, then there should be some graphic indication.

Making it so you can Taunt during the downtime would at least be a solution. Maybe not the best solution, but a lot better than relying on your aura. I know from experience that the aura is inferior to Taunt, and depending on your slotting, Taunt may be inferior to your attacks. But at least the Tanker has an option, even though only the one option.

Personally, I think having damage be 80% (right?) for the duration of the Rage, and 20% for the down time would be a GREAT idea. Makes a heck of a lot of sense...

[ QUOTE ]
Stop with the defense debuff stuff. We all know that putting a defense debuff of, say, even 20% would do little to make an Invuln or Fire (or even Stone) tankers care. It would, however, make an Ice Tanker without 5 or more enemies around him and Energy Absorption ready cringe. Since the majority of SS tankers appear to be Invuln, this would barely be a barely noticeable effect (Invicibility being up would negate this penalty entirely, still leaving that tanker with 90% resists plus whatever extra defense he had).

There's already enough things in the game that reduce defense. Make this one reduce Resist, if anything.

It's all a moot point anyway, as I doubt the devs will change the current implementation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't actually recommending a Defense Debuff, merely saying it would be more in line with the concept. A loss of some sort of defense (in the general sense, not the game concept of Defense) is a better balance for an offensive power than reducing offense.

I'm merely suggesting some forms for that defense penalty, but any would be workable. A resistance debuff, as you say, would also be a good choice.

I do have to wonder why the duration of the "stun" was set to 10 seconds. After all, that's what we're talking about here. It is essentially the disorient, without dropping the toggles. But no disorient lasts 10 seconds.

I'm interested in what you said about Warrior's Challenge. In my experience, Warrior's Challenge seems to have a real problem with stopping runners. However, I HAVE had it stop runners before. As I've never played any other Scrappers, I can't compare it to the Scrapper version of Taunt. (Now called Confront) However, I know the Tanker version of Taunt was much better at stopping runners, even before it was changed to an auto-hit AoE.

The numbers that I have seen for Warrior's Challenge say that it has a +15% chance to hit, while the other Taunts had only a +5%. Tanker Taunt was listed as +50%, before it was auto-hit. But of course, those numbers are for the chance of a successful TAUNT, not whether or not that taunt would stop a runner.

From my observation, I was assuming that first the taunt had to "stick", and then if the foe was running, there was a chance that he would stop. If he did not, then the change in aggro (if there was one) meant that now he was running from the Scrapper, instead of whoever he was running from before.

Now, but Provoke and Confront, in the Power Pool, require a to hit roll, and unlike Taunt there is no bonus, it is just the base chance to hit. So my assumption was that Warrior's Challenge actually had the highest chance to hit of any Scrapper Taunt, but it was just simply so low a chance that the chance that it would hit AND stop a runner was pretty low. Again, if anyone can say that Confront on a Scrapper has a tendency to hit often, and brings back runners, then I would say something is wrong with Warrior's Challenge.

In the end, BTW, I respec'ed out of Warrior's Challenge and took Challenge instead, to open up Intimidate. I found Intimidate MUCH more useful, and in fact it has occasionally stopped runners, although more often it makes them run. This depends on the level, even con foes tend to be stopped by it. However, this is when they have not taken a lot of damage, if they've been forced into "run mode" by damage, it may be harder to "scare" them out of it. Also, some foes like Sorcerers will ALWAYS flee when hit with Intimidate.

[ QUOTE ]
Berserkers weren't dangerous cuz they hit hard, they were dangerous cuz they hit hard and had no regard for their own safety.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. Another thing I'd been meaning to point out is that Energy Transfer has a cost in HP to use it. In other words, the Energy Tanker, having a surplus of hit points most of the time, is able to channel some of those hit points into damage. That's basically what a Berserker does when he goes berzerk, he allows himself to take damage in order to a) make himself angry due to the pain and b) not have to worry about defending himself so he can spend all his effort on hitting.

Rage already has a Def debuff, though, even though it was reduced. (Or at least, that's the last I heard about it. At this point, I'm not sure I know WHAT Rage does any more...) So maybe a hit point penalty would be more appropriate than an Endurance penalty, or maybe BOTH, just at a lower level. It would basically be the opposite of Dull Pain, when Rage wears off, the hero suddenly feels the damage he took.

There might be a risk of a Tanker killing himself with Rage, but I assume Energy Transfer has the same thing, unless it prevents you from using it if you don't have enough HP.

A Def penalty AND a resistance penalty would be the same thing, really, since you would basically take more damage during the "exhausted" phase. Or, the defense penalty could be applied DURING the Rage.

Well, yeah, but if you want to USE the Power, you have to not use any attacks. And you aren't forced to use Rage, either, it's at your choice.

I suppose you could argue that the delayed nature of the penalty means that it's more difficult to predict. But my point was that there ARE Powers that require you not to be able to attack in order to use them. (And note that using PFF in a group could have just as disasterous consequences as using Rage)

The REAL difference is that PFF is defensive, while Rage is offensive. You aren't putting up PFF to increase your damage, you're putting it up to increase your defense. Which, would again, seem to suggest that the most appropriate penalty for Rage would be a defensive one, not an offensive one.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no other power in the game that forces you into inaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, actually there is, Phase Shift/Invisibility. Or perhaps more appropriately, Personal Force Field.

This is not to say that a defense drop is not a better penalty, though. After all, it's good enough for Unyielding.

I like this guide a lot, too. As an Illusion/Kin Scraptroller that depends on Decieve to solo, I use it a lot, and I could certainly verify that I was getting more XP/hour with it than without it.

Interestingly enough, though, you reached the exact opposite conclusion than I did after doing the mathematics, and I realize that I may have to rethink my strategy. Because the amount of XP you get as your "share" of what was done increases as the percentage of the damage that you do increases, I assumed that the best strategy was to maximize your damage. That is, by ensuring that you do at least 80% of the damage to all targets, you should get nearly 100% of the experience. For this reason, I usually Deceived the Minions first, because they would do less damage to the Boss than if I Decieved him, and he damaged them.

Your conclusion, though, and it seems to be the right one, is that you get more XP over time by doing less of the damage. Even though you are losing more XP overall, you are defeating your enemies faster, and thus gaining XP at a faster rate. I hadn't thought of this, but it may be by trying to make my Controller, Joe Everyman, more Scrapper-like, I have gone too far in trying to conserve the XP.

I do suspect, however, that there is a break-even point, that you may not have covered in your analysis. I have no trouble going from fight to fight with Joe, and downtime is really not a big issue. I also take on opponents closer to my level, rather than relying on reds or oranges to do max damage. Plus, spawns of foes are a finite resource, and at some point you are wasting XP that you would have ordinarily been able to collect. This is particularly the case with missions, and doing more damage personally would probably allow you to get more XP overall for them, with only a slight increase in time. So the balance point may be somewhere in between.

I will certainly apply many of these ideas to my strategies, however. I've built Joe to be very strong in melee, with Tough as a good defense, and Blind. Although I agree with your assesment that it is often better to have the Minions help you take down the Boss, particularly when it is not always safe to attack the Boss without "softening him up" first, I may decide to try using Lieutenants more often, to speed up the fight time.

If nothing else, your guide should enable me to use Decieve more efficiently, and get the best possible XP for the amount of time I spend in the fight. You obviously have Terrify as a powerful attack, and slot it for damage, so my build is probably similar in that it is meant to do damage. He's not quite at the level where I can report how well his build solos, but he's been a blast to play so far. (And exploding Cadavers is one of my favorite tricks. )

Also, since he was railing against Jerk Hacking I don't think you can say he is one. Although the common usage of the term does seem to be developing in that direction.

Go. Hunt. Kill Skuls.

[ QUOTE ]
In response to your theses:
The math of endurance, defense, and damage resist indicates that it is more efficient to let a tanker (or a defensive scrapper) take the damage for the team and then heal that person. It's also much easier for the defender to manage.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is, IF the primary tank is able to take an hold aggro for the entire team. Sometimes in a large team, a couple of Scrappers may take on secondary aggro, because of the amount of damage they are doing, and require secondary healing. Likewise, if you don't have a tank, you may need to keep two Scrappers going who are splitting the aggro between then.

This is not to say that there is anything wrong with your logic, obviously you have decided on a primary heal, and are slotting it with the right enhancements to make it usable even in this kind of situation, if you switch targets to heal who needs it. But AoE heals have the advantage of providing "top off" healing to those who only take a little bit of damage.

Plus, as stated, it depends on the healer. I've run into that problem with Transfusion before. I WANT to heal an ally who is trying to fight a target, but before I can fire the heal he panics and backs away. My heal is then wasted, and I have to wait for it to recharge before I can fire it again.

I should also mention that as a bubble Defender, I often draw aggro down on myself for a short time until the Tanker can firmly establish it. (I also debuff Damage doing this, since I'm FF/Rad, and this helps the Tanker hit) I take a little bit of damage doing this, and depend on a healer to "top me off" as he heals the Tanker. I don't always "tank" in this way, but it's an option I can use, if I have the right support backing me up. Even Defenders can use support.