Jade_Dragon

'Sokay. If anything, my thought was, "Well, at least you'll have Corruptor level stats for your Secondary". Soon enough you'll be able to pick Dual Pistols as well.

Well, because their use of their henchmen's powers does not cost them End. But a Mastermind who does not take any pets from his Primary and a Corruptor who does not take any attacks from his Primary will both have plenty of End to spend on their Secondary. In this case, it will be the MM's greater End cost that comes into play.

Referenced in the original post...

IMHO, a dedicated healer doesn't make a lot of sense on either side. A healer/buffer/debuffer with a little bit of blaster, controller or pet user, maybe, but not just a healer. But that's just me.

As I said, if you want to have a Mastermind with pets AND concentrate on healing/buffing, you can probably do it easier and more efficiently than a Corruptor, even with the lower numbers. But that's really the point. If you're just creating a Corruptor for the Secondary, you probably want a Mastermind and just send the henchmen out there to be cannon fodder.

I was thinking of using another word in place of "beast", but "brute" was kind of redundant, and "hulk", well, that would have given it away, wouldn't it?

The big animalistic wolf/bear/sabresomething beast type is certainly available now with Claws, and either Invulnerability or Willpower as the secondary. Previously, though, you had to go with SS or something like Energy and just depend on the costume for the claws. They're all really rampaging monsters, though, they do kind of fit in the same concept.

I'll also add that there would be definate irony in a Power Set that is iconic to an Archetype concept not being available at that Archetype's release. Then again, I've always said that the werewolf concept does fit closely enough to the Brute AT that Claws did need to be available to them from the start. I could never fit the werewolf concept into a Stalker.

I kind of like that suggestion, only, it's a little hard to implement. You would essentially have to have one status effect for Taunt, and then another way of marking this "Taunt, plus the Tanker does extra damage to him". I don't think there's any in game way of saying "find the foe that has the highest hate", you would have to determine that separately and mark it so the power would know to apply the bonus.

By way of comparison, Controllers already have a bonus to damage for any foe that is held, slept or stunned. This is applied simply by the attacks checking for those status effect when it hits. This Tanker Inherent would have to be implemented similarly. (Also, how does the Tanker know who he currently has the "mark" on?)

I must say, though, the concept does make sense, the Tanker concentrates all his energy on the foe he is fighting, which gets everyone else taunted as they try to come to the rescue of the Tanker's "victim". And adding extra damage to just that one target, not AoEs or if he "spreads around" his attacks, is different from the Brute behavior. (Which is to expend more and more energy as he continues to fight with his foes)

I suspect, though, that for the Tanker to gain an Inherent damage bonus, he would have to lose about 10% of his damage. In other words, his damage base would go down from 0.8 to 0.7, which is what it was before Gauntlet. The devs specifically said that the extra 10% damage was meant to compensate for Tankers not getting a damage boost from Gauntlet, similar to Fury. (Which was actually developed for Tankers, but given to Brutes instead, as it turned out too powerful in the hands of a Tanker)

It's certainly possible that a single target focused damage boost would be better for Tankers than the current arrangement, and maintain their ability to solo, or even make it better. However, there will likely be many people who would view the loss of damage base as a nerf, and refuse to see it any other way.

Maybe I'm wrong about that, since Scrapper, Blaster, Stalker and Dominator damage have gone up since that time. The "bar" may have moved. However, I'm still guessing that either the base damage will go down, or the Inherent bonus will not be significant, more in the area of another 10% or so. And if the Inherent is made too significant, along the lines of Controllers, the Tanker's AoE potential would probably end up being nerfed considerably.

I'm not sure there was a point.

You've summed it up nicely. Really, Psi and Energy both had similar problems as the underperformers of the Dominator world, it's just Psi had PSW after 38. They got similar fixes, even down to what used to be a pure knockback power getting some serious damage, but for Energy that made things better, while with Psi the gains were countered by the serious loss to PSW.

On the surface it doesn't look like Psi is any worse off than Energy (it does a bit less damage, but should use less Endurance) but the drastic change from its previous performance is certainly going to be noticable. You can compensate for that with your slotting, or try something else, your choice. Either should be fine.

Blaster blast sets are no more endurance friendly than the blasts in Dom assault sets, outside of the fact that Blasters have a 1.125 damage modifier, and Doms are only 0.95. The formula is the same, though, End cost and damage scale should be in the same ratio, and Doms should only have more End cost if they have more damage, with the same attack. And most melee attacks in Blaster Secondaries do more damage and cost more Endurance than Dominators, pretty much the opposite.

Of course, the rarity of using Blaster melee attacks if you do not use the Blapper strategy probably compensates for that. Still, I would say the End friendly nature of Blasters is due more to their simply having a higher damage modifier. Doms should have lower end costs than Defenders, Tankers, and certainly Controllers. Even considering that their Primary costs more Endurance, the benefit they gain from those powers is more than mere damage.

Which is why I said from the beginning that it was simply my perception. I never said that he would have less End problems if he were to drop perma-Dom. There are too many variables involved, and other considerations like damage that he may be considering, for me to make such a claim. I merely said that "I was not sure" anyone had conclusively proven that you can recover more End with Domination than you end up spending. And I'm still not sure anyone has shown that.

Well, as you say, the recharge time of Domination has not changed. So if you were able to compensate for the End use before, and your End use has now increased because you are dealing more damage, then it stands to reason that Domination is no longer compensating for the End use, right? Domination recovery is a constant, End use has increased.

Certainly I am talking about a comparison to the OEM build, but I am also talking about the comparison to the previous build. You can make any build End efficient with slotting of End Enhancements, most people slot only the minimum required to maintain an even End level. In the case of Dominators, I believe that people, myself included, only slot enough to reach the minimum End level just before you re-activate Domination, in order to maximize the output of the End bar refill. An increase in End cost will cause you to reach the red earlier than expected, whereas if you'd slotted for End more heavily, you probably would not notice the loss since you wouldn't even be losing End. (Which is the behavior I see with my /Electric)

Approaching this from the other direction, are you making the claim that if you do NOT slot for perma-Dom, and instead leave your recharge at the default, your End costs will actually go UP? This seems to be a claim that I've noticed a lot, (even the OP seemed to express it) that it is impossible to play a Dominator without perma-Dom, as the End cost is so high that the build is unplayable. That you do not want to lose the damage associated with high recharge, that I can understand, that you do not feel like "standing around", or wasting time on Primary powers or long animating attacks, that I can understand. But I cannot understand contradicting people who do not have perma-Dom, myself included, who say that their builds play just fine.

In addition, as far as I know, it is established for other Archetypes that as recharge goes down, their damage and End cost goes up. And Consume and Power Sink are shared by other ATs. So that leaves Domination as the only variable.

I don't expect you to agree with them, although I do wonder why you had to make such an involved counter argument to what was stated as opinion. Still, I may not be convinced that perma-Dom is the primary means of recovering End faster than it is spent, but I do accept, from what I have heard, that there are still good reasons to have perma-Dom. As I have no perma-Dom characters myself, I cannot make a direct comparison. I can only rely on what I have heard, and what others who both have and do not have perma-Dom have posted.

Let me ask you, though, while you certainly know about perma-Dom, have you ever actually tried removing all recharge from your build? Not, "I played up to 22, of course I did", or "I could stand around doing nothing, yeah" I mean actually creating a high level build, using all available powers, and slotting appropriately for the build to be successful? I already said previously that I don't believe you would enjoy playing such a build, and I won't argue that. But experience here is far more valuable than blind analysis of numbers.

(And just to say it, the nerf to Psi does throw any analysis of that Secondary out of the ballpark. Some people say it plays well in the early levels, some hate it. I still say that you're going to see a huge increase in End cost, even if you never had PSW to start with. I don't know that it's honest to say it's unplayable without perma-Dom, but at best it's just still playable)

I'm just trying to establish the boundaries of this discussion, that's all. I've already said that the End costs are higher for perma-Dom and near perma-Dom builds, for the Power Sets that I mentioned. Psi is clearly the worst of it, because it has undergone a rather serious nerf. For the most part, I am in complete agreement with you, you just chose to latch on to a minor statement, in the last paragraph of my original post, and argue that one point.

You have gone on and on about DPE, but continue to ignore EPS. You are in effect saying, "I'm more efficient now, I do more damage for the End I'm using, I should be using less End." But as has been stated previously, that's not the case if you are doing more damage. If the End increase due to damage is greater than the End saved by efficiency, there will be an overall increase. Efficiency is not the same thing as reduction.

My perception so far is that the people who seem happiest with the changes, and seem to care the least about the End changes, are those who have low recharge builds, and do not concentrate on Domination. My belief is that this is partially the increase in damage which they notice while not in Domination, and partially that while their is an increased End cost, it is not so greatly increased that their current slotting does not come close to compensating. It may be "idle time", where they are waiting for an attack to recharge, but I consider it more likely it is the down time between foes, or the use of low DPA attacks or control powers with lower DPE. (Properly slotted with End to minimize the End over time)

If you can come up with an explanation for that that does not involve questioning the trustworthiness of an observation, I welcome it. I personally think that the uniform solution of trying to throw more recharge at the problem is not best for all sets. The other ATs are able to function just fine without the End recharge advantages of an Inherent like Domination, and that's with base damages that are far lower than Dominators, now. The problem is not the End cost of Dominators overall, it is the comparison of Dominators to what they were before. Those who are adapting a current build seem to have more problems than those who are coming new to the AT. Which is why my suggestion was to try a new combination.

"Locally" in this context typically means "pushed onto the stack". It can mean a section of heap memory devoted to the routine, but in general it means it disappears when it is no longer needed.

Recovered memory is then reused for something else, which is why reinitialization, or the lack thereof, can be a problem. You get whatever was stored the last time you entered the code, or even a totally different section of code altogether.

So for this discussion it is not relevant that attacks outside of Domination are doing ~37% more damage before, with no proportionate increase in End cost? Sure, if you've got Domination up 75% of the time, you're getting that overall damage boost down into the single digits. But again, is that what counts as relevant to you? Are the only figures that matter those from people who have 67% or greater recharge? AND who are on teams large enough to have their Domination bar ready to go the moment the power recharges?

How about another question, would you say that Electrical Assault is using more Endurance than before? Or would powers from that set not be a valid example?

Would you actually do an example without including Domination, or considering Domination only up part of the time, or is that unimportant to you?

Well, there's a difference between telling someone how to play, and telling someone they shouldn't play at all.

OTOH, as I said, at least he gave the OP until the end of the mission.

This is my argument, really. Certainly you want to use the best DPE attacks you possibly can. However, as you use higher damage attacks, your EPS increases. Since those attacks are coming up more often, you are using them more often, and thus you are using more Endurance over time. While it might be less efficient from an DPE standpoint to have a lower recharge, and thus be forced to use a poor DPE power, if the EPS of that power is good (because it has a low DPS) then you will use less Endurance over time.

In short, high Damage = high Endurance. It's a direct proportion. (Or as I like to put it, "an attack is a tool for turning Endurance into damage") The more damage you do, the more End you spend. That's obvious. So if you have higher recharge, you are accordingly doing more damage, and spending more Endurance.

The question is whether the EPS recovery of having Domination up more often equals or exceeds the EPS loss of just throwing more high DPS attacks. I agree there is a dramatic jump point where the ability to activate permadom without having to wait for the bar to refill, but that's just for that one small range of recharge. If you compare the recharge required for permadom to the base recharge of a Dominator, or even the recharge with just Hasten, it's quite a different story.

Oh, definately. I still think you're underestimating the End cost for pushing your damage over time up so high, though. The problem is that the faster you throw attacks, and the more often you use attacks that have been changed by the rebalance, the more obvious the changes become. Recharge in essense multiplies the difference, both multiplying the increase in damage that has been given, but also multiplying the increase in End Cost. The End management tools, by contrast, have not really changed.

With Electric Assault it should be the other way around. The more often you can throw melee attacks (which should be up more often anyway) the less Endurance you use compared to the old version. And since you are potentially throwing faster attacks more often, you should be recovering more End with the End drain capability as well. The only wild card is how often you throw Thunder Strike.

Most of the people who say that their change in End cost is minimal appear to be those whose recharge slotting is minimal, and I believe that's significant. You can refuse to believe them if you wish, but since their DPS would be much less than yours anyway, you would probably not want to build that way even if it was more End efficient.

Actually, I suppose it is silly of me to forget this, but the fact that outside of Domination you are doing nearly twice as much damage for the same amount of Endurance is relevant as well. Not that this means that you spend less Endurance, in fact End costs in most cases should have gone up. However, most foes will be dead well before you expend the same End that you spent before. You really should not notice the increase unless you are taking on twice the number of foes. And I think under those circumstances the End cost increase would not be noticed, as much as the larger pile of dead bodies. Obviously if you are never outside of Domination, this performance is not noticable, or is seen as merely the prelude to getting permadom up. (Possibly it is even seen as annoying, as more foes are required for the build up)

I think for individual concept reasons, all options available for any stealth power ("full" transparency, partial transparency, black "shadowing") should be available for all stealth powers. Let me decide if my Energy Cloak bends light around me to make me partially invisible, or if it absorbs light to prevent it from reflecting off of me.

I believe I mentioned in another thread that IMO the "partial invisibility" option should give 70% transparency at the most. This is the transparency you get from Group Invisibility WHEN IT IS SUPPRESSED. Since the two stealth powers we're talking about do not visibly suppress, I would like the option of having the normal 90% transparency, or the suppressed 70% transparency.

Personally, I'd like to see something more like 50% transparency for Cloak of Shadows, since you are obscured by the effect anyway, and 70% for Energy Cloak. Maybe a 70% option for Cloaking Device, Superior Invisibility and Group Invisibility as well, although those do suppress. If you can't change the suppressed value as well as the regular one, maybe make it 80%, or just change the suppressed value to 50% or 60% whether you use the partial option or the full one. It would still be obvious that it's better than Stealth. (After all, there really isn't a 70%/50% option, it's either Stealth, which is 50%/20%, or 90/70)

I'd also like to see the "shadowy" option for Hide, although I don't think it needs a partial option since it suppresses. (And suppresses to total visibility) Same with the stealth AoE powers, with only 30% transparency they don't need a partial option, but I'd like the shadow one. (If nothing else, on Shadow Fall) Don't think I'm asking for all this at once, though, you can start with the Defense sets and go from there.

You realize that by this definition, a FF/Energy Defender provides absolutely no force multiplication.

Not to say that you don't realize this, but you've basically implied (in the context of this thread's topic) that an FF/NRG Defender is no more useful than a Scrapper. (Less, since it does less damage)

I also expect that with the development of Radiation and Sonic based Melee and Armor Sets, force multiplication will become available to meleers. They are already available to Blasters, as Radiation Blast and Sonic Attack. This may be the reason why these sets are not Melee sets yet, as well as why Rad Blast took as long as it did to be ported to Blasters.

Personally, while Rise to the Challenge and Against All Odds may not debuff defense, and thus aren't force multipliers, I think both being defense multipliers, offering protection to the team as well as the meleer, does leave the option open for a -Res debuff in the future. Which is, honestly speaking, the only force multiplier you are talking about which is not a buff. (While -Def is useful, and as noted many Meleers have it, particularly weapon users, it is not as useful as -Res, I don't believe)