Umbral

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Raising the crit chance even further has been suggested numerous times, though it's always been taken with a grain of salt, especially since a large portion of crit damage of is "wasted" via overkill in normal play (i.e. not punching AVs). Even so, a 40% crit rate is simply stupid. Anything over 20% isn't going to happen.

Which is pretty much just the same as removing the crit chance altogether and doubling the damage. I doubt that would ever happen, even if Castle had a silent stroke and completely forgot what balance was.

Well, considering that it's not Posi that does the power rebalancing, I doubt that Posi really ever does buff anything.

Now, if you're talking about Castle buffing, you're completely misreading what has been told to you. The concept of only ever buffing something is simply stupid because it leads to an infinite cycle of buffing and increase in scale of enemies so as to prevent difficulty from being tossed out the window and replaced with a single button that reads "I win!". By that same token, only ever weakening sets accomplishes the same thing.

The entire point of the explanation you are so horribly misinterpreting is that sets should be strengthened or weakened based on their position relative to the specific point of reference the devs choose to mark as "normal". If a set/power is doing worse than it should be, the set/power will be buffed. If a set/power is doing better than it should be, the set/power will be weakened to bring it in line. Only ever using a single method of normalization (buffing or weakening) is simply stupid.

Reducing animation time and increasing damage both do roughly the same thing in the end: they give the attack better DPA and attack strings better DPS. The problem with increasing damage is that, unless you can convince the devs otherwise, it will come with a commensurate increase to endurance costs and recharge times. Shortening the animation time would leave the endurance and recharge costs where they are (which are fine, from where I'm standing) while simultaneously making the attack more useful (get the stun in faster) and less likely to be wasted (because you took 2.5 seconds to kick the guy in the face and your team already wasted your target in that time).

The problem with attempting any fix that would place EC into top tier attack strings is that you've got to make the attack competitive with Storm Kick, which is very unlikely to happen because it has extremely high DPA and a very short recharge time. Unless the attack gets a massive overhaul and starts dealing in excess of 80-90 DPS, Storm Kick is still going to be the better attack and, because of this, it will be bad to delay its use by using another attack. Because of this, it's even more effective to have the animation time of EC reduced rather than the damage increased: with a 2.03 base animation time, the attack wouldn't interfere with the use of other attacks to the same extent that the current animation does.

Did you have any kind of logical underpinning for the suggestion or math to support the idea beyond "want more AoE"? I'm also not particularly attached to that idea, anyway. I play DM and, as we all know, DM is not the most AoE capable set and MA still blows it out of the water.

Actually, the devs have simply determined that MA is sufficiently within the realms of "normal" that it doesn't immediately deserve to receive treatment. This doesn't mean that if players actually demonstrated a lower level of performance (which many players have been doing for a remarkably long period of time) that the set could get a boost. Getting a boost has nothing to do with giving anything up. Very little in the way the devs design the sets is zero sum, especially when you get into tweaking specific powers for overall set performance.

Well, the problem with EC is that it simply takes too long to deal less damage than comparable tier 9s. If you want some object comparisons, EC takes 2.772 seconds to deal 164 damage (59.2 DPA). Headsplitter takes 2.508 seconds to deal 187.1 damage (74.6 DPA), Midnight Grasp takes 2.244 seconds to deal 189.9 damage (84.6 DPA), Greater Fire Sword takes 2.508 seconds to deal 194.43 damage (77.5 DPA), and Golden Dragonfly takes 1.98 seconds to deal 164 damage (82.8 DPA). EC takes nearly a full second longer than Golden Dragonfly to deal the exact same amount of damage. That has always stuck in my craw.

The solution, as I see it, is to simply reduce the animation time on EC. Shave off half of a second by skipping some frames (especially during the "I'm hovering in midair, getting ready to kick you!" phase), and you'll bring the DPA from 59.2 to 73.1 (164/2.244). It would still be the "worst damage" of the tier 9s within its group, but it gets a pass on that by having a ridiculously awesome tier 2 power.

Another suggestion to round it out might be to provide some degree of AoE damage to it a la Thunder Strike (~50 damage, 8' radius). The explanation could be you hit them so hard, the wind itself damages their nearby allies. It wouldn't make the powerset better in ST situations (which is being addressed by reducing the animation time) but it would provide some much needed AoE performance for the set (since it lacks the ridiculous utility that DM has).

You're assuming that something should be given up? It's a known quantity that EC and MA as a whole are poor performers. They don't need to "give anything up" to get a boost to performance. If they had to sacrifice something to get a buff (which rarely if ever happens when you can demonstrate that a powerset is underperforming like MA has regularly shown to), it wouldn't be a buff.

It's debatable whether Jack did it right or whether he overdid it. One could easily argue that Jack simply ran roughshod over the model and simply reversed it: now, heals are fundamentally useless without the presence of substantial buffs (and oftentimes completely unneeded). Buffs and debuffs are powerful but there is a very compelling argument that they are, in fact, too powerful, especially when you consider how stacking them can generate some ridiculous benefits.

Personally, I'd rather Jack had made heals and de/buffs roughly equitable. On the same note, I'd also have preferred Jack made the game operate off an attrition mechanism rather than allow the game to operate under an assumption of indefinite duration performance (infinitely or nigh upon infinitely sustainable endurance and hp thanks to comparatively high natural hp and endurance regeneration), but the number of things I'd have preferred Jack had done with the game rather than what actually happened with this game are remarkably long (and lot of it is built off of what we know about the game and how those models work so we can't really blame Jack for not knowing what side effects it would have).

Ahh... heuristic balance tweaking...

Which wasn't changed until recently because the devs didn't determine that it needed to be changed until substantially after it was developed, mainly because it seemed reasonably balance when it was first release (wow, I can get something for putting a few spare slots in my travel powers!) but ended up being an incredibly easy way to generate a lot of defense (my 4 travel powers have made me untouchable!).

Which was an issue of coding rather than fixing a numerical entry, iirc.

Depending on your views on my suggestions, I've already demonstrated that it's possible to balance Stone Armor, and I can tell you that it took me roughly 2 hours to put that entire proposal together. Looking at the numbers wasn't difficult.

Except that there is a big difference between the large scale changes to entire ATs compared to the development time required for individual powersets. The AT changes you're talking about here are much more expansive and have substantially larger repercussions than the development of an individual power set: all of those changes have to be made knowing how they would interact with every single set and powerset combination available to that AT. Creating a powerset (which is what we're talking about, from a development standpoint) is not the same as that. Putting together numbers for a powerset when you have the tools to determine what the output will be with a reasonable level of accuracy (which the devs actually have; Castle knows the Excel-fu) is actually rather simple once you actually understand how everything works (which the devs do; Castle knows numbers-fu).

Keep in mind, when you bring up the "failings" of the devs to respond to broken mechanisms in game, a lot of that isn't the inability of the devs to tackle that problem specifically. Often it's a lack of desire to mess with what is roughly balanced, if a bit strong, or simple ignorance that something needs their balancing attentions. The devs aren't omniscient, so they aren't going to be able to tell immediately that something is broken or is outperforming their intentions. Look at what it took for Castle to realize that Shield Charge was horribly borked. As players, we have to put a lot of work into convincing the devs that a power or set is broken in some way. When you look at the times that we've actually convinced the devs to look into a power or set, the changes happen very quickly. Unlike animation changes which, once again, take a very long period of time.

The entire set up for the integrated voice chat was optional, just like global channels are for our chat. It defaulted to guild chat off and team chat on, iirc, but you could always just turn it off or change whether one or the other was active (there were also different hot-keys for speaking to each respective channel). It was even possible to ignore specific individuals' voice chat or for the team leader to mute someone.

Back when I was playing DDO (for about a month after it came out before I got bored with it), the integrated voice chat they had was very nice. You didn't need to have a mic installed and it allowed for virtually all of the same controls as most of the other big voice chat programs out there (push-to-talk or auto-mic, changing individual player volumes, etc), and you had chat channels for team, zone, and guild, as well. It was remarkably nice since it allowed teams to maintain a higher degree of teamwork than normal because you could simply talk out plans rather than having to type them out.

On the topic of player generated voice acting... no. Really. No. Consider how many bad stories the AE has (even when people are actually trying) and then realize how much faster it is to read stuff than it is to listen to it. It would be even worse for the person having to slog through all of the entries than it is for someone trying to find a decent story in the vast morass of AE mishes.

Actually, it is. The "work" thereafter is involved in balancing out those numbers, which, while it involves a good deal of work, isn't as much as that demanded by the animations. Castle doesn't spend a vast majority of his time working with player powerset spreadsheets (which some people may assume). He spends a lot of his time working on NPC powers and other enemy related things ("Power guys" refers to all powers used, not just those used by the players).

Actually, I'm not saying that Castle could be replaced by a fast typist. Part of the reason why Castle is in charge there is because he understands how to type stuff in. Still, even though it requires a bit of expertise and some number crunchery, the fact that he has had so much experience doing it means that it takes up comparatively less effort and time for him. I'm pretty confident that, given a few hours, Castle could put together numbers for any number of conceptual set ideas. It doesn't mean that he could be easily replaced (because his ability to set down those numbers so easily is one of the reasons why it takes so little time), but neither does it mean that a vast majority of the development effort for a set is geared towards the number crunching. Once you reach the beta phase, yes, it becomes mostly about the numbers and tweaks therein, but the animations come first and we know, from the mouth of BABs, that animations take up a lot of effort.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that Castle and Synapse created the numbers for sets we're just now seeing years ago. Animation takes a lot more time than creating the numbers for the sets do. They may require a similar degree of expertise to do it right, but "a similar degree of expertise" is not the same as "same amount of effort invested".

If you want an object example, look at how much time it takes the devs to change an animation once they have figured out that it needs changing compared to the amount of time it takes the devs to change a number that they decide needs changing. The difference is in magnitudes. A numerical change can generally be seen within a few weeks to a couple months of the change being decided upon. An animation change, on the other hand, generally takes at least 1-2 issues before it finally arrives.

Why would you ever bother doing that? The enhancement values are largely a waste. The set bonuses are, honestly, lackluster (run speed, debt prot, psi defense, tox resist? the only worthwhile thing in the entire set is the AoE defense and, even then, AoE defense is the least useful positional). You'd do much better simply shaving 2 slots off of there and going with either of the slottings Claws and I recommended. That way, you're not wasting 2 slots and a lot of pointless enhancement values on almost entirely useless set bonuses (and you'll be getting some global recharge out of it to boot).

GC: base 57.8 damage, .924 sec real animation time
SD: base 123.9 damage, 1.584 real animation time
GD: base 164 damage, 1.98 real animation time

Assuming 95% damage slotting, you're going to get comparative DPAs of...

GC: 122.0 (57.8 * 1.95 / .924)
SD: 152.5 (123.9 * 1.95 / 1.584)
GD: 161.5 (164 * 1.95 / 1.98)

So, with no procs, GC is pretty much left in the dust and GD has a sizeable lead over SD. Now, let's factor in a damage proc (20% chance for 71.8 damage). The average contribution for that is 14.36 damage, so that gives us...

GC: 137.5 (((57.8 * 1.95) + 14.36) / .924)
SD: 161.6 (((123.9 * 1.95) + 14.36) / 1.584)
GD: 168.8 (((164 * 1.95) + 14.36) / 1.98)

With a single proc, GC is still pretty much left in the dust by the other 2 and SD is only just getting to where GD was starting. Let's add another damage proc, which gives us...

GC: 153.1 (((57.8 * 1.95) + (14.36 * 2)) / .924)
SD: 170.6 (((123.9 * 1.95) + (14.36 * 2)) / 1.584)
GD: 176.0 (((164 * 1.95) + (14.36 * 2)) / 1.98)

So, even with 2 damage procs, GD is still in the lead and GC is only barely catching up. SD is making some headway, but it's going to take a lot just to get to the point of equivalence. No matter how you cut it, unless you short sell GD, GD is still the better attack, even assuming you run proc heavy.

Also, I'm still curious where you're getting the 250 DPS from when using attacks that manage ~170. The AH proc is going to add a good deal to that, but it's not going to count for roughly a 33% DPS deficit.

Because getting to deal damage with a normal attack string all the time without having to rely upon DA all the time is a good idea?

I dare you to find any way that I have "gimped" the build in question by getting those levels of defense. It's not a question of "defense v. other things". It's a question of "defense v. not having defense". You could easily have built some defense into that build and allowed the build to forgo the loss of DPS in situations where damage is higher and maintain higher DPS, but you didn't.

1. I looked at your build. It doesn't have the recharge to run GD>GC>SD>GC seamlessly. You need to have GD recharging in 3.432 (.924 + 1.584 + .924) seconds in order to maintain that chain. With Hasten up, your build is only managing a 4.22 second recharge.

2. GC is not going to be able to keep AH up permanently. Werner and I have both done the math and that attack string generates roughly 60-70% uptime against hard targets. Even if you had an AH proc in every attack and were saturating it with attempts, you still wouldn't be able to maintain 100% uptime. At best, you could get it to roughly 90% uptime.

3. GC benefits from procs, yes, but it still benefits more from slotting than it does from simple procs. The only procs that are better per slot than a straight damage enhancement are the Hecatomb proc (which begs the question of why you put the Hecatomb into SD where it will see half of the use that it would see in GC) and the AH proc (which only does so because it acts as damage multiplication, but only against hard targets that will actually be alive long enough to see a majority of the duration). SD, however, does not benefit substantially. Procsaw builds, which you're operating under the assumption of, require a large number of fast attacks, fast being generally less than 1 second. In practical application, the only time that the procs will contribute substantially is when you're saturated on damage enhancement. Of course, you're also assuming animation time saturation, which your build doesn't manage, so it would actually be better to simply get some recharge and bolster both your survivability and your damage.

It's bad in the sense of "it could be better... a lot better". For the exact same amount of money, you could get substantially better performance universally. Just because you can solo content in the game doesn't make it particularly impressive. With a few minor exceptions, the game isn't designed to be particularly difficult.

It's not even a question of "no building for defense = bad". It's a question of "no going for set bonuses = bad". For that much money, you could be packing on a lot more recharge. Back before I had started developing the def/rech fusion builds that are now popular for */Regen, the basic design philosophy was exactly the same one that you follow, only we actually got more than just a couple rudimentary +rech set bonuses from purple sets. We maintained the exact same enhancement values you have while getting something else out of them. Like I said before, your build is largely a frankenslotting build with a few set bonuses thrown in. With that same expenditure of money, it could do a whole lot more.

Personally, I'd be curious to see if you could solo the ITF with that build. I don't imagine you'd do particularly well in the final fight with Rom, especially if you're having to constantly spam DA in order to stay standing (which I have no doubt would be the case). I'm more than confident the build I provided can since that build has been demonstrated to be capable of soloing 4 AVs simultaneously.

First off, enhanced Dull Pain does not provide you with 80% +hp. Dull Pain provides 2 types of +hp: enhanceable and unenhanceable. Of the 40% base +hp it provides, 20% is unenhanceable while 20% is enhanceable. With your assumed 100% heal enhancement, DP will only provide 60% +regen (hence the need for the 20% +hp from the passive accolades to reach the Scrapper hp cap of 180%).

Considering that both of the powers in question that provide the soft control only have a chance to provide that soft control, you cannot say with any assurance that a player will be able to permanently juggle any one foe. At most, they can expect to keep a foe juggled for roughly 45% of the time, assuming that the target is on their back for the entire time if both knock effects activate.

I'm curious where you're getting this. Fire/Shield Scrappers (which are vastly superior to the damage capabilities of Kat/Regen Scrappers consider it good to manage 250 DPS.

At best, Kat/* is going to top out at around 200 DPS and that's factoring in AH procs, BU, and no use of DA (which will lower your DPS considerably, especially if you build around 2 applications of DA in order to reach the softcap rather than a single application). The 250 DPS number you're getting is simply wrong.

I strongly suggest you look into the DPS calculations that have been done on this forums by Werner, Billzbubba, and myself. I also recommend you learn what Arcanatime is because I think that might be your problem (along with a lack of knowledge as to how to properly apply the benefits of the AH proc). The attacks in the set aren't nearly as fast as you think they are.

Considering */Regen's ability to leverage increased survivability over short periods of time, I wouldn't say that burst damage is the set's weakness. If anything, it's the set's strength because, once you learn to predict when damage is incoming, you can choose to use your click powers to get the most benefit out of them.

The set's weakness, in all honesty, is debuffs. -Rech prevents you from getting your click powers back up asap, which is important when you realize that huge amounts of your survivability are based around those click powers. -Regen and -heal, though rare, can cripple your functionality specifically because they are doled out in such large magnitude. Similarly, because they're rare, it's not uncommon to not notice that you just got all of your passive regeneration revoked by the plasma blast of a Kronos Titan until you're lying on the floor wondering what happened.

On a similar note, the weakness of the set can just as easily be said to be its lack of top end performance. While it is very responsive to player skill, because the set is so focused around damage recovery, it gets smaller comparative returns from both damage recovery and damage mitigation compared to other sets (damage recovery is additive gain which means that the comparative advantages diminish while damage mitigation is additive percent reduction which means that comparative advantages increase exponentially and then plateau).

I created a monster by telling you this, didn't I?

I'm not entirely sure you know what you're talking about here. If you know anything about Arcanatime, you'd know that GC and SD are both worse for DPS than GD. Either way, SotW is largely pointless so I wouldn't recommend picking it up either way.

No, you do not want to slot DA with Defense enhancement. It's better to simply slot it as an attack. If you're talking IO builds, it's better to get some set bonus credit rather than attempting to get some arbitrary and largely pointless defense enhancement in the power. The only defense enhancement I would give to DA would be the tangential defense from an LotG +rech. No other defense enhancement is really needed. If you're talking decent IO builds, you're only going to need a single DA stack in order to hit the melee softcap (likely going positional rather than typed).

Recharge rate isn't as important for Kat/* as it is for */Regen. Kat, thanks to short animation times and proportionately shorter recharge times, actually has lower top end recharge requirements than virtually any other primary out there, especially if you plan on running with a stack of DA up.

Where procs are concerned, the only one you're going to want to go out of your way to invest in is the AH proc, and, even then, only in GC (because you're going to be using it enough that you enter into diminishing returns by slotting it in other powers). Even in GC (which is the best option for procs thanks to low animation time), it's still better to slot for damage rather than procs.

Actually, it needs less than that. MoG provides 71.3% +res. The Scrapper resistance cap is 75%. All you would need to cap resistance is 5.2% enhancement, which is the equivalent of a +1 TO. Any slot devoted to resistance in MoG is wasted. Besides, you're already substantially above the softcap: the difference between capping res and leaving it where it is normally is virtually nonexistent (2.87% admittance compared to 2.5% admittance).

Counseling someone to slot up Fast Healing in an IO build is largely pointless. FH provides damage recovery when you've already got more than enough. While it might make sense to drop a few slots that aren't needed elsewhere into FH in an SO build, in an IO build, FH largely serves to be a nice place to put your Heal set uniques. The slots you're talking about are better spent elsewhere.

Firstly, DP is permanent at 55% +rech, assuming 95% +rech slotting in Hasten and DP.

Secondly, DP does not automatically give you capped hp. Assuming you have the passive +hp accolades (TFC, FPR, Portal Jockey), Dull Pain will put you within a single +hp set bonus of the Scrapper hp cap. If you do not have all of the passive +hp accolades, much less any of them, it will not bring you anywhere near the hp cap without some very hefty +hp set bonus acquisition (which, considering how easy it is to get those accolades, is largely a wasted effort).

Fitness is a questionable power pool pick. The biggest reason to get Fitness is Stamina and, with an IO build as well as Physical Perfection from Body Mastery, the need for it is largely nonexistent. Health is largely useless because, as I have said before, more +regen doesn't do you all that much good when you've already got so much of it: compared to using those resources to augment your damage mitigation, it's just not an intelligent choice. You can easily attain infinite endurance sustainability without ever having to touch the Fitness pool, so there isn't much point.

Stealth isn't required to ghost missions. I can ghost missions on toons without any stealth power. All you really need to do it easily is the Stealth IO, and that's not going to be a power that sits there useless for 90% of the time.

On the topic of Power Pools, I'm simply amazed that you neglected to mention Leadership and/or Fighting, both of which will do more for */Regen than Stealth will (because Stealth costs 4 times as much for the exact same +def as CJ). I would recommend that any IO'd Regen build take one or both of those pools if possible.

Please take this the wrong way because that build is bad. It's not "never seen IOs before" bad, but it reminds me of the builds that were put out right after IOs were introduced and people had no idea what stacking defense meant. You spent all of that money without getting any appreciable levels of defense so that the entirety of your damage mitigation is holed up in DA. If you get hit with any kind of -tohit, you're going to get beaten down rather quickly (especially since you don't even have any appreciable tohit or tohit debuff resist to counteract those effects), not to mention that you're sacrificing numerous opportunities for set +rech and +def set bonuses just to shave a slot here or there. That build looks largely like an expensive frankenslotting project rather than an out and out optimized build, which I would expect from any expenditure of that degree.

Here is a better build on the same budget. It manages better defenses, more recharge, and better damage as well. Endurance is infinitely sustainable. You'll notice that it sacrifices a bit of regen, but, considering how much less damage you're going to be taking thanks to the higher defenses and resistances. As I'm known to say, there isn't much point in taken */Regen past roughly 600% regen: factoring in Recon and IH, the comparative advantages are too scarce to make using slots for additional +regen worth it.

Hero Plan by Mids' Hero Designer 1.704
http://www.cohplanner.com/

Click this DataLink to open the build!

Level 50 Magic Scrapper
Primary Power Set: Katana
Secondary Power Set: Regeneration
Power Pool: Leaping
Power Pool: Speed
Power Pool: Fighting
Power Pool: Leadership
Ancillary Pool: Body Mastery

Hero Profile:
Level 1: Gambler's Cut -- Hectmb-Dmg(A), Hectmb-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(3), Hectmb-Acc/Rchg(3), Hectmb-Dmg/EndRdx(5), Hectmb-Dam%(5), Achilles-ResDeb%(7)
Level 1: Fast Healing -- Numna-Heal(A), RgnTis-Regen+(29), Panac-Heal/+End(45), Numna-Regen/Rcvry+(46), Mrcl-Rcvry+(46)
Level 2: Reconstruction -- Dct'dW-Heal/EndRdx(A), Dct'dW-Heal/Rchg(7), Dct'dW-Heal/EndRdx/Rchg(9), Dct'dW-Heal(9), Dct'dW-Rchg(11)
Level 4: Quick Recovery -- P'Shift-End%(A), P'Shift-EndMod(11), EndMod-I(13)
Level 6: Combat Jumping -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A), LkGmblr-Def(13), Winter-ResSlow(27)
Level 8: Divine Avalanche -- C'ngImp-Acc/Dmg(A), C'ngImp-Dmg/EndRdx(15), C'ngImp-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(15), C'ngImp-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(17), C'ngImp-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(17), LkGmblr-Rchg+(19)
Level 10: Dull Pain -- Panac-Heal/EndRedux(A), Panac-EndRdx/Rchg(19), Panac-Heal/Rchg(21), Panac-Heal/EndRedux/Rchg(21), Panac-Heal(23)
Level 12: Build Up -- AdjTgt-Rchg(A), AdjTgt-ToHit/Rchg(23)
Level 14: Super Jump -- Zephyr-Travel(A), Zephyr-Travel/EndRdx(25)
Level 16: Integration -- Numna-Heal(A), Numna-Heal/EndRdx(29), Heal-I(31)
Level 18: The Lotus Drops -- Oblit-Dmg(A), Oblit-Acc/Rchg(31), Oblit-Dmg/Rchg(31), Oblit-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(33), Oblit-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(33), Oblit-%Dam(33)
Level 20: Hasten -- RechRdx-I(A), RechRdx-I(34), RechRdx-I(34)
Level 22: Boxing -- Empty(A)
Level 24: Tough -- Aegis-ResDam(A), Aegis-ResDam/EndRdx(25), Aegis-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg(27), S'fstPrt-ResDam/Def+(34)
Level 26: Soaring Dragon -- T'Death-Acc/Dmg(A), T'Death-Dmg/EndRdx(36), T'Death-Dmg/Rchg(37), T'Death-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(37), T'Death-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(37), T'Death-Dam%(39)
Level 28: Instant Healing -- Dct'dW-EndRdx/Rchg(A), Dct'dW-Heal/Rchg(36), Dct'dW-Heal/EndRdx/Rchg(36), Dct'dW-Heal(39), Dct'dW-Rchg(39)
Level 30: Weave -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx(40), LkGmblr-Def(40)
Level 32: Golden Dragonfly -- Armgdn-Dmg/Rchg(A), Armgdn-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(42), Armgdn-Acc/Rchg(42), Armgdn-Dmg/EndRdx(42), Armgdn-Dam%(43), FotG-ResDeb%(43)
Level 35: Maneuvers -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A), LkGmblr-Def(43), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx(45)
Level 38: Moment of Glory -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A), LkGmblr-Def/Rchg(40), RechRdx-I(46), RechRdx-I(50)
Level 41: Conserve Power -- RechRdx-I(A)
Level 44: Physical Perfection -- P'Shift-End%(A), P'Shift-EndMod(45)
Level 47: Tactics -- GSFC-ToHit(A), GSFC-ToHit/Rchg(48), GSFC-ToHit/Rchg/EndRdx(48), GSFC-Rchg/EndRdx(48), GSFC-ToHit/EndRdx(50), GSFC-Build%(50)
Level 49: Resilience -- GA-3defTpProc(A)
------------
Level 1: Brawl -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Sprint -- Empty(A)
Level 2: Rest -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Critical Hit
Level 0: Ninja Run

I'd say 2 common rech IOs, the LotG def/rech, and the LotG +rech. You'll have pretty much the same recharge enhancement (since most of the third IO is going to get eaten by ED anyway), but you'll get a little bit of additional regen.

As for using it, I tend to use it whenever I'm expecting a large amount of damage to come in a short period of time. Alpha strikes generally fit this bill, but I'll also use it when I'm expecting a heavy hit from an AV or when I can tell that the attacks of enemies have lined up to get a few nasty attacks in on me.

It's also a useful power to use when you need to shed defense debuffs. When I'm running the Cimeroran wall or the ITF, if I ever get more than a couple def debuffs stacked on me, I can generally burn MoG and shed them relatively easily (because it's hard to be below 45% +def when you're packing 120% +def(s/l) before debuffs are applied).

From what we've been told, it's about the same amount of work, in the same way that making a new zone and updating an existing zone are about the same amount of work.

For a new powerset, Castle just has to put some numbers together in a spreadsheet and then work with the animations guys to figure out what each attack looks like. From that point on, it's all in the animations, and, considering how long it takes to put some balanced numbers together in a spreadsheet (Synapse spent his first week putting together numbers for Elec Control and we're only, just now, seeing the fruits of his labors), the animation time takes up a vast majority of the effort and time involved. Creating new animations would essentially do away with the exceptionally short "powers guy puts numbers in a spreadsheet" portion of development.

Personally, I would love to see something like this happen, but I doubt it would actually happen. The booster packs have, traditionally, been using cheap (from a time/effort/money standpoint) development resources to put out something that the devs can then turn around and make some "easy" money with by selling them to a large portion of portion of the playerbase. Booster packs designed around alternate animations would either require substantially higher development resources (to target a large number of powers) or be targeted to a smaller portion of the playerbase (by only providing options for a substantially smaller number of powers). Either way, the cost:benefit isn't really there, and that's the big advantage of the booster packs: a really low cost:benefit ratio.

Well, it's not so much the taunt effect as the fact that it provides you with more damage (which is one of the variables that determines threat) along with a full strength taunt aura (16.875 seconds compared to the 13.5 second duration of the damage auras) as well as a debuff effect (which, depending on how the power itself is flagged to generate threat, can double the total threat generation).

It's not so much the taunt effect itself so much as the massive interaction between all of the various mechanisms that the power has (which, when you compare them to virtually any other power in the game, blow them completely out of the water).

Considering that the primary determining factor once you account for threat multipliers (taunt duration and debuff) is damage and Scrappers get more out of AAO than anyone else, it's not uncommon for a Scrapper to steal aggro from a Tanker even if the Tanker got there first, simply because they'll outstrip the threat generation of any Tank not spamming the hell out of Taunt (to get greater threat multiplication via a much longer duration) by doing so very much damage.

I would aim for at least 20%. By that same token, I'd aim for at least 55% +rech (exclusive of Hasten).

Why not both? They're not mutually exclusive. In fact, they often come hand in hand.

-Rech and -run are actually useful? Especially at high levels? What?

-Rech is largely unneeded at high levels because enemies have enough attacks that recharge sufficiently fast that the overally effect of any -rech debuff is largely irrelevant. -Run might be relatively useful, but the effect is attached to an immobilization debuff, so it's kinda pointless.

The only times that those effects actually are substantially useful is in PvP (which Web Grenade is actually a very nice power for). In PvE, the effects of Web Grenade are relatively minor. I'd rather see Web Grenade get something that directly equates to the damage that the power loses (like a toxic damage DoT or -res) because the effects that it gets really just don't make up for it.

Let's look at this mathematically. Each iteration of Rage you're stacking is generating 100% +dam in exchange for losing out on 12.5% of your time to attack (15 seconds of damage dealing out of every 120 seconds).

Assuming an arbitrary attack string that deals any amount of damage (it doesn't really matter how much damage it deals because we're dealing with proportionate increases and decreases) with baseline 95% slotting, the formula for equivalence (in order to find the point wherein it stops being beneficial to stack more rage) is

Scrappers: (1.95 + x) * (1 - .125x) = y
Tankers: (1.95 + .8x) * (1 - .125x) = y
Brutes: (1.95 + .8x + .02z)(1 - .125x)= y

where x is the number of stacks of Rage and z is your Fury

The optimal point is the combination of values that achieves the highest value of y. For Scrappers, it's right around 3 (I'm using a graphing calculator because I'm too lazy to get the true optimal number). For Tankers, it's about 2.8. For Brutes (assuming 75% Fury), it's about 2.2.

Now, how applicable are these values?

Where the +dam is concerned, for Scrappers, 3 stacks of Rage would get you to a total of 395% +dam all the time (we're dealing with discrete periods of 100% +dam stacking), which is just shy of their damage cap. For Tankers, 2.8 stacks would bring them to 295% +dam for 20% of the times and 395% +dam for the other 80%, which means that 20% of the time you're just shy of the Tanker damage cap (300% +dam) and the other 80% you're well over it. For Brutes, 2.2 stacks and 75% Fury would bring them to 445% +dam for 80% of the time and 545% +dam for the other 20% which still leaves them a good deal shy of their damage cap (750% +dam). Essentially, the Scrapper and Brute optimal values are applicable, but any stacking beyond a double stack for a Tanker is largely pointless.

Where recharge is concerned (animation times ignored), Scrappers would need to achieve a 40 second recharge time to manage 3 stacks (120 / 3). To accomplish this, you would need 500% +rech (240 / 40 = 6; 6 - 1= 5), which is 100% +rech more than the actual cap is, so it's not even possible within the context of the game for Scrappers to reach the point of diminishing returns. For Tankers, 2 stacks at all times requires 60 seconds (120/2), which means that you would need 300% +rech (240 / 60 = 4; 4 - 1 = 3), which, while difficult, isn't impossible (remember, this isn't factoring in the 95% +rech you're going to get from enhancing). For Brutes, 2.2 stacks at all times requires (120 / 2.2) a ~55 second recharge time. 55 second recharge Rage would require ~340% +rech (240 / 55 = 4.363; 4.363 - 1 = 3.363; roundup to 3.4), which is bordering on impossible.

So, what is the meaning of all of this? It's impossible for 1 of the ATs (Scrappers) to reach the theoretical point of diminishing returns for Rage thanks to recharge restrictions. For Tankers and Brutes, it's attainable but really, really hard. Tankers get restricted usage from it thanks to their damage cap and Brutes get less use out of Rage than they would otherwise thanks to +dam dilution allowing the buff to get outpaced by the crash substantially faster. Even so, it's really friggin' hard to get to the point where Rage doesn't generate more damage than it's costing you.

Why do you care about the heal boost? You're a */Regen. Damage recovery is something that you don't really need more of. If you're talking about an IO build, I'd much rather get some more defense: 6 piece Touch of Death is what I'd go with.

I don't think he qualifies as a virgin sacrifice anymore.

Considering exactly what FF is capable of, all three of those are exactly useless and/or overpowered.

FF already provides more than enough defense and barely costs any endurance for most of the powers in the set. With an SO build, you can provide your entire team with softcapped defense to all positions and types (except psi) for a pittance.

The problems with the set are not on the survivability contribution side: they're on the offensive contribution and utility side. 90% of the effectiveness that the set brings is in 4 powers of the set: Deflection Shield, Insulation Shield, Dispersion Shield, and Repulsion Bomb. Force Bolt is largely fine as well (though, personally, I think it could stand an increased dam/rech/end to make it more of a hard hitter, but that's personal taste), as is PFF (though I've always thought it was strange for a support set to have a personal "oh-****!" button). Detention Field, Repulsion Field, and Force Bubble, however, are remarkably poor contributors. Repulsion Field and Force Bubble are two powers functionally wanting to do the exact same thing (push guys away), both with absurdly high endurance costs, neither effect of which is particularly useful for a team now that all enemies have ranged attacks (I know some people swear by FB, but, really, it does with an expensive toggle what 99% of people could do with hover or some kiting). Detention Field is simply never going to be useful (just like every other targeted phase shift power).

The problem with changing the three problems powers of the set is that you really can't do anything without incurring the wrath of the Cottage Rule: Repulsion Field and FB both have to maintain their "keep targets away from me" attributes and Detention Field has to remain an ST intangibility power. Nothing you do to Detention Field, short of breaking the Cottage Rule, will make it a particularly useful power while still having it make sense (which, yes, is something the devs consider: why would putting a field of doubly impenetrable force around a target make the target's allies easier to kill?). The same applies to Repulsion Field and Force Bubble.