UberGuy

It's definitely for all attacks. I think the Kheldian one is also "always-on", though what it does depends on what form you're in.

I apologize for running with it when it was apparently all miscommunication. To celebrate, we should all agree maul lots of stuff with melee characters of some kind.

It may depend on primary, or how aggressively one plays to build fury. At low levels with limited endurance and recharge, some attack sets don't build fury very well, and it can be hard to keep in end to maintain it, though if you get it going, blue inspiration drops may keep you rolling. Lucks help too, because they can allow you to pile into more foes, building/sustaining Fury better.

There's has to be range where a Scrapper's damage is above low-end lowbie Brute performance but below the sweet spot of sustained Fury, and relative feel may depend on both sets chosen and aggressiveness of play.

Well, in specific response to you (and not on the whole topic) I'm splitting hairs here and admit it, but they don't provide more mitigation. Applied to higher base HP, the combination provides better survival. But either way, fundamentally, I'm not arguing against the point you're making.

What I leapt on here was was they way it was said, which to me came off as "yeah, Shields is one of the only powersets it's better to play on a Scrapper, because the other secondaries 'work better' on Brutes". In this climate of so many people grousing for buffs to Scrappers because Stalkers were made to mostly not suck, that sounded like yet another dig at something being deficient with Scrappers, because they're not a Brute or Stalker. I think it's pretty self evident that X% damage mitigation applied to higher HP survives better, but I don't know if I'd have said it the way Moonlighter did. But maybe that's just because I'm looking for people saying something he wasn't.

So why would enhancement converters increase the supply of PvPIOs in general, thus allowing nerfing farms without outcry? (I'm not at all sure that would stop them, to be honest, but lets go with it for now.)

I rather doubt that, sans farmers, there's high enough supply of PvPOs of any sort to supply the demand even for the just procs/uniques created through conversion.

Ugh, but her personality. I think she must have ran afoul of Vahzilok who took her brain and she just kept going without it.

I understand why AAO works better on a Scrapper. That wasn't at all what I was taking issue with. It was the idea that apparently most anything else works "better" on a Brute.

OK, that made me lol.

Bring lots of inspirations!

I wish people would stop posting stuff that makes me want to come here and roll my eyes at them.

So "one of the few secondaries that work better". Really. Is this more slavish attachment to "taunt-auras-or-bust", or just a really bitter way to state the obvious that a mitigation powerset is going to "work better" with higher base HP?

Some people believe that if you can find a performance maxima, nothing else matters, and the perfmance maxima they have found (or believe they have found) is all one should strive to. They usually conveniently ignore that such performance maxima only appear under specific conditions or only apply to only one performance metric, often because they prefer playing only under those conditions or value that performance metric above all others. That means the peak they've found is a great fit for them, but then some of them come to the forums and proclaim how they don't understand why anyone would play anything else.

The question that needs to be raised in such situations is whether fiddling with the conditions or looking at other criteria lets other builds, powersets or ATs take the spotlight. If not, and there's always one clear numerical winner, then there may be a real problem worth of redress by the devs. The problem is usually that people who post about this sort of thing very rarely do the due diligence of really looking at the whole picture.

It can be an easy trap to fall into. I'm sure I've fallen into it at times in the past. I like to think I've learned to take a broad view over the years, to try and take in more of the picture.

Even though most players share interest in maximizing certain kinds of performance, like XP/time or defeats/time, not everyone shares the same levels of interest in it relative to other kinds of performance. What matters is whether the characters they enjoy playing, the way they enjoy playing them, have some relevance to the game. I think relevance requires two things - that their character provides a service to a team that teams actually desire or appreciate, and that their performance at providing that service is not clearly eclipsed by another type of character.

I don't think that either Stalkers or Brutes clearly eclipse the things a Scrapper does. They do similar things slightly differently, with slightly different performance maxima. I think the I22 changes to Stalkers finally make what they do not be clearly eclipsed by both Scrappers and Brutes - a problem I do think they had until now.

"Master of". You probably know what that means, but just in case, it means completing it with temp powers disabled and no deaths.

o.O

Seriously, what?

This isn't a comic book. We aren't reading a story. We're playing a game with its own mechanics. Stories we read and games we play are not the same thing, short of something like "choose your own path" books.

I don't have much stake in this overall discussion/argument, but that justification of a long-lasting debuff is totally bizarre to me.

On topic: I read the descriptions and got it right the first time. I never suffered the debuff. I still think 20 hours was a bad idea.

More and more, new content acknowledges gender. I'm not sure the game has internal variables exposed for powersets, but I'm not at all sure it would be a good idea. Some people like to take their powersets, recolor them and pretend they are something else entirely. I think it might be best to leave that alone. Let alone the explosion of internal if/then options that would need to exist in the actual dialog. "That was so cool when you (set them on fire|cast them into the netherworld|electrocuted them|bent their will to your own|overran them with minions....)."

Having dialog acknowledge huge characters, at least in passing, would be neat, but I doubt most people would experience it enough to make it worth pervasive use.

Yes, barring adjustment for AoEs, that's how it works. Based on interactions in the beta forums, that appears to be working as designed. At the least, at least one dev confirmed that they work that way.

I would not be pleased to lose my global, but losing character names would be a deal breaker for me.

Above around level 25, Fly caps flight speed with no enhancement.

Whether or not to keep it is very much a matter of taste, but I agree that it's something you could skip and likely do just fine without a significant majority of the time. I keep it on my own Invul characters, but rarely use it. Sometimes, though, it saves my bacon, and that's enough to get me to keep it for now, since there's nothing I desperately want to replace it with. (Tanking Lord Recluse when no towers are down comes to mind, but Inspirations can do this too.) It also sounds like it might fit your concept a bit to keep it.

Hasten and Rage really make a dramatic impact on your character's performance. If you aren't using Rage all the time, you're much less effective at dealing damage than you could be. I agree that you don't need Focused Accuracy at all when you have Rage. FA gives you resistance against toHit debuff that is nice, but you pay through the nose for it in endurance cost.

Agreed.

I maintain this intention is misguided for effects that affect enemies. Nothing else about AoEs works like that. The more targets you catch in your AoE, the more affect your power has on average. Making these procs work such that their behavior is strictly apportioned by activation is contrary to every other example of how AoEs work in CoH.

As I mentioned, I have no problem with this behavior for effects which affect the caster. Receiving a self-buff at a rate that is constant relative to power activation does have precedent in rest of the game, especially in the realm of IOs. The Force Feedback proc, for example, does not self-stack, meaning no matter how many targets you hit, you only get one buff. The store-style PPM/target system allows something similar while still allowing stacking.

While I agree given the way things are, I do not like the way things are. Not for things like the Corruptor and Blaster procs. Moreover, I feel that anyone who buys a set like Positron's Blast from the Paragon Market is getting screwed on the proc.

Dear lord, divided by the target cap is absolutely atrocious. I don't understand why they made performance of the store-style procs inversely proportional to targets, when nothing else in the game works that way.

Actually, let me qualify that. I actually do sort of understand it for procs like this, where the affect targets the caster. However, such behavior is absolutely awful for procs that affect the targets, like damage procs.

Edit: Think about this. If the final odds are really simply divided by the target cap, then even if you get your "straight PPM" rate to 100%, and even if you always saturate your AoE's target cap, then your average activation chance will work out to one target per activation. That's the absolute best proc rate possible. If you don't slot it such that the PPM*recharge > 1 or you don't always saturate your AoE's target limit, then you will average less than one proc per AoE activation.

Regardless, Gauntlet should not count like it does. That screws up the proc rate for supposedly single-target attacks, as has been discovered.