Umbral

Or it could just have been a matter of the devs not factoring in root time (i.e. animation time; as far as I care, it's a semantic difference between the terms that is easy to differentiate based on context) back in those days. There's a reason the dam/rech/end formula doesn't account for animation time at all. The devs didn't realize that it was actually important.

The question about Shield Charge (which I really wish Castle would weigh in on one of these days, because, honestly, no matter how you look at it, it's either way stronger than it should be or everything else is way weaker) isn't so much a question of low root/animation time (which is what BIB and Blaze "abuse" to achieve such incredible performance) so much as a question of whether the dam/rech/end formula can properly be applied to powers of that kind and whether there should be any "penalty" levied on the power for it being in a defense set (of which there is actually a large degree of precedent for).

I wouldn't switch it out. Melee defense is substantially more important for melee toons than ranged defense. The only thing you'd be gaining is the slight enhancement benefits Mako's has (22.82% +acc and +rech and a pittance of +end redux). The only reason I'd switch the two is if you really need the recharge (at which point a 5 piece CI and a level 50 common rech might be better for you).

The problem isn't so much that Eagles Claw has high DPA but low DPS. In fact, Eagles Claw has mediocre DPA and a long animation time. DPS doesn't factor into it whatsoever. It's got worse DPA than CK, CAK, or Storm Kick, and it takes up 2.772 seconds of animation time (compared to Storm's 1.056 and CK/CAK's 1.848 seconds). There's no real reason to take up so much time doing so little damage.

For my IO builds, the average listed regen rate without IH on is somewhere around 600%. For a */Regen, stacking +regen is largely useless because you're already packing so much damage recovery (via heals, passive regen, and click regen). The comparative advantages of adding more damage recovery when you're already drowning in it is relatively minor, especially at the values that regen set bonuses come at.

The devs have stated (Posi, explicitly) that they feel that, especially with inventions, the 10 enhancements you're allowed to "salvage" per respec are generous. The only substantive influence in this sink is, and always has been, enhancement replacement and loss. The fact that we're allowed to salvage even the smallest number of enhancements from a respec is, honestly, more than the devs could have given us and, where I consider it, more than they actually should have if they ever planned on the economy of this game to matter past level 30.

I have no problem saying that I plan on my number cruncher to be just what I call it: a number cruncher. I don't plan on creating anything more complex based off of it like a fight simulator so I'm fine using a brute force approach if that's what allows me to achieve accurate results. I'd like to be able to use an algorithmic approach because it's substantially more efficient and elegant (in fact, I use what can honestly be coined as a very complex algorithm in my own construction of attack strings using pencil, paper, and calculator), but a lot of this comes from the problem that there are simply too many different potential problems with the pseudo-algorithm I use. If I can get the brute force calculator done so that I know what it puts out is the best, I can start working to get a more simple and elegant solution that doesn't use up quite as many resources and begin testing it against the brute force approach.

Quote:

Also, thanks for the tip on the whole "wait" scenario. I forgot to take that into account. I think it'd still be possible though.

When I was originally designing it, I ignored the optimization use of waiting and was designing an algorithmic approach. When I realized that waiting by looking at the attack strings of a few others (during the creation of the great big Scrapper/Brute DPS calculation thing we've got in the Scrapper forums) was actually beneficial, that threw the entire algorithmic approach out of the window. I eventually settled upon getting something that I could reliably say gives you the best that you can get.

Quote:

As for calculating -RES, the quickest idea that comes up to my mind would be to simply increasing the damage of all attacks for the duration of the -RES effect. *shrug* Just something to think about.

Oh, I've got solutions for it. The simplest way to do it for my set up (that still doesn't quite do it all the way) is to have the same algorithm that checks to see that all attacks are recharged in the appropriate periods of time apply a specific marker to the powers in question that is an additive multiplier for -res that is factored into the math that the final "sum and compare" algorithm does. The same algorithm would do the same for +dam for powers like Follow Up and Blinding Feint, as well as for Blaster Defiance (simply adding to the existing +dam from enhancements and global buffs). The only problem with this is that DoT powers benefit from any -res they contribute, so, though there is only one that I can recall that both does damage and applies -res (Scream), it's not a perfect solution. The only further fix on that problem that I can think of is having each calculate separately, but that seems like a lot of work for an exceptionally singular case.

Quote:

Either way, since we seem to be working on similar goal through different paths, feel free to PM me. I'd be happy to exchange ideas with you.

Depending on how it turns out, I actually plan on releasing my attack string calculator open source.

An evocative (and amusing) argument but not really one that I would consider to be particularly effective since it's not like he could really have predicted a need to alter all level 1 power options when he was attempting to fix MA (which, I think we can both admit occurred before there was really as comprehensive a knowledge base concerning the actual capabilities of the sets as there is now). If you're attempting to use the fact that some of the powers would have far reaching changes for their respective sets as a push to get Castle to examine and more holistically balance the powersets in question as a whole, I can agree with the goal but not really the method. Even as such, unless you have specific ulterior motives, there are enough exceptions that I can honestly ask why bother with a change with so many different exceptions unless you've got ulterior motives and the obvious goal you're addressing isn't really the main problem?

The recharge benefit (which is what really borks MA) does, in fact, get diluted rather quickly, but, then, that's because recharge itself dilutes very quickly. That's part of the very nature of how recharge reductions operate. Of course, as I see it, the problem isn't what top end the sets become capable of attaining with their newfound recharge benefits but rather what is capable in the SO field. When something one set gets capability that was previously restricted to high level IO builds with moderate SO builds while others get virtually nothing, that's not really a balanced solution and, no matter how you rewrite it, you can't ignore that.

The endurance benefit, however, only gets diluted whenever you're using a build that moves beyond the use of the level 1 use powers. As I said before, most powersets continue to use at least 1 of their level 1 powers even at the highest tier of content. Those sets would, even after achieving high levels of recharge that would render the recharge tweak useless, still receive a substantial benefit in the reduction of their attack string endurance costs. The effects might dilute, but they don't dilute nearly as much because, no matter how you build it, those attacks still form a substantial degree of the endurance consumption of even top level attack strings.

Actually, I would say that the changes would make MA outperform everything else. With SOs + Hasten, the MA attack string would be capable of ~145 DPS. At those same levels of slotting, the other Scrapper sets would be capable of DPS averaging in the low-to-mid-130s. Depending on your opinions on the matter, you might see that as too powerful or as perfectly fine (I think it's rather obvious for us to see where the two of us place the changes), and that's entirely for Castle to decide.

Of course, a lot of this simply handwaves away the simple alternative that I've supported. I still believe that it would be better just to institute a level range specific change to address the issue and tackle any other ulterior issues specifically rather than attempting to get them addressed in a roundabout manner.

That's just simplifying the damage of the powers and I agree with it as such. The problem with this is that you're making it painfully simple to such an extent that it's only useful to only some powersets. Criticals are rather simple to account for because they're just a chance for something to occur and it doesn't have any effect upon anything later on in the string, so I'm not entirely sure why you'd skip over them. The big problem is when you attempt to calculate attack strings for sets like Sonic Blast, Claws, or Dual Blades because they rely on stacking up -res debuffs and +dam buffs, respectively, to achieve their levels of damage. The same problem applies to doing attack string calculations for Blasters thanks to Defiance. Of course, the number of sets that you would exclude aren't that great, but they're still problematic.

Quote:

Given a set of standard attacks, with pre-defined Damage, Recharge, and Activation (Cast) time, we find the attack chain as such: 1. Take the power with highest damage (we'll call this power "Alpha"). Cast that. 2. Take the power with the next highest damage that is recharged. Cast that. 3. So on and so forth until the total amount of (Recharge + Activation) of all powers that have been cast is greater than or equal to the Recharge time of "Alpha". This means Alpha is recharged, and the last attack used is the finisher of the attack chain, from which point you can go back to Step 1. The algorithm is pretty simple. Or at least I hope it is, cause this is what I do in the actual game mentally. Converting this into code, however, can be a little tricky, but not difficult.

The problem with this algorithm is that it's not going to create the highest DPS attack string. All it's doing to assuming that a priority list is the most effective manner with which to generate an attack string and going from there. It's not. The problem with making a decent attack string calculator
is that it is oftentimes more effective to use an attack with a lower DPS that activates quickly to space out 2 other attacks that have higher DPS. This is how we get attack strings like GD>GC>SD>GC. Your algorithm would come up with GD>SD>GC>SotW, which is less effective. There is also the problem of wait times often being better for your attack string than simply activating another power automatically. With many powersets, like Fire Blast, it's actually better to simply wait half of a second to use Blaze again rather than using Flares because of the huge difference in the DPAs between the two powers.

If it were as simple as simply using a priority list, a decent attack string calculator would have been made a good long while ago. Hell, the fact that Starsman uses attack priority lists rather than attack strings is one of the biggest problems I have with his analysis since, beyond the most basic levels of recharge, priority lists are useless.

The methodology I plan on using is threefold: I would have one algorithm that simply generates attack strings in a brute force method (i.e. it doesn't attempt to do any calculations aside from determining whether a specific attack is available for use at the time), another that determines if the attack string in has all powers recharging appropriately (and, with a bit more work, apply -res and +dam buffs from things like Defiance), and another that simply calculates the DPS of the attack string in question.

The three algorithms will work by simply creating every possible attack string possible, one at a time (including the base attack "Wait" with an animation time of .132 and a recharge time of 0), and then comparing them to the current best (so that it doesn't take up a crapload of memory). Honestly, as far as I can tell, this is the only way to make sure that you can reliably get the best attack strings for sets. Priority and algorithmic generation methods simply have too many exceptions for me to put much faith in them.

Actually, you're both right and wrong.

There is plenty of information on Paragonwiki, but, suffice it to say that Taunt isn't a 400% threat modifier for whatever duration. Taunt is a mez effect that applies an end multiplier to however much threat you have equal to the longest remaining duration of your Taunt effects on the target. The actual effectiveness of your Taunt power is directly proportionate to the duration of it. This is why Taunt is so friggin' powerful: the base duration on it is 30.75 seconds. This is also why RttC is such a pitifully bad Taunt aura even when you combine it with Gauntlet: the base duration is only 1.25 seconds. While the effect will be functionally permanent (it's on a 1 second activation cycle), the low duration prevents it from generating all but a token amount of threat. All that it really does is provide a constant mag 3 taunt on the target so that your 13.5 second gauntlet taunt can actually draw aggro.

As far as I'm concerned, DPS refers to the damage that a full attack string deals divided by the entire duration of the attack string in question. DPA refers to the damage that a single attack deals divided by the time that it takes to animate. They're both functions of damage over time, so it's a reasonably semantic argument, but, as I see it, DPS is an end value whereas DPA is a derivative value that assists in calculation and optimization.

Maximum DPE is going to be outrageously simple: take the most endurance efficient attack you've got (calculate DPE by dividing damage done by the endurance cost of the power) and use only that.

Maximum DPS is a substantially harder algorithm because you have to start accounting for wait times, specific power selection, and other things. I've done a lot of work on a similar program and there are still a lot of problems because it's not nearly as simple as you think it would be.

Quote:

Sadly, I do not have access to the precise mathematical formulas to calculate DPS and DPE for a given attack.

The DPS for an attack as listed by the detailed info in game is a largely useless number. It is determined by taking the damage of the power and dividing it by the sum of the recharge time and the animation time of the power. It is useless for a vast number of reasons.

DPE is incredibly simple because it's just a matter of taking the damage the power does and dividing it by the endurance costs of the power. There isn't anything more complicated than that. In the program I'm working on, all I care about for DPE is the option to set a ceiling on the endurance consumption of an attack string so that, if an attack string is too end expensive, it won't consider it.

If you're not familiar with Arcanatime (i.e. how much time powers actually take up), you may want to familiarize yourself with this formula:

(roundUp(baseTime/.132)+1)*.132

Take the listed animation time of a power, divide it by .132 (which is the length of a single server "tick"), round that value to the next highest integer, add 1, and then multiply by .132. What this does is account for the fact that the server checks on your actions and states in discrete time periods and has to set aside a single frame for your state to change from finished to ready.

Of course, when you begin putting things in terms of "well, I can live with that" you start getting into the realm of your own personal opinions concerning the capabilities of a set being set as a design standard. You've outright said that you believe that MA should be the best ST damage set for Scrappers on multiple occasions so of course you wouldn't find it untoward for the set to get a massive (and I do mean "massive"; when you're dropping the required recharge levels from "top end IO build" to "SO build" that's massive) buff to its performance.

Storm Kick pays an extra 2% endurance (big dea) to animate 12.5% faster and deal 5% more damage (as a semantic point, it would be more accurate to say that Storm Kick crits more often than any other tier 2 attack rather than saying it deals more critical damage). The additional endurance Storm Kick pays is a pittance compared to the vastly improved performance the power provides (moreso provided by the fast animation time than by the additional crit damage). Even without the bonus crit chance, Storm Kick would still be the strongest power in the set not because of the numbers as governed by the dam/rech/end formula but rather because of the ridiculously fast animation time (which is even more reason that I want Castle to do something to bring animation time or DPA into the formula). It's pretty obvious that Storm Kick is allowed to break the rules because the rest of the set would be vastly underperforming without it (of course, the other big attacks in the set could have been buffed up to a similar degree and achieved the same result without making the set horribly frontloaded for effectiveness).

The problem with your suggestion is that it would only work if you actively excluded powers that aren't excluded in high level attack strings. Remember, however, that you're the one that said you're only interested in the powers available at level 1. Unless you set some abstract threshold of performance as gauged by a power's usefulness in an optimized structure wherein powers actually have to compete for priority, you're going to get special cases all over the place that will skew the effects of the change overall.

If you simply ignore or lower the value of the changes to those sets that actually have the affected powers high on their priority list for activation, the change is providing less benefit to them than it is for sets that actually get the full change. MA would get less use out of the change than SS even though SS already needs those changes less than MA because the low level SS attacks are already ridiculously cheap and recharge incredibly fast.

If you really want to stick with the idea of making specific powers cheaper and faster, rather than simply arbitrarily choosing the level 1 power options (and, yes, that's an arbitrary decision because it ignores the actual design of the set) why not simply make changes to each set individually for the less-than-optimal powers that actually would fulfill the conditions that you are, if not assuming then hoping, the level 1 power options would fulfill. Of course, that wouldn't fulfill the "make sure the changes affect everyone regardless of how they build themselves" criteria you imposed upon the change, but, then you'd at least be treating all of the sets somewhat similarly rather than applying a single template to all powersets.

It's for this exact reason that, if this problem exists, I would support the global buff. You might say that it's "harder to balance", but, honestly, how well balanced is the pre-SO game anyway? Scrappers and Tankers are barely more survivable than Blasters even if they take and use all of their survivability powers (and that's assuming that the Blaster doesn't just up and kill the target before it can deal enough damage to be a legitimate threat). Damage is already almost identical until you get to about level 10, at which points differences actually start popping up. How is providing a small buff to end redux and recharge redux in the same way that we already buff tohit all that imbalancing when your idea threatens to change performance at all levels regardless of how many powers you have because it doesn't admit that high level characters actually use low level powers?

Why would a global buff to end redux and recharge redux be all that bad, in the first place? You've constantly asserted that the change would apply in a targeted manner that diminishes as the problem diminishes while simply stating that you would make exceptions to any times that problems would occur. I've stated these examples, and you've either defended them (making Storm Kick even better regardless of whether its the right thing to do) or ignored them (Hack).

How would applying a small global buff to end redux and recharge redux be all that out of place? The only times it comes up are in those specific levels where you have both little to no slotting and little to no powers. As I suggest, the global buff would exist exclusively to offset the exact lack of enhancing that would logically occur at higher levels. There's already precedent for a level range specific fix to address problems that only address in low levels. At least with a level range specific fix, any problems generated are actually contained rather than having to specifically look at every instance to make sure that the suggested change doesn't explode and create something completely out of the realm of the original change.

And I can assure you that if you look at any "nonstandard" power set design, you're going to get special cases. There are enough "nonstandard sets" (not to mention ATs; just consider Tankers and Stalkers: Tankers would get virtually no benefit because you're only applying the differences to a single power of theirs, Stalkers get treated similarly because their secondary gets ignored) that don't follow a specific convention of use that you're going to find almost as many exceptions or special cases as you're going to find normal cases. If your idea has as many exceptions or hand-waves as I predict there would be (just going off of what I can pull off of the top of my head), it's going to generate more problems than solutions while attempting to solve a problem we're not even sure exists for a substantial portion of the population.

It's kinda hard to tell people how to do it explicitly since a lot of it involves things I've learned through experimentation with the individual sets in question and the mechanics overall.

I've yet to find any attack string calculators out there (and find the entire concept of priority lists in all but a scant few powersets laughably inefficient), but I'm working on one of my own. I've already gotten most of the design down, so, if this summer is as productive as I hope it will be, it should be done soon(tm).

This is because the damage of the power is based on 24 attempts to deal damage with a 50% chance of success. You're going to have damage variability.

The accuracy on the power is already incredibly high. The base acc mod on the power is 1.4 ("normal" is 1.0). With 2 acc enhancers, you're giving yourself a 2.324 total acc mod. That's enough to get ~95% chance to hit on even +4 enemies. I can assure you that there is not a problem with HoB's accuracy. What you might be noticing is "missing" with the damage attempts, but that's not in the least affected by your slotting. You can end up dealing no damage to a target, but the probability that you would deal no damage to the entire enemy group, however, is astronomically low (.0002% chance for a single target; for multiple targets, you have to begin using scientific notation to describe just how unlikely to happen it is), so I'm fairly sure that, if it's happened to you on multiple occasions, it's a pebkac issue.

Now, what you may want to do is familiarize yourself with the power first before you make another untrained and largely useless suggestion again. It's rather obvious you don't know how the power operates or what the current values on the power already are, much less that there are actually changes coming that would address your concerns.

In I17, the power is getting changed to deal slightly more damage per successful tick (roughly 2.225%) but the big difference is that each tick is going to have a 60% chance to deal damage, compared to the 50% that it currently sits at. Based just off of that, you're going to experience roughly 22.67% more damage out of the power on average. You'll also notice fewer cataclysmic misses (if you did, in fact, experience any that weren't just a player issue).

The merit reward increases that have happened have occurred not because of different median completion times but rather because of a different desired reward rate. Merit awards were increased across the board because the devs decided to shrink the increment of time needed to reward a single merit (it used to be 5 minutes for 1 merit on a TF/SF, the devs changed it to 3 minutes for 1 merit and the rewards were increased thusly). There was some additional datamining done at that time to test the veracity of the datamined median time, but I don't recall any spectacular changes to the median times of tasks to account for it.

On a different note, one of the best examples of the difference between a speed run and a normal run really has to be the Eden trial. Even with all of the changes (closing up the Mold Wall hole, auto-hit Crystal Titan attacks), it's still possible to speed run an Eden Trial in ~15 minutes (skip right to the walls and kill em while ignoring anything else; when you're in the acid room, steamroll the bridges to get everyone 2-3 Ambrosia; free the heroes; pop your Ambs and kill the Titan while ignoring everything else). Anyone that's ever attempted a "normal run" (i.e. kill as you go) knows that even a good group will take 1-2+ hours just because of the size of the mission. The reason for this is because there was so much that was assumed to be a functional requirement (clearing the wall rooms) that the devs didn't see much point in including them.

The devs could have fixed the time it took to complete the trial by forcing the defeat of a certain number of enemies before you could even begin taking on the walls (which the original devs probably wanted you to do in the first place since attacking the walls aggros almost every enemy in the room) like they did with the 3rd mission of the ITF, but, instead, they decided to simply adjust the merit awards to account for the vast number of players that simply skipped everything.

If there is a giant disparity between the average time for speed runs and the average time for "normal" runs, rather than using the median time to determine reward, it would probably be better to simply look at the task in question and determine what makes it so easy to speed and adjust for that. If a task is easy to speed because players can simply bypass a large amount of the content then it would behoove the devs to add some goal that requires the defeat of a certain quantity of otherwise skippable NPCs would slow down the speed run while having little effect upon the normal run (as they're already defeating all or most of the enemies). If it's just a matter of efficient team design, then there isn't really much the devs can do and the median time is probably still a reliable measure of average completion time (since you can probably assume that player efficiency is roughly standard).

Of course, it would also behoove the devs to generate some failure:success ratio for SF/TFs in order to gauge the rough difficulty and chance to succeed that any individual TF/SF has. The only problem I can imagine (and possibly the only reason that it wouldn't have been done) would be difficulty in datamining the exact number of TF/SFs that never reached completion. This would probably benefit SFs substantially more than TFs if only because, from what I've heard, the redside tasks have a substantially higher failure rate which should necessitate some increased reward on their part (possibly the inverse of the success ratio as an bonus multiplier to the reward?).

This isn't really something that you can logically address with the kind of reductions that Arcanaville is suggesting, however. Attacks that have longer recharges are fundamentally balanced by dealing more damage. With the Blaster attacks, this translates to those very same attacks being more useful at high levels because all of the first two attacks in the Blaster primaries have better DPAs thanks to doing more damage in the same animation time. A reduction in base recharge time and endurance cost benefit the higher damage powers because they're paying less for the greater benefit. An 8 second recharge power with a 1.67 second animation that gets a 33% reduction in recharge time shifts from a 9.848 cycle to a 7.848 second base cycle time whereas a 4 second recharge power with the same animation time would shift from a 5.848 to a 4.848 second cycle. The changes naturally benefit those powers that are already good without making those powers that are mediocre any better (because the ratio of recharge time to animation time is already high and any improvement is marginal at best and oftentimes largely redundant thanks to alternating animations generating clash between activation times). The assumption that all powers would behave in the same manner is fundamentally flawed because of this.

Whether low level powers should fall out of use doesn't really matter. The more important question is whether those powers do fall out of use. The simple answer is that some do and some don't. In general, 1 tier 1/2 power always remains in use even at the highest levels. In some cases, this is because the power in question is better than any other attack in the set (Storm Kick). In others, it's because the power recharges quickly and has an animation time that fits nicely in with the other powers in the attack string (Hack). Still others will be functionally useless and only be used whenever there isn't anything else to be used for an extended period of time and the animation time of the power won't interfere with the use of powers that can actually do something respectable with their animation time(Jab). In the first case, Arcanaville's suggested changes would make the set substantially more powerful because it's reducing the requirements needed to access the attack string by a gigantic margin (224% +rech compared to 152% +rech) while simultaneously providing a large reduction in the EPS of the attack string (roughly 15%). In the second case, the attack string doesn't become any more powerful because the tier 1 power isn't the fundamental limiter to access for the attack string but, because the attack does fulfill a significant portion of the attack string, the set spends less EPS (15% less in the case of the BS attack string) for the exact same DPS. In the final case, there is virtually no benefit because the power simply doesn't get used.

The only set that I can think of (and I have done attack string calculation for virtually every set in the game that this change would reasonably affect) that wouldn't receive a substantial benefit from a change like this would be Super Strength and that's explicitly because the tier 1 and 2 powers in the set are so tremendously bad that pool powers are better to use. Even then, it's not like a reduction in the recharge time or endurance cost of the powers would make them any more intelligent to use because the costs on those are already laughably low (which, according to the dam/rech/end formula, would explain why they're not used in the first place).

The simple fact of the matter remains that, although some powers do fall to the wayside, the sets are not designed to do away completely with their lower tier attack powers in favor of their higher tier ones. At best, you'd be reducing the endurance costs of attack sets without reducing their commensurate DPS (if Arcanaville argues that it wouldn't, it's blatant and mathematical falsehood that she should know better about; a power's individual cycle time and EPS/DPS doesn't mean anything within the confines of actual power use) and at worst you'd be making some sets more powerful without providing commensurate increase to the performance of others.

This is one of the reasons why I've yet to assign any numbers to anything I'd do. My suggestion was simply a suggestion to counter the suggestion of Arcanaville (one that I disagree with rather vehemently for reasons I've already let be known). Personally, I could do without it since, as I similarly stated, I have no problem with the current state of things as they apply to always having some attack or other applicable power to use.

If I were to place a number on it, I'd definitely start conservatively, probably something like 20% recharge redux (and no end redux unless it was deemed necessary) at level 1. Large enough to be noticeable, but not so much that it becomes something that you miss once you hit the SO levels (since it's less than a single SO). At level 10, I would probably pare it down to roughly 10% (so that you're still getting less than a single DO). Optimally, I'd make the value of the buff tied to the number of primary, secondary, and pool powers you currently have access to (i.e. if you exemp down, those extra powers you have are going to count against the size of the buff) because, as I see it, the problem that is being addressed is the availability of powers to use rather than any specific problem with the potency of the powers at that level and having access to 2-3 more powers should generate a similar reduction in the benefit that makes up for the problem.

First, I can, definitively, say that anyone that knows anything about the game is going to treat Hack and Storm Kick different than Jab. Messing with the dam/rech/end formula for Jab would do almost nothing to the fundamental balance of Super Strength because it's a bad attack: no matter how much you tweak the endurance or recharge, it's going to remain a bad attack due to the horrible DPA. Messing with the dam/rech/end formula for Hack or Storm Kick would make BS and MA a helluva lot stronger: those are great attacks and the primary limiter on them, if not their high EPS (thanks to high DPA), is the fact that they have high recharge requirements for animation time saturation. Reducing the recharge on Storm Kick by 33% would reduce the required recharge redux needed to attain the optimal Storm>CAK>Storm>CK attack string to a paltry 152% (within the confines of an SO build), and the restricting attack would no longer be Storm Kick but rather CAK (Storm Kick would only need 116% +rech).

Not all tier 1 and 2 blasts are treated the same by all powersets so you can simply assume that reducing the base recharge and endurance of all of them is going to have a negligible effect upon them once they obtain a decent number of powers. Some sets abandon their tier 1/2 powers as soon as possible, and others use them constantly.

The more important question is whether applying these changes in a global manner would have a more positive effect than a negative effect. Not all sets would be affected in even a roughly even manner. Sets that don't use their tier 1/2 powers (which you seem to be considering the vast majority to such an extent that you can probably ignore those sets that do) are going to get virtually no benefit beyond the first few levels whereas those sets that do are going to get an inordinate benefit.

Allowing everyone to have actions to choose from all the time is a great thing to aim for but it's not going to be much of a fix if you assume that every set operates in the same way. If anything, if you provide preferential capabilities for specific powers based simply upon their power order, you're going to simply make other sets more powerful all the time while only providing a pittance of usefulness to others.

How is that any different than what you're attempting to do? The solution I suggested applies the benefit to all powers universally for the levels in which players do not have a substantial number of options in combat. The players would only receive the "fix" for those levels in which they are forced to not have much in the way of action choice thanks to limited power selection. Your "fix" simply assumes that all sets operate by removing their tier 1/2 powers to lower positions in the priority list and provides a substantially greater benefit to those sets that already place their tier 1/2 activated powers for all levels rather than those in which they are forced, by design, to be short on powers.

The question of limited activity isn't due to some powers not recharging fast enough. It's due to not having enough powers at low levels.

And how is that particularly out of order? These are the exceptionally low levels we're talking about, pre-SOs. Just look at the natural imbalance of Super Strength's performance at pre-Rage levels compared to everything else. Pre-SOs, choice based balance means almost nothing because those levels fly by so quickly. You might as well make the argument that Blasters have an unfair advantage for the first 6 levels because they get more attacks rather than unenhanced and largely useless toggles.

The question that both of us are attempting to address isn't the ability to perform at low levels. The question is how do you properly address the ability for characters to maintain the ability to act while simultaneously providing a reason to actually take powers that provide that benefit while causing a minimum of harm outside of the times in which that penalty is acceptable.

The question that you continually dodge is whether the recharge and endurance costs of that tier 1 power are actually the functional limiters on that power's performance and whether that power is actually useful beyond the first few levels. If all tier 1 and 2 powers did fulfill those conditions, I'd agree with you. The simple fact is that they don't all fulfill those conditions.

The global buff that I would prefer to have is justifiably more appropriate unless you're going to argue that players beyond a certain level have a problem saturating their animation time because I'm limiting the difference to the specific levels in which the problem exists rather than assuming the powers I'm changing in a very drastic manner are somehow going to universally find less use specifically because you say so, no matter how the game actually gets played.

Changing 3 powers for all sets throughout every level isn't more drastic than providing a global buff to a specific subset of levels wherein the problem exists. If anything, your change is the more drastic one. When players complained of low chances to hit at low levels because they were incapable of slotting the enhancements that would actually supply them with a decent chance to hit, the devs could have either increased the accuracy of those powers the players had available at those low levels and left the changes or provided a specific global buff to accuracy for the levels in question.

It's the exact same situation. Rather than complaining about not having access to accuracy enhancements which would allow them to hit at the desired rate, players are complaining about not having access to recharge reduction and endurance enhancements along with the larger suite of powers that would, together, allow them to saturate their animation time in an effective manner.

The problem doesn't exist across all levels unless someone specifically builds to have that problem. The problem exists in a specific area of levels in which the power structure of the game forces them to both not have access to a sufficient number of powers and not have access to the means by which to make efficient use of the small set of powers that they have available. Attempting to apply a change to any specific subset of powers across all levels simply on the justification that the low level problem will be addressed is going to cause problems in all of the other level ranges which is the more drastic change.

TLR version

The problem exists only in the low level game. Changing just the low level game to address the problem is better than changing the powers that everyone has in the low level game, regardless of what level the person is.