Umbral

Balance is a question of equality. If you honestly think that all ATs use the same mechanics in the same way, you're deluding yourself.

And that point of balance between each of the different archetypes (a balance that is, itself, debatable when you consider the capabilities of Brutes in the presence of buffs rather than only ever considering solo performance) would actually apply to this discussion if the mechanics that each AT uses differently were actually equalized in the mechanisms that powersets actually use.

You readily admit that +dam is stronger in the hands of Scrappers yet assume that, if a set has large amounts of +dam present to offset low base numbers, it's going to perform adequately for Brutes and not be completely overblown for Tankers. Powerset balance is not simply a question of looking at a single set of AT modifiers and running a single calculation. The number of AT mods, and how they affect the balance of a set when it's transferred from one AT to another, is huge.

Except that it does. Your stern lack of the ability to see that doesn't change the fact. SS is a set that relies on large amounts of +dam to be viable. It's roughly balanced (though on the top end of performance) for Tankers and Brutes because they get less from +dam than Scrappers do. Scrappers get more from the very mechanic that is needed to give SS viable performance so Scrappers are going to get better performance from SS than Tankers or Brutes would.

You cannot prove that this isn't true.

If anything, I can prove it is true by simply pointing out Shield Defense and the vast disparity in performance between the various ATs. Scrappers completely obliterate any seeming of balance with Shield Defense, unless you really want to make the claim that Scrappers getting 40% more damage when Brutes are only getting 20% even though they have the exact same survivability capabilities is balanced.

Try it yourself. I've got more than a few data points to support my claim. You've got a smattering of completely off-topic numbers and simplistic calculations that ignore the actual capable disparities between the various ATs and focus entirely upon those single variable calculations where the fundamental equivalence between the ATs is largely present. You don't want to look at any numbers that prove you wrong. If anything, you should slink away since you honestly believe that you can Brutes and Scrappers are exactly the same, and assume that a simplistic analysis is all that you need to prove it.

(edit: Why would I leave anyway? I'm having loads of fun learning just how little you actually know about the game. This is fun!)

You pretty much said it right here.

Brutes != Scrappers != Tankers. They each use mechanics and attributes differently. If you ignore that, you're demonstrating a disturbing level of noobishness for something that is supposed to know how the game works.

I would, and I've been trying. Of course, you really don't care about anything I say and, if I do say anything, you simply go about and try to "correct" me by using completely incorrect numbers or dismissing it out of hand (which is a very mature way to debate when the only evidence that is allowed is that which supports your views, regardless that it's true). Of course, you're completely ignoring any evidence I bring up with Shield Defense which should be glaringly obvious evidence that each set uses the mechanisms in question in entirely different manner. You can try to dismiss the claims that Shield Defense is evidence of this because survivability sets are not offense sets, though, even a person as purposefully obtuse as you would have to be an idiot not to realize that I'm not touching upon the imbalance of their survivabilities and rather using the mechanics present within the sets to demonstrate the innate imbalance that would be achieved by proliferating blindly without consideration for how each AT handles the mechanics in question.

I'm still amused that you think I'm blowing air when you're doing anything I am only worse. Hypocrisy looks really good on you.

Says the guy who thinks that the devs would have proliferated a broken set in the first place. You're not only blowing hot air, you're having court in the sauna.

First, you can expect the 30 second uptime on the +dam(fire) to get fixed reasonably soon. The Dom and Brute versions were lasting longer than the Tanker version (and the Scrapper version), so it's reasonable to assume they'll be brought back in line. Of course, Doms are also guaranteed to get more from Fiery Embrace than Brutes, Tanker, or Scrappers because Fiery Embrace is in the very same set as a majority of their fire attacks, so they get more irregardless, but I doubt the intent of the Dom version was to make it more potent than BU when no other version is designed to.

Soul Drain is base 1.0 damage scale. Fire Breath (Doms don't get Breath of Fire) is base 1.755 damage scale. To get Soul Drain down to 50% uptime, you need 318% total +rech (factoring in animation times), a not altogether reasonable number to assume for balance consideration.

You're forgetting the fact that Poisonous Ray animates 33% slower, not factoring in the redraw time for the mace (which makes it closer to 50-75% slower). Neither of them allow the -res to stack, so the recharge is largely irrelevant once you get the uptime on the powers to 100% (since both are going to be bad for DPS). The fact that it does damage doesn't really make up for the fact that it's going to eat up the animation time to use a tier 1 blast (1.0 damage scale is a tier 1 blast, as you said).

The "conservative" estimate for Defiance is 20%, even still. The only time you're not going to be managing at least that much is if you're simply not attacking, which isn't generally a winning strategy for a Blaster.

Now, importantly, don't confuse any of this into thinking that I don't think Dominators are more powerful than Blasters. I think the two are intended to be roughly equivalent ATs (both bring damage and control to a party, though the Blaster control contributions are largely irrelevent thanks to their limited nature), though Dominators, at a minimum, are only slightly worse than Blasters at damage and vastly more potent where control is concerned.

It's been upgraded to reflect it. If you're curious, just try this out:

On an empty build, take Health. Slot it with 1 Healing SO. This should take you to 153% total regeneration. The Regen Tissue IO provides 25% +regen. If it's not affected by the enhancement values of the power, you will have 178% +regen (153 + 25). If it is affected by the enhancement values of the power, you'll have 186% +regen (153 + (25 * 1.333)).

BU has a base recharge of 90 seconds and 10 second duration. Ignoring animation time (which would further increase the recharge requirement), you're assuming 350% +recharge (381% factoring in recharge). Are you honestly that obtuse as to use a completely unrealistic level of recharge as your gauge for balance? I have a remarkably strong feeling that you're simply finding the point of equivalence beforehand and then assuming it's realistic.

Try pulling it down to a more realistic uptime ratio... like 20%.

Brute: 35.03 + (4.17 * (.8^1)) + (4.17 * (.8^2)) +(4.17 * (.8^3))
43.17 total base damage
43.17 * (1 + .95 + 1.5 + (.8 * .2)) = 155.84

Scrapper: (52.55 * 1.07) + (6.26 * (.8^1)) + (6.26 * (.8^2)) +(6.26 * (.8^3))
68.45 total base damage
68.45 * (1 + .95 + (1 * .2)) = 147.18

And that's assuming averaged contribution, which isn't exactly realistic, unless you've got BU on autocast.

Don't try to call out my math when you can't even get your assumptions to a realistic level.

Try looking at it by considering the contributions unique to the AT rather than the contributions unique to the powerset. Brute Fury affects the bonus DoT while it doesn't provide any benefit to Critical.

Let's compare Scorch to Scorch. Let's assume 75% Fury (what I would consider to be easy to maintain), 95% +dam slotting, and 7% crit contribution (averaged among ranks).

Brute: 35.03 + (4.17 * (.8^1)) + (4.17 * (.8^2)) +(4.17 * (.8^3))
43.17 total base damage
43.17 * (1 + .95 + 1.5) = 148.9

Scrapper: (52.55 * 1.07) + (6.26 * (.8^1)) + (6.26 * (.8^2)) +(6.26 * (.8^3))
68.45 total base damage
68.45 * 1.95 = 133.48

Brute Scorch is 11.15% stronger than Scrapper Scorch and that's not due to AT mods (so you wouldn't be able to just find it out by switching out AT mods). That's due exclusively to how Fury and Critical interact with the various attributes of a power different.

It's explicitly because of these differences in how the AT handles specific attributes that a powerset operates upon that you can't assume that a set is going to be balanced or equivalent with a direct proliferation. Rage provides large amounts of constant +dam, which is a mechanic that Scrappers have readily demonstrated the ability to abuse beyond the ability of Brutes and Tankers (just look at the Shield numbers). Rage will not operate the same for Scrappers as it will for Brutes. Brutes have higher damage than Tankers, but the contributions of Rage are diluted by the fact that Fury provides large amounts of +dam. Scrappers don't suffer from +dam dilution so they're going to get the full impact of Rage and get way more from it than they have any right to.

Do you really want some evidence? Just try looking at the interaction of effects in existing sets. +Dam means virtually nothing to a Brute because the comparative benefits of it are so minor.

Operating entirely off of straight up AT mods, consider the contributing benefits of a 100% +dam buff for each different AT.

For Tankers, that 100% +dam is taken down to 80% +dam by personal damage buff scalars. Assume 95% +dam slotting and apply both of those to the Tanker damage scalar and you'll net an improvement from 1.56 to 2.2, a 41% increase in overall damage.

For Brutes, the 100% +dam gets taken down to 80% as well, though it gets further reduced when you realize that Brutes benefit from Fury as well. Assuming a conservative 50% Fury, the Brute is getting 100% +dam to augment that 95% +dam from enhancement. This means that, without the 80% +dam that we're discussing, the Brute, with his .75 damage scalar, goes from a 2.2125 to a 2.8125, a 27% increase.

For Scrappers, the +100% +dam stays at 100%. So, with a 1.125 damage scalar starts with 2.19375 and ends with 3.31875, for a 51% increase in total damage. Even more, you can have a lot of fun when you factor in Critical and see that to 3.55 from 2.347.

Immediately, it's apparent that any set that provides a substantive amount of +dam is going to benefit Scrappers more than it will Brutes or Tankers. Assuming that, simply because a set is not broken on Brutes or Tankers (something that I have never claimed, in fact, I've regularly claimed that SS is broken overall and Scrappers would just break it even more) is completely ignoring the fact that not every set operates in the same way.

If you want more evidence, just compare any survivability set with a damage aura on a Brute to the performance of that very set on a Tanker or a Scrapper. Fiery Aura provides roughly the same level of survivability on each AT compared to the survivability provided by the other sets (actually, it's worse on Tankers than it is on either comparatively, though that's largely due to the caps restricting overkill resistance), but the additional damage capabilities are not the same: Brutes, thanks to Fury, are actually capable of dealing even more damage than Scrappers because of how Fury operates. Brute Blazing Aura, under the given assumptions (which are, remember, very conservative), would deal 27.081 damage per tick (9.18 * (1 + .95 + (50 * .2))). Scrapper Blazing Aura deals 26.91. If you give Brutes a bit more realistic Fury contribution, like 75% Fury, you're going to get Brute Blazing Aura dealing 31.671, which is 17.7% better than the Scrapper manages and that's not even getting to the top tier of performance.

Now, on the opposite end, if you want more fun, there's always Shield Defense. Once again, the survivability is roughly equivalent (Tankers actually get better rather than worse because they're not having to deal with redundancy), though we deal with +dam again. Shield Defense is actually remarkably bad for Brutes, when you get down to it. Saturated AAO provides only 65% +dam. Using the previous assumptions, 65% +dam equates to only 22% more damage. Tankers get the same 65% +dam though it equates to 33% more damage. Scrappers, on the other hand (and they're the AT where it's completely broken), get 81.25% +dam, which means they're getting 42% more damage. Now, moving on the Shield Charge, which is where it gets even better. Because pseudo-pets are limited by the pet damage caps rather than the AT damage caps that they originate from, Brutes get the joy of getting a Shield Charge that deals only 133.46 base damage. Scrappers' deal 200.2 and Tankers' deal 141.25 damage. Now, factor in all of the +dam components for each, and you'll get Brutes with 260% dam, Tankers with 160% +dam, and Scrappers with 176.25% +dam. Brutes' deals 480.45, Tankers' deals 367.25, and Scrappers' deals 553.05. Let's throw in some BU to make things even more fun. Remember, that's 80% for Brutes and Tankers and 100% for Scrappers. This brings Brutes up to 300% +dam (remember, capped for pets), Tankers to 240% +dam, and Scrappers up to 276.25% +dam. Damage totals become 533.84 for Brutes', 480.25 for Tankers', and 753.25 damage for Scrappers'. Is it balanced for Scrappers to deal 41% more damage than Brutes (which they're supposed to be the equivalent of) and 56.8% more damage than Tankers with such a power?

Well, considering that the only sets that are shared by all three ATs (in the same form, that is) are those that have been determined by the devs to not be broken when they cross ATs. I remember some analysis from way back when the devs first started talking about proliferation and players were wondering which version of Fire Melee Scrappers would get. The very fact that Scrappers got a completely different version than either is evidence that contradicts the entire point of view you're advocating. Brutes didn't get the Tanker version and Scrappers didn't get either of those. Of course, there's also the entire issue of Stalkers getting a different version of Energy Melee than Tanker or Brutes, and not just due to the basic AT transitions either (Energy Transfer got hit hard).

The only sets that have been proliferated straight through have been those that have been straightforward and without anything particularly exploitable by either of the ATs in question. Your challenge is loaded: you already know that there aren't any attack powersets broken for 1 AT and not for the others because those powersets that would be are either not proliferated or changed in such a way that they wouldn't be broken on the proliferated AT. The devs are smarter than that.

Billz, I dare you to start removing directly proliferating sets using theoretical numbers and try not to see sets that would completely break the game. That was the problem with the pre-proliferation Fire Melees. That's the problem with Spines, Energy Melee, Stone Melee, and Super Strength. Unless you have a very loose definition of "not too strong", you're going to realize just how much is wrong with proliferating those sets straight through.

Well, Aim and BU aren't really stellar providers of additional damage over time. Their primary purpose is to provide heavy frontloading capability, which Dominators don't really need because they have substantial control capabilities so they won't die after the first few seconds of fighting. It is, however, a very different playstyle. Even so, I'm still always amazed at the sheer potency of the Assault sets. In general, it seems like the sets were designed by taking the best powers in the commensurate "pure" sets. While I admit I don't have a lot of experience with Dominators, it looks to me like most of the chaff was removed when they combined the melee and ranged sets to make the assault sets.

This made me lol. It's so blatantly untrue that it only serves to exist as a joke.

Eh, I can only assume that the people that jumped out of the woodworks to attack you were likely under the assumption that you were attempting to make the power less useful. Considering how little the power already gets used, I doubt it would really do much.

I don't think that Energy Transfer grade damage would be all that out of the realm of possibility. The only possible problem that some people might have with it is for PvP, though I doubt any large scale improvement to the snipes would touch PvP since burst damage is king there. If anything, the power kind of needs it just to be a worthwhile power pick. As it stands, the only role it really fulfills is that of an IO set mule (because those Snipe sets have some nice set bonuses).

On a side note, I've always wondered why the Snipe procs follows the same damage rules as the normal procs. It's not like it can be used in the same array of powers that the other procs can. I think it would be interesting if the Snipe proc got some vastly increased damage just to make up for the fact that it can only be used in a Snipe (which, by default, is supposed to be heavily weighted damage). Cranking the proc damage up from .67 damage scale to 1.0 or even higher would be an interesting way to encourage using the procs (and giving some kind of critical equivalent to a very specific subset of powers).

Yes, well, I've suspected for a while that the devs are big fans of Dominators. When the changes went through, Blasters lost their "top damage" role pretty quickly and even got rendered largely redundant when you consider that Dominators are also bringing heavy control on top of damage that is, if not better, at least competitive, with Blasters. GoRo is likely going to make that even more apparent.

I guess that might be why, though I have no idea why the 3 second interrupt period isn't included. It's part of the animation time. It's not like interruptible animation time is somehow "better" so that there is a balance reason why it should be excluded. If anything, it should be weighed more heavily because it's actually worse.

Working on my BS in CS, as we speak.

I never noticed this until you pointed out. I'm not even quite sure why. They provide the same +dam as basic tier 1/2 attacks, if not less, even though they take 3-4 times as long to animate. As ST attacks, they're not supposed to be using the AoE Defiance formula, though, that's the only possible reason I can imagine why they would be providing so little. That's even less reason to use them.

Billz, you really should know better than that. Honestly, you're ignoring the mechanical differences between the various ATs out of blind hope. You may as well claim that Shield Defense is exactly as effective for Tankers, Brutes, and Scrappers when anyone worth their salt can tell that it obviously isn't.

The difference between using the same evidence as me and using the same evidence as me intelligently is rather large. You bring up Billz' numbers and then simply state wrong information that can readily be negated by the information your attempting to quote. In your previous post, you stated that "(Super Strength) comes in TENTH for scrapper" when, in the very list you posted, it comes in fourth (Energy, Claws, Fire, then Strenght). You're not doing yourself any favors by saying things that are simply blatantly wrong.

Even worse, you're not even capable of realizing that there is a difference from trusting a set of given numbers and providing criticism for a set of given numbers (and the specific ways in which they're flawed) and then using the fact that the only numbers that aren't artificially inflated are already better than average for performance.

What's probably the saddest thing, however, is that you're utterly incapable of understanding what balance could even possibly be. If something significantly outperforms the average in absolutely every single category (ST, AoE, end efficiency, secondary effects), you are not stumbling upon a question of whether the set is "good". You are stumbling upon the answer as to whether the set is "balanced". If it's outperforming the average in all categories (and, irregardless of what you think, it is known that it does), it is not balanced. You can have "good" and still be balanced, but, since it's too good (which, admittedly, is a qualitative rather than quantitative assessment because the devs have never set a definitive line as to what "too good" is) it's simply not.

I dare you to ask Castle (or anyone else that actually understands what the concept of balance entails) whether he thinks that SS is a well balanced set. I am willing to bet more than most that he would agree with me rather than you.

Now, if you really want to get into the realm of "omg Umbral thinks so much of himself! he's a stuck up jack-*** that thinks everyone else is an idiot", I can play ball in this area. I am smarter than you. It's readily apparent. The fact that my arguments are both more cogent and supported than yours and that I've mastered subtleties of the arguments that you're apparently incapable of even getting the basic gist of further gives evidence to my claims. Even more, the fact that I've gotten specific changes through based exclusively on my suggestions further lends credence to it.

I readily admit that I'm a jack-***, but that does nothing to curtail the fact that I'm intelligent. Humility has nothing to do with intelligence and, honestly, I don't see a point in wasting energy explaining to you, yet again, why you're wrong, what you don't understand, and why you should really just shut up and let the big boys talk. I'll explain it once, but, if you're not able to grasp it after the first time (much less the first ten times, as I know we've had this argument numerous times) there's not much point in having a conversation where I talk to you on an even level when it's apparent you're not.

Life is not fair. All are not equal. You are not special, no matter how many times your mother told you. Statistics indicates that there is a very substantial likelihood that I'm smarter than you. Empirical evidence has demonstrated it to be true. Get over it.

You know what my global is anyway! It's not like you only know me via the forums... (Of course, I've made sure that my signature global is absolutely correct so nyah :P)

Haiku's are 3 lines: 5 syllables, 7 syllables, and then 5 syllables. That is 4 syllables, 6 syllables, and 3 syllables.

I'm working on it! Quit bugging me about it! You sound like my parents!

Except that just because you took the time to aim one shot doesn't mean that you're going to be accurate for the next few shots. The other problem with this is that you're simultaneously attempting to make Sniper Rifle (which is a largely useless power among an entire series of largely useless powers) an integral part of how the set operates.

Honestly, I think it would be better if the devs simply tweaked Snipes overall and gave them stats that are a bit more... viable. Snipes, even when used in the situations they are intended to be used in, are simply not worth the effort. You spend so little time prepping for fights that the gains for devoting a power that is only particularly useful for the first attack of a fight just aren't worth it.

When you consider how often players actually use their Sniper attacks, they don't need to recharge as quickly as they do. The devs could increase their DPA to a reasonable level by adjusting their dam/rech/end formula on all snipes to a base 25-30 second recharge (increasing damage to ~3.5-4.25 damage scale; roughly 220-265 base damage; roughly 48-59 DPA assuming a 4.33 sec base animation time) without inhibiting usefulness. The power would still be balanced around the "risk" of losing the power, not to mention that it's not going to be available often enough to be especially exploitable. Even so, it would make it much more useful for opening fights because you'd be able to put impressive dents in even bosses (and take out a single lt or minion with relative ease for some greater frontloading).

Actually, this is humorously wrong. D&D is probably one of the most "traditional" and least "indy" of table top RPGs and, since 3rd ed., has demonstrated a very strong shift towards co-operative storytelling, to such an extent that a vast majority of what the DM guides now contain are recommendations and methods by which to generate cooperative roleplaying experiences.

Secondly, how is an arbitrary narrator telling you "you think this" any different than an in game psychic telling you "you think this"? Telling your players what your character would realistically think is something that even a good GM has to do sometimes, especially when you're operating with certain skills and attempting to force the players to actually enforce character knowledge versus player knowledge. No matter how many times I tell my players that they think that there aren't any traps on that chest, player knowledge is going to tell them that there is a trap there, regardless of whether their character would actually think that having checked the chest to the best of their abilities.

Remember, the story arcs in the games already control our actions and decision making processes. The stories force you to arrest enemies rather than kill, maim, or otherwise render them incapable of going back to a life of crime. If you fail a mission in which you have to stop the villains from destroying the world, the world doesn't end. If you have a character that is supposed to be able to read minds, why can't you tell when <insert individual here> is going to stab you in the back or is lying?

In CoX (and virtually every other video game out there), the player isn't controlling the character. The player is simply running combat for that character and is instead getting to ride along as the developers tell them a story that the character they made is taking part in. There may be some options that the player gets to choose for the character, but the character doesn't have the option to switch sides or do anything that would ruin the story later on.

My bad. I often misuse the words. Correcting it now.

Well, you also seem to be a person willing only to look at a single data set and, even then, only assume that single target damage is the only valid comparison. I can assure you that I've looked at Billz' charts. In fact, I was one of the people that helped in creating a few of the attack strings for them. They are not, nor were they ever intended to be, a definitive listing of effectiveness of the various sets. The intent of them was more to outline any disparity between Brute and Scrapper performance than to try to outline any specific outlier sets within the ATs.

One of SS's greatest strengths is not, in fact, single target damage. It's the fact that it performs incredibly well in both ST and AoE damage. Footstomp, even by itself, is an incredible power. Augmented by rage, it provides obscene performance. ST damage cannot be taken as the only mechanism by which a set is measured. Honestly, AoE damage is arguably the more important measure of performance considering the way PvE ends up operating.

Except that it does prove that Rage is more powerful specifically because you can take outside powers. As Dersk has already pointed out, you seem to be rather incapable of actually interpreting the data from Billz' analysis (it's not a study, as a study would require the collection of data rather than the use of existing data).

I never said anything about skimping on damage enhancement. I said that the power provides what amounts to free damage enhancement. Unlike accuracy and tohit, more damage is always welcome so there is no reason to reduce your slotting because of additional capabilities provided by a buff power. Anyone that reduces their +dam slotting because they got some +dam that didn't bring them over the cap is not a particularly intelligent individual.

The problem with this is twofold: if Rage is designed to allow SS to bridge the disparity and allow it to compete with other sets, it shouldn't be allowed to augment outside powers to the same extent that it can because then it's providing an untoward benefit. As I have repeatedly stated, when you begin bringing in outside powers, the entire "balance" of the set goes out the window because you're providing the higher level of damage to every power in the set. I would be as if taking Fire Melee gave every single power you took, including pools and APPs, a bonus DoT.

I'm not even going to touch on your inability to actually read and comprehend Billz's charts. I don't even think you understood what I was referring to when I discussed additional endurance efficiency because it wasn't a question of spending less to get greater efficiency but rather getting more for the same price (as dam/rech/end is standardized). Once again, as Dresk pointed out, Billz's charts rather obviously demonstrate that increased efficiency rather well.

That depends on how you build for them. The Hasten crash isn't anything to write home about and, if you play intelligently, it's no harder to make sure you spend within your limits than it is for any other set. Of course, this isn't even getting into how IOs can quickly marginalize endurance costs, if you want to get into the argument as to whether SS is too good at the top end.

That's because, and I'm not sure you understand this, that SS increases efficiency by increasing performance for the same cost rather than outright reducing cost. SS is going to give you better performance per point of endurance consumed than almost any build out there (and Billz' numbers support this). There is a difference between increasing efficiency by increasing damage and increasing efficiency by decreasing cost.

Of course, I'm not even sure how SS could be all that problematic to design to be endurance sustainable. Rage double stacked provides lower endurance costs than FA and that's at the extreme top end of performance. Of course, I've never had a problem designing for endurance sustainability. I know how to deal with it. I could probably fix any of those builds you want to make them sustainable without much effort or loss of performance. With IOs, it's simply a foregone conclusion.

Once again, not a study, but analyses. There is a very substantial difference.

And I've never put much weight into Starsman's numbers. He calculates attack string averages algorithmically, which has never generated anything even approaching realistic performance assumptions except when attack competition is largely irrelevant (i.e. attacks would progress in a priority chain rather than in a cohesive attack string). Another is that he automatically assumes that attacks are fully saturated and require no additional work to be so. Because of this, he places Dark Melee as an above average AoE set (I'm incredibly good with DM and even I wouldn't venture that it's even close to a set with real AoEs).

The only times these assumptions are actually valid are when you have areas with make target acquisition arbitrarily simple and a very simple attack choice progression, both of which Super Strength has. If those assumptions aren't met, the actual numbers drop as you lose a great deal of efficiency (attacks begin interfering with other attacks and you hit fewer than the max number of targets). Comically enough, Starsman's numbers (even discounting the fact that SS is the only set that would realistically perform under those assumptions) would actually support my claims rather than the other way around because he places SS as routinely above average damage in both AoE and ST and below average endurance consumption as well.

I would urge you to honestly learn what you're looking at rather than simply blithely spouting it. I've actually critically analyzed both of their analyses and determined what conclusions can actually be drawn from them. I've looked into this a lot more than you. Bringing up two of the more famous examples of numerical analyses, both of which I am remarkably familiar with, isn't going to surprise me, especially when I've already factored those depictions into my conclusions.

Just try actually looking at Billz's analysis rather than just talking about it. You're outright wrong. Brute SS came in 4th, behind saturated Dark Melee, Fire Melee, and Stone Melee. Saturated Dark Melee isn't even a reliable measure of performance for the set, Fire Melee is designed to be the damage king because it lacks secondary effect (and its contributions for Brutes are actually inflated compared to Scrap numbers because the DoT benefits from Fury while it doesn't benefit Critical), and Stone Melee is up top simply because it has obscene damage output thanks to high EPS use. This completely ignores the fact that Scrappers would be able to put SS to use even better because Scrappers get better relative gains out of +dam.

Well, it's obvious that you don't know how to interpret Billz's study or Starsman's numbers, and, even though I automatically doubt anecdotal evidence when it isn't supported (and the sheer prolific nature of SS toons in optimized damage and farming situations would disagree with you here), I doubt yours even more since you've demonstrated a distinct lack of critical thinking capabilities, much less the ability to actually read what directly in front of you.

I'm hoping to tackle some of that on my end. I've been busying myself with doing a lot of analysis to try and deal with specific sets. I've already gotten a few of my changes through and, hopefully, after GoRo hits live, Castle will be able to tackle a lot of the other write-ups that I've got in the works. The problem with Super Strength is really that they would need to tweak the animation times on many of the powers to get it balanced around properly.

You'd be amazed how much players can help out the devs if they actually use analysis and precedent rather than simply blithely stating numbers with vague reasoning. I'm more than confident that we, the players, could speed up a lot of the work of proliferating sets by helping the devs address the problems that are preventing proliferation in the first place.