Umbral

[ QUOTE ]
Guess what, all of Redside is "Boring and grey." Should we just eliminate that entire side

[/ QUOTE ]

I concur. Let the Rogue Isles be consumed by flaming meteors! Here here!

[ QUOTE ]
in a way that is unpleasant for those trying to play it, and those that may actually LIKE it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait... people actually play and some even enjoy redside? Wow... That's just... Whoa.... News to me...

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(QR)

I soloed Math at +1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try the AV 'Calculus Sucksicus'...

[/ QUOTE ]

He's kicked my [censored] twice in a row, but, strangely enough, I had no problem taking out "Mega-Statisticon" or "Calculus the Discrete".

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder how much accuracy and over the soft cap melee defense I can pick up without heavily compromising everyday survivability. Hmmm.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really want to, you could just switch out the LotG +rech in Weave for the Karma +tohit and get 95% chance to hit v. +4s with only a .1% drop in defense and rather minor drop in recharge.

[ QUOTE ]
And this is probably why Broadsword hasn't been ported to Brutes/Tanks yet. It would require some balancing considerations whereas for Stalkers just plug it into the conversion formula and worry about 1 new animation.

For reference Stalker conversion formula

Taunt->Placate
PBAoE->Assassins ____(may require animation work)
Damage buff power->Build Up(if not already)

[/ QUOTE ]

The interesting issue is that, while there could easily be a basic Scrapper>Tanker powerset conversion protocol (it's not actually a formula unless deals with specific numbers), Broadsword, Katana, and Ninja Blade would still be seen as an exception to it simply because of Parry/DA which are already seen as being rather overpowered and out of place by the developers. Putting them into the hands of ATs that are already at the top for survivability would make the power even more powerful and capable of overshadowing any defensive power from their own, supposedly more powerful, defensive sets.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Plus in Mid's, even with the DoT, T-Strike shows more damage than FSC (I compared Brutes since they're the only ones with the sets).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if Mid's shows it, but only your targeted opponent receives the full damage from Thunderstrike. The AoE, which hits other enemies near your target, only does a portion of the damage.

Hope this helps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any idea how much damage is actually dealt to the secondary targets? The City of Data entry seems to suggest that all targets within the area are damage fully, especially since the normal method for creating AoEs that deal more damage to the primary target than to secondary targets is to summon a pseudo-pet that delivers the second attack and Thunder Strike doesn't do that.

I've actually found that, for a number of the stranger powers in game, you can't actually trust the description of the power and simply have to trust the information presented by the in-game real numbers and City of Data (which actually lists summoned pseudo-pets).

[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever heard of characters that don't miss? Who's very powers are accuracy? Character concept is why I suggested this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and there are also characters that have the very power of simply never being hit or being able to dodge anything. Interestingly, we're allowed to ignore those points specifically because this is a game, not a comic book. Keep in mind that what you slot into your powers is not derivative of what you power is. If a character's power was accuracy, he would need to have a higher base accuracy and lots of innate tohit, not be heavily slotted for accuracy or have an IO that allows him/her to completely ignore the basic mechanics of the chance to hit.

How would you deal with NPCs that pop Elude? If you hit them, then go down rather quickly. If you could always hit (even if you dealt less damage from the target having higher defense compared to your tohit/accuracy), you would take out those targets without much effort at all. Other enemies that stacked heavy amounts of +def would be similarly effective.

[ QUOTE ]
And the reason I even bothered is because they have proved this exact thing <can> be done via their PVP recipes.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it can't. They've demonstrated that they're capable of splitting PvP and PvE functionality. There has been nothing done to prove that they can (though I'm sure they could) or even want to put something like this into game considering the amount of work (bypassing the Clamp mechanic and generating the random damage tables and modifying all powers to account for this via a percent method that is current not in game unless you'd want to have some kind of -dam mechanic which would be horribly easy to exploit considering the amount of +dam that players are able to access) that would be required to put it in.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm saying it's not likely because the devs can't split PvE and PvP functionality. I'm not saying that, nor have I ever. If you actually read and comprehend what I've written, you would see that I have a problem with the effect that you want to occur in PvE insofar as never missing and the mechanics for bypassing the normal chance to hit and instead replacing it with whatever table of percent damage would be inserted specifically for this IO.

In short, it's way too much work to get the specific mechanic you want for such a minor effect as what you are trying to get.

[ QUOTE ]
For a tank their damage is subpar anyway. An attack like this which would allow you do bypass their defense and damage wouldn't be unreasonable to me. With Brutes Their whole spiel is adding to damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue is that it allows Tankers to bypass any need to use anything except for Parry. Parry, thanks to Gauntlet, would have the AoE Taunt effect on it and would add to Tanker survivability. Losing a small portion of their already reduced damage isn't as devastating to a Tanker as it is to a Scrapper. For a Brute, it's more an issue of the Brute being able to skyrocket their survivability and generate Fury without risk. Parry would essentially act as a free +dam attack because it would allow the Brute to fight more targets with the same or higher level of survivability more than eclipsing the damage lost from using Parry rather than a more damaging attack.

[ QUOTE ]
Besides. a debuff makes more sense for concept reasons. A Feint is tricking someone into lowering their guard in one exposed area by making them think the attack is coming from somewhere else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, Parry would make more sense as a debuff mechanically than it would a buff, but that's how the game has been designed. The existing Feint mechanics operate as personal buffs. In general, it's better for the game to remain internally consistent than to make a single exception on account of reality.

[ QUOTE ]
The -def already has some precident in the Broadsword set anyway. Parry might even have it. I don't remmber.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't. No power has both a buff and a debuff component for the same attribute. The only powers that do this use a pseudo-pet that activates a separate power in order to generate the effect and pseudo-pets can't target a specific individual.

[ QUOTE ]
So basically we are just talking about a -res damage for a Lethal damage powerset. It wouldn't be exacly like Followup though. More utility. Maybe make the -res weaker than the +dam would be since everyone on the team would benefit from the effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

It still doesn't address the entire issue that Parry is supposed to be the support power for the set. Replacing it with a power that is offensively supportive (like Build Up and the Follow Up clones) so that there are 2 in the set is beginning to tread into Fire's desmense as the offensive juggernaut, not to mention that it would still be the only attack powerset in game with 2 functional build up powers.

[ QUOTE ]
We've had co-op zones where all the ATs, villain and heroside, seem to all work together fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this is that it's not a complete environment in which there is full mixing at all times. With GoRo, I predict there to be a bit more comparative realization of the capabilities of the various ATs and commensurate modifications to the player base to account for these new realizations.

Personally, I dearly hope that Castle does actually review the various ATs, not only from a numerical perspective, but also from a playability/perceptive effectiveness perspective. If the general view is that a Brute is more survivable, more damaging, and more encourages a more interesting play style with its inherent than a Scrapper or a Tanker while fulfilling most of the team functionality for both of those ATs, then I think that Brute would need some kind of examination in order to bring them in line with the other 2 ATs. This isn't really needed at the moment because Brutes only interact with Scrappers and Tankers in the 2 co-op zones which are both in the nominal "end-game". The same comparison could easily be made for Corrupters against Defenders, or Dominators against Blasters (Blasters only have slightly better damage while Dominators have an entire powerset that is much better at team support).

Bad */Regen! Level 16 should be Integration, level 28 should be IH, and level 38 should be Moment of Glory! Bad! If you do that again, I'm going to swat you on the nose with the sunday edition of the newspaper!

Repeat after me: MoG is good. MoG is wonderful. MoG is awesome.

Integration should simply be taken immediately because it's your mez toggle. If you don't take it asap, have fun being a melee blaster and getting mez'd every 5 seconds.

As to your other slotting, you overslotted Fast Healing, underslotted Integration, slotted Instant Healing and Reconstruction wrong for the slots you gave them, gave Build Up improper slotting, and got 6th piece set bonuses that are largely unimportant (I'm looking at you Positron's Blast and Scirocco's Dervish!).

First off, remember that recharge is every */regen's best friend. It's very, very hard to make a good */regen build without dumping lots of recharge into everything. This is something I tell everyone making an IO'd */regen:

Step 1: Get more recharge.
Step 2: That's not enough recharge. Get more.
Step 3: Aren't you listening? Moar recharge!
Step 4: What? You can't get more recharge? Well fine. Get some +def.

For a start, Reconstruction, Dull Pain, and Instant Healing should all get 5 piece Doctored Wounds (all but Heal/End). Integration, depending on what else you're slotting, should either get 3 piece Numina (proc, Heal, Heal/End) or 5 piece Doctored Wounds (all but End/Rech). Fast Healing isn't really all that important since you're already packing loads of healing and regen elsewhere. Throw either the Miracle proc or a level 50 common heal IO into it (if you put the Regen Tissue proc in there, I'mma smack you because the +regen is smaller than for the common IO). MoG should get the LotG +rech, LotG def/rech, and 2 level 50 common recharge IOs. Resilience should be put off until the absolute latest and should get the Steadfast Protection 3% +def proc. The Gladiator's 3% +def proc is also nice, but doesn't have to go into Resilience, especially since you've gotten Tough, which will take it just as well.

This is probably closer to what you should be aiming for. It's a bit low on the melee defense because it's based off of a Kat/Regen build, but it's packing enough to be noticed as well as the +dam and +recharge to be dangerous and survivable. The empty slot in Resilience is for the Gladiator's 3% +def IO.

Hero Plan by Mids' Hero Designer 1.401
http://www.cohplanner.com/

[u]Click this DataLink to open the build![u]

Level 50 Magic Scrapper
Primary Power Set: Spines
Secondary Power Set: Regeneration
Power Pool: Leaping
Power Pool: Fighting
Power Pool: Speed
Power Pool: Fitness

Hero Profile:
Level 1: Lunge -- Hectmb-Dmg/Rchg(A), Hectmb-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(3), Hectmb-Acc/Rchg(3), Hectmb-Dmg/EndRdx(5), Hectmb-Dam%(5)
Level 1: Fast Healing -- Mrcl-Rcvry+(A)
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: Build Up -- RechRdx-I(A), RechRdx-I(7), RechRdx-I(13)
Level 8: Impale -- Apoc-Dmg/Rchg(A), Apoc-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(15), Apoc-Acc/Rchg(17), Apoc-Dmg/EndRdx(17), Apoc-Dam%(19)
Level 10: Combat Jumping -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A), Zephyr-Travel/EndRdx(15), Zephyr-Travel(39), LkGmblr-Def(43), Zephyr-ResKB(48)
Level 12: Dull Pain -- Dct'dW-EndRdx/Rchg(A), Dct'dW-Heal/Rchg(21), Dct'dW-Heal/EndRdx/Rchg(21), Dct'dW-Heal(23), Dct'dW-Rchg(23)
Level 14: Super Jump -- Zephyr-Travel(A), Zephyr-Travel/EndRdx(25), Zephyr-ResKB(25)
Level 16: Integration -- Numna-Heal/EndRdx(A), Numna-Heal(27), Numna-Regen/Rcvry+(27)
Level 18: Boxing -- Stpfy-Acc/Rchg(A), Stpfy-EndRdx/Stun(19), Stpfy-Acc/EndRdx(29), Stpfy-Stun/Rng(29), Stpfy-Acc/Stun/Rchg(31), Stpfy-KB%(31)
Level 20: Tough -- Aegis-ResDam/EndRdx(A), Aegis-ResDam/Rchg(31), Aegis-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg(33), Aegis-ResDam(33), Aegis-Psi/Status(33)
Level 22: Weave -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A), RedFtn-Def/EndRdx(34), RedFtn-Def/Rchg(34), RedFtn-Def/EndRdx/Rchg(34), RedFtn-Def(36), RedFtn-EndRdx(36)
Level 24: Hasten -- RechRdx-I(A), RechRdx-I(36), RechRdx-I(37)
Level 26: Ripper -- Armgdn-Dmg/Rchg(A), Armgdn-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(37), Armgdn-Acc/Rchg(37), Armgdn-Dmg/EndRdx(39), Armgdn-Dam%(39)
Level 28: Instant Healing -- Dct'dW-EndRdx/Rchg(A), Dct'dW-Heal/Rchg(40), Dct'dW-Heal/EndRdx/Rchg(40), Dct'dW-Heal(40), Dct'dW-Rchg(42)
Level 30: Hurdle -- Jump-I(A)
Level 32: Throw Spines -- Ragnrk-Dmg/Rchg(A), Ragnrk-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(42), Ragnrk-Acc/Rchg(42), Ragnrk-Dmg/EndRdx(43), Ragnrk-Knock%(43)
Level 35: Health -- RgnTis-Regen+(A)
Level 38: Moment of Glory -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A), LkGmblr-Def/Rchg(45), RechRdx-I(45), RechRdx-I(45)
Level 41: Quills -- Sciroc-Acc/Dmg(A), Sciroc-Dmg/EndRdx(46), Sciroc-Dmg/Rchg(46), Sciroc-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(46), Sciroc-Dam%(48)
Level 44: Stamina -- P'Shift-End%(A), P'Shift-EndMod(50)
Level 47: Super Speed -- Zephyr-Travel(A), Zephyr-Travel/EndRdx(48), Zephyr-ResKB(50)
Level 49: Resilience -- S'fstPrt-ResDam/Def+(A), Empty(50)
------------
Level 1: Brawl -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Sprint -- ULeap-Stlth(A)
Level 2: Rest -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Critical Hit

[ QUOTE ]
I'm so glad its not your very own private game. You could give feedback while being a bit less snarky?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can give more feedback, but I don't think I can go without the snark. Snark is kind of my thing.

The problem is that you're trying to make a fundamental portion of the chance to hit calculator (the final clamp value) become a binary variable based upon whether the IO in question is slotted. Personally, I don't really see the point of it, especially since we've got streakbreaker, which is functionally rendered irrelevant by your idea and already gives the player a greater than 95% average chance to hit if s/he's already sitting at the 95% cap (it's actually 95.25% thanks to streakbreaker, if you're curious). You also further complicate it by requiring a rather complete rework of the manner in which damage is dealt (making it percentage based dependent upon whatever arbitrary system is determined) rather than binary system that is currently in place (all damage is dealt or all damage is not dealt). In order to put your system in place a rather comprehensive rework of powers (or a new system entirely) would need to be put into place to generate your variable damage system, which you didn't actually give any definable qualification for and thusly left it up to the rather random perceptions of those that are reading it.

The entire point I'm making is that the question "Why?" isn't really answered, much less addressed, in you post. Neither is the actual issue of "cost:benefit" which, considering how much you want to mess with fundamental systems, is actually something that would need to be addressed considering I'm reasonably sure that very few people would actually give much of a difference unless the IO itself was designed to completely remove the need to make a tohit roll at all rather than simply bypass the Clamp mechanic (which would be horribly overpowered).

[ QUOTE ]
Any idea on what the proc itself is equivalent to? I'm assuming it's superior to a single end IO in stamina even though it doesn't give an end enhancement?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's equivalent to getting .2 percent of your maximum endurance back every second. If you've got 100 endurance, that's .2 end/sec. If you've got 110 endurance (re: both +end accolades), that's .22 end/sec.

The first level 50 common end IO in Quick Recovery grants .21 end/sec if you've got 100 endurance. The first level 50 common end IO in Stamina grants .17 end/sec if you've got 100 endurance. The Perf Shifter proc grants .2 end/sec if you've got 100 endurance. Best case, Perf Shifter is only minorly worse than anything you could put into Quick Recovery, but I'm more than willing to forgive .01 end/sec considering that the Perf Shifter proc operates via the undebuffable +end rather than the debuffable +recov, and it's substantially better that anything you can put into Stamina. Ever. Nothing that goes into Stamina right now is capable of outperforming the Perf Shifter proc.

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I didn't worry about the smashing hole, and I could be horribly wrong on this, was that I was thinking the vast majority of smashing damage is dealt in melee, so aren't most of those attacks also typed as melee? And a lot of the attacks that are mixed, are usually mixed with something like energy, which is covered in the other soft-capped defenses. For example, if an enemy fires at me from ranged with an attack that does smashing/energy dmg, isn't the attack typed as range/smashing/energy? I've played the toon quite a bit since softcapping and I haven't run into anything (outside of massive defense debuffs stacking up that has gotten through it.)

[/ QUOTE ]

That's mostly true, though it's still something to consider. You'd still have to deal with virtually no defense to all of the hurl boulders, propel, and other ranged attacks in the game, but they're uncommon enough that you can probably ignore them to some degree.

[ QUOTE ]
From the build you listed (and I understand you were just messing around with it), I don't see the advantage of going for positional defense with WP. You stated that I'm giving up to much in other areas to go for typed defenses, but in the build you listed, it looks like you had to make a lot of sacrifices as well (my build has more HP, better regen, better resistances, and the main attacks have comparable or better numbers), without even capping ranged or aoe. Going for positional defenses made you 6 slot two of your primary attacks, gc and gd, to get def. The achilles in GC is so valuable to kat that it is usually the difference between failing or succeeding to get past an av's regen. And since you're firing gc every other attack, a proc in there is almost mandatory and really boosts the dps (shout out to werner who pointed me in this direction a while ago). And in giving up heightened senses, you're giving up added perception which comes in handy, and def debuff resistance, which although meager, is better than none.

[/ QUOTE ]

I readily admit that the build isn't really one that is effective, though, look at weird and inefficient slotting you had to go through just to get softcapped. When I made that build, I actually addressed the strange things I had to do to get softcapped to everything and even made the comment that, if I didn't have to softcap to AoE and instead could focus on melee and ranged exclusively (keeping in mind that attacks that only hit AoE defense are actually rather rare), like you decided to exclude smashing because the number of ranged smashing attacks are rather rare, I could easily generate a build that is competitive with yours in all of those respective areas. That's also why I made the comment that it's probably better to simply aim for high but not softcapped defenses while getting everything else that you're going for. I've felt a number of times while playing around with */WP that the opportunity costs for achieving super high levels of defense are greater than the benefits, especially since +def's known weakness and */WP's known weakness come hand in hand: burst damage and RNG arrive hand in hand.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, Tankmagery is to be avoided. However, I don't see allowing Defenders to buff themselves in deficient sets like Force Fields is going to create that. There's no damage buff in that set, so his damage output remains very low. It may be argued that his defense is higher than other Defender sets, however. In this case, I would suggest that this is appropriate since the Force Field set has no way to increase damage. It's only a matter of finding a balance point.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that allowing Defenders to target themselves would allow SO slotted FF defenders to softcap themselves along with the rest of their team? The inability to make oneself nearly unkillable is the price you pay for being able to make everyone on your team nearly unkillable.

[ QUOTE ]
I also agree, I'm not the sole arbiter of fun. That's why I've avoided addressing that, and instead have concerned myself with balance/parity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which you address by comparing a build that is renowned for it's team capability and poor soloing capability with a build that is renowned for its soloing capability and only marginal teaming capability? Your argument is flawed.

[ QUOTE ]
If I ignored something someone said, I didn't mean to. I've never said that everything should be equal, only that they should be equivalent. This is not the same thing. It means that all characters should be able to complete the same tasks, regardless of powers or AT, even if it's accomplished by different means.

[/ QUOTE ]

Equivalent - adjective - equal in value, measure, force, effect, significance, etc

Yes, they do mean the same thing. If two things are equivalent, then they are equal. The reason you keep finding the sets to be unequal is because you continually refuse to actually consider the performance of the two builds within the confines of a team and insist on using their performance while solo (with you at their helm) as the sole piece of evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
A Scrapper benefits from being on a team just as much as a Defender does. They bring different things to the team, but they each benefit equally.

[/ QUOTE ]

This right here demonstrates how little you actually know about how the game really works. Scrappers contribute to the team in a purely additive fashion. If the team had an arbitrary value of 10, the Scrapper would add an arbitrary value of 4. Defenders add to the team in a multiplicative and additive fashion. If the team had an arbitrary value of 10, the defender would multiply the effectiveness of all of his other teammates by 50% by making them more effective and add an extra 1 to it by its own direct contributions. This would give the Scrappers team an arbitrary value of 14, and the Defender's team an arbitrary value of 16.

To make it short, Scrappers are force additive. Defenders are force multipliers. Scrappers are a high static value that regardless of who else is on the team (unless those others on the team are Defenders/Controllers that are operating by multiplying the Scrapper). Defenders are low static value that contributes by making everyone else on the team significantly more effective. Through this definable difference in how they operate and contribute, it's obvious that a Scrapper is going to solo significantly better than a Defender simply because the Defender doesn't have anyone else around to multiply the effectiveness off.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems obvious that the AT, or at least this set, DOES NOT excel in every area of the game. The numbers alone suggest that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your numbers suggest that especially since you're interpreting them with a specific conclusion in mind. You're operating under the assumption that there is something wrong with Defenders. It's always possible to twist the data to say whatever you want them to say, especially if you're using incomplete or specifically chosen data sets (or, in your case, Data points) that exist explicitly to demonstrate the conclusion that you've already come to.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll address this more directly. The Defender is expected to overcome challenges to teammates, as you say, but so is every other AT. The Defender must ALSO be expected to overcome solo challenges, since all the other ATs can do so.

Scrappers bring critical hits to teams, but this also benfits them. Blaster bring damage to teams, but this also benefits them. Tankers bring aggro management to teams, and the ability to survive this feat is useful to them solo, and Controllers bring crowd control to teams, which is also useful to them solo.

Defenders bring buffs and debuffs, but only the debuffs are useful to the solo Defender. The buffing Defender has nothing (or very little, at least) for soloing.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
My build may indeed be unusual, but the numbers don't lie. He has less than half the health and damage output and much, much less defense than the Scrapper, and this build actually has more defenses than some others might.

[/ QUOTE ]

The numbers may not lie, but you're more than capable of making the numbers say whatever you want them to say in order to make your own point. Claiming that the numbers support you whenever you're using innately flawed methods for determining equivalence by looking at a single dimension for balance whenever the ATs are designed on a multidimensional axis. I could just as easily claim that Scrappers are underpowered on teams because they're overshadowed by Blasters because a Blaster is capable of achieving near identical levels of survivability and has the added benefits of superior native damage and range, except that it's not true because a Blaster has to specifically be on a team in order to achieve that.

[ QUOTE ]
As I've said, I've not seen it, but I'm willing to concede that not all Defenders have this sort of problem. It seems to be the buffing sets that suffer because they don't benefit from their own powers, unlike the debuffing sets.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply something that buffers and debuffers have to deal with though it is actually balanced if you look at it holistically (which I doubt you do simply because you're incapable of realizing beyond a first glance that it could be balanced). While buffers have to deal with decreased effectiveness while solo in order to make up for incredible effectiveness while on teams, debuffers have to deal with the mirror issue: debuffs are less effective against targets that are higher levels. While solo, you will face foes of a lower level thanks to how the spawning system works. While on a team, you will face foes that are of a higher level. While on a team and fighting these higher level foes, the Purple Patch makes all of those incredibly powerful debuffs less effective. When fighting foes that are substantially more powerful (4 levels above you), all debuffs are reduced to only 48% effectiveness on top of any debuff resistance that the target may already have (such as AV resistance). Buffs, on the other hand, are immune to this. The 15% +def that you grant to your teammate will work equally well against an even level enemy as against a +4 enemy. That's a decided advantage, especially when you consider that debuffs have to be reapplied whenever the target dies whereas buffs only need to be applied in the much more rare circumstances that the recipient dies. On a team that is actually steamrolling through the mobs, it's much more efficient to have a buffer than a debuffer simply because the buffs will be up at all times (as long as they're reapplied regularly) whereas the debuffs will need to be constantly reapplied and, thanks to their recharges and animations, will actually have downtimes.

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, I'm now considering ways of adjusting the buffing sets in a way that will allow them to be used by the Defender (eg. Force Fielders would be able to bubble themselves).

[/ QUOTE ]

Which would more than likely make those buffing defenders that actually team incredibly enthused because, now that their buffs have been balanced significantly downwards in order to make up for their ability to target themselves, they're no longer capable of actually supporting their team to the same extent that they once were, not to mention the fact that the devs would have to actually rework the code to allow for self targeting. Excellent idea. I'm glad that you are the one that is actually thinking up solutions for it. I'm sure that they'll be well informed and more than balanced. [/sarcasm]

[ QUOTE ]
Feel free to discuss further, but until I have something new to contribute, I'll likely not post much more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that you've had anything new to contribute to this discussion since it began. You've simply rehashed the same lopsided comparisons over and over again in an attempt to make your point via persistence rather than through substance.

[ QUOTE ]
Feint. You wouldn't nesicerraly even have to change the animation. Minor Damage on Par with Parry's damage. Lowers Targets -def -res

[/ QUOTE ]

That might be interesting, though, I would predict that it would be more closely akin to Follow Up and Blinding Feint (+acc and +dam) than a -res/-def debuff. Either way, if it were to do something like that, but it would cause the set to act as if it had 2 Build Up type powers, something that Castle has seemed to avoid (for good reason). The would still need to have some kind of defensive power rather than an offensive support power in order to keep power function roughly similar.

[ QUOTE ]
Since they made PVP only IO sets they have proved at least that part can be done. So here's my idea. An IO that allows you to never miss in PVE. You always hit, but then you get another roll to give you a percentage of the damage that you <can> do based on your damage slots. In PVE it would work as just a regular accuracy IO of its particular level with no damage roll needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you want a rework of the entire attack mechanic system to allow for the Clamp function to be a binary variable based upon whether or not you've got this IO slotted and then have the damage system be further overhauled to allow for a variable damage system? That's more than a bit of work for something so minor.

I'm gonna have to give it a nice big thumbs down.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's what I have so far (still in progress obviously) - what would you change? I tried to set it up so it would be good solo and on teams (but I could drop lotus drops for something else) and I wanted to keep it ex'able, while having soft capped def to most elements, 700+ reg with one enemy so I don't need any healing, and I have something similar on live, and I can run the main chain I mentioned without losing any end (it seems - did a pylon without moving the blue bar). I'm saving up to try and get a 3% def pvp IO if I can get one, which would obviously help with flexibility, but I'm not there yet, and the availability of said IO seems to be dwindling fast, lol. Fire away with suggestions.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, short forum export please. >.< So much info that isn't really useful, especially since most people are simply going to import to view.

Secondly, how exempable do you really think it needs to be? All you would be losing would be some set bonuses but, in doing so, you're paying for it in lower actual numbers from the powers in question. You'd probably get better returns off of simply building for level 50 and taking what you get when you exemp down. I've found that this works quite well for me.

Secondly, on Quick Recovery and Stamina, Perf Shifter is your king. The proc is the best thing you can put into any of those slots and the set bonuses are better to boot plus, because they're procs rather than set bonuses or enhancements, they don't become less effective whenever you exemp down.

As to softcapping your typed defenses, you're not really doing anything to get smashing defense, which is going to hurt you a bit. Personally, I prefer to go the route of softcapping via typed defenses rather than positional, not only because I'm more comfortable with the typed set bonuses, but also because there are more higher values of them. */WP only has a 15.4% native advantage to typed defense thanks to Heightened Senses, but, considering all of the set bonuses that are typed and the pool powers that grant +def(all), I've always found it to be significantly more beneficial to simply aim typed.

Here's a softcapped Kat/WP that I've got on hand. I've played around with it a bit to give it better numbers elsewhere, but I've never really gone anywhere solid with it. I designed it purely as a concept build to demonstrate that it was possible. I've always had the feeling that Kat/WP would benefit more from getting 30-35% +def while fully accessing all of its other sources of mitigation and attacking rather than compromising resistance, hit points, and damage for a bit more defense.

Hero Plan by Mids' Hero Designer 1.401
http://www.cohplanner.com/

[u]Click this DataLink to open the build![u]

Level 50 Magic Scrapper
Primary Power Set: Katana
Secondary Power Set: Willpower
Power Pool: Leaping
Power Pool: Fighting
Power Pool: Speed
Power Pool: Fitness
Ancillary Pool: Darkness Mastery

Hero Profile:
Level 1: Gambler's Cut -- Mako-Acc/Dmg(A), Mako-Dmg/EndRdx(3), Mako-Dmg/Rchg(3), Mako-Acc/EndRdx/Rchg(5), Mako-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(5), Mako-Dam%(48)
Level 1: High Pain Tolerance -- Heal-I(A)
Level 2: Mind Over Body -- S'fstPrt-ResDam/Def+(A)
Level 4: Fast Healing -- Mrcl-Heal(A), Mrcl-Rcvry+(21), Mrcl-Heal/Rchg(21), Mrcl-Heal/EndRdx(37), Mrcl-Heal/EndRdx/Rchg(37)
Level 6: Build Up -- GSFC-ToHit(A), GSFC-ToHit/Rchg(7), GSFC-ToHit/Rchg/EndRdx(7), GSFC-Rchg/EndRdx(43), GSFC-ToHit/EndRdx(46), GSFC-Build%(48)
Level 8: Divine Avalanche -- Mako-Acc/Dmg(A), Mako-Dmg/EndRdx(9), Mako-Dmg/Rchg(9), Mako-Acc/EndRdx/Rchg(11), Mako-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(11), Mako-Dam%(40)
Level 10: Indomitable Will -- EndRdx-I(A)
Level 12: Combat Jumping -- DefBuff-I(A), DefBuff-I(13), Zephyr-Travel(13), Zephyr-Travel/EndRdx(40), Zephyr-ResKB(40)
Level 14: Super Jump -- Zephyr-Travel(A), Zephyr-Travel/EndRdx(15), Zephyr-ResKB(15)
Level 16: Rise to the Challenge -- Numna-Heal/EndRdx(A), Numna-EndRdx/Rchg(17), Numna-Heal/Rchg(17), Numna-Heal(36), Numna-Heal/EndRdx/Rchg(37), Numna-Regen/Rcvry+(39)
Level 18: Boxing -- RzDz-Acc/Rchg(A), RzDz-EndRdx/Stun(19), RzDz-Acc/EndRdx(19), RzDz-Stun/Rng(23), RzDz-Acc/Stun/Rchg(23), RzDz-Immob%(25)
Level 20: Quick Recovery -- P'Shift-End%(A)
Level 22: Tough -- Empty(A)
Level 24: Weave -- DefBuff-I(A), DefBuff-I(25)
Level 26: Soaring Dragon -- Mako-Acc/Dmg(A), Mako-Dmg/EndRdx(27), Mako-Dmg/Rchg(27), Mako-Acc/EndRdx/Rchg(34), Mako-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(36), Mako-Dam%(36)
Level 28: Flashing Steel -- Sciroc-Acc/Dmg(A), Sciroc-Dmg/EndRdx(29), Sciroc-Dmg/Rchg(29), Sciroc-Acc/Rchg(31), Sciroc-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(31), Sciroc-Dam%(31)
Level 30: Hasten -- RechRdx-I(A)
Level 32: Golden Dragonfly -- Sciroc-Acc/Dmg(A), Sciroc-Dmg/EndRdx(33), Sciroc-Dmg/Rchg(33), Sciroc-Acc/Rchg(33), Sciroc-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(34), Sciroc-Dam%(34)
Level 35: Hurdle -- Jump-I(A)
Level 38: Health -- Mrcl-Heal/EndRdx(A), Mrcl-EndRdx/Rchg(39), Mrcl-Heal/Rchg(39), Mrcl-Heal/EndRdx/Rchg(48), Mrcl-Heal(50)
Level 41: Petrifying Gaze -- Lock-Acc/Hold(A), Lock-Acc/Rchg(42), Lock-Rchg/Hold(42), Lock-EndRdx/Rchg/Hold(42), Lock-Acc/EndRdx/Rchg/Hold(43), Lock-%Hold(43)
Level 44: Dark Blast -- SipInsght-ToHitDeb(A), SipInsght-Acc/ToHitDeb(45), SipInsght-Acc/Rchg(45), SipInsght-ToHitDeb/EndRdx/Rchg(45), SipInsght-Acc/EndRdx/Rchg(46), SipInsght-%ToHit(46)
Level 47: Stamina -- P'Shift-End%(A)
Level 49: Super Speed -- Zephyr-Travel(A), Zephyr-Travel/EndRdx(50), Zephyr-ResKB(50)
------------
Level 1: Brawl -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Sprint -- Empty(A)
Level 2: Rest -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Critical Hit

[ QUOTE ]
You bring up an interesting point I hadn't really considered. Of course this raises a new question. They had to come up with a new power for the Stalker set while they could have just redone parry or added something different for Tanks and Brutes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, considering that Broadsword could quite easily follow the model of Katana because the 2 sets are fundamentally identical in power design, Broadsword for Stalkers is probably going to cough up Confront for Placate, Whirling Sword for the new assassin's attack, and have some minor reordering of the powers to fit more appropriately in with the traditional Stalker ordering.

For Tankers and Brutes, it wouldn't be as simple. Confront would be dropped for Taunt and Whirling Sword would remain because there is no reason to get rid of a PbAoE for those ATs, but there isn't a hard model for what would happen to DA/Parry. It would most likely need to be gotten rid of, mainly because it's simply too strong of a power to be put in the hands of an AT with automatic aggro capabilities. Like it does for some Scrappers, it completely removes the need for a secondary outside of that one attack and the argument of "lower damage for higher survivability" doesn't really apply whenever Tankers already do this and would have significantly better returns and Brutes wouldn't have an issue with it because it would functionally allow them to maximize their Fury without much effort (just run around using Parry and almost never getting hit but still generating Fury). However, in order to prevent an out of place rework of the set, it would still need to remain largely supportive. Turning it into a control type power might work but that would make the set closely resemble Battle Axe with a different secondary effect.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Gladiator proc has a 20% chance to add an extra 20% damage to a every attack after it for 10 seconds (2 full cycles of the attack string, if you're curious). That's (728.32*.2*.2) = 29.13 damage. Of course, there are some diminishing returns because there is more than 1 proc attempt per 10 seconds. Because it occurs exactly halfway between the duration of the proc (where the attack string is concerned), the second proc only adds (728.32*.2*.2/2) = 14.57 damage.

[/ QUOTE ]
I might be misunderstanding this, but shouldn't those numbers be doubled since the proc lasts for two iterations of the attack chain? 728.32*2*.2*.2 = 58.26 damage, or 29.13 for an overlapping proc.

To add a little more math to that, we can figure out the real average value of the proc. Whenever the proc goes off, there is a 20% chance that it went off in the previous chain. So you have a 20% chance of getting the lower number, and an 80% chance of the higher number. If my numbers above are right, then the average damage will be .2 * 29.13 + .8 * 58.26 = 52.43 average damage total. If I'm wrong and Umbral is right, then the number is half that, or 26.22. Or if I've screwed up the math entirely then you can disregard this whole post

[/ QUOTE ]

I could quite possibly be wrong. I lost my notes on the -res proc calculations and had to force myself to remember them in the thralls of only being half conscious. I remember there being a reason why I didn't double the value for the first proc, but I can't quite remember it at the moment, so I could quite easily be wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also, calling it a flail is like calling, a katana a knife ... it's technically correct but does it a descriptive disservice...

Sanjiegun

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey I didnt call it a flail, I was thinking the same thing when he called it that... not that I knew what the exact name of it was... lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

Three piece Staff.

[ QUOTE ]
Any suggestions for reslotting these? Would working in flashing steel with the FotG -res proc help or hurt dps vs hard targets? I have 6 slots for flashing, but I need 3 slots for eradications for the def bonuses. I have the remainder of the
armageddon set that could be used here as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just post your build and I can check it from there. If you really need the 3 piece Eradications all over the place, I'm going to be very interested. I'm rather confident there are plenty of other workarounds that don't screw around and generate suboptimal slotting.

I'm waiting until we actually get it since I have a feeling that it might change a bit in the intervening time period.

[ QUOTE ]
Castle mentioned that although i16 will have a new more advanced mission setting slider, they won't be changing the minimum TF requirements in order to keep them as "warning labels" for newer players. I certainly understand that.

But some of us have the right characters and experience to want to solo TFs. What I suggest is that the devs create a new accolade called Soloist. TFs would check for minimum team size OR the presence of this accolade. That way no newbie would ever accidentally start a TF below min team size, but those of us who wanted to, could. Problem solved!

[/ QUOTE ]

And how would one get this badge?

Alright, let's assume you're using the GD>GC>SD>GC attack string with 90% +dam in each of the attacks. That's ((164 + 57.8 + 123.9 + 57.8)*.95) = 728.32 damage in (1.98 + .924 + 1.584 + .924) = 5.412 secs for 134.58 DPS.

Now, compare the procs.

The Armageddon proc adds an extra (107.1 * .33) = 35.34 damage to the original damage. That's (728.32 + 35.34) = 763.66 damage and 141.1 DPS. That's an extra 6.52 DPS.

The Gladiator proc has a 20% chance to add an extra 20% damage to a every attack after it for 10 seconds (2 full cycles of the attack string, if you're curious). That's (728.32*.2*.2) = 29.13 damage. Of course, there are some diminishing returns because there is more than 1 proc attempt per 10 seconds. Because it occurs exactly halfway between the duration of the proc (where the attack string is concerned), the second proc only adds (728.32*.2*.2/2) = 14.57 damage. The total DPS across both attack strings would be ((728.32 + 29.13 + 728.32 + 14.57)/(5.412 * 2) = 138.61 DPS. That's an improvement of 4.03 DPS.

Of course, this calculation ignores a number of other variables like procs slotted in other attacks (which would make the -res proc more powerful), AH procs (which would make the damage proc more powerful), and other things. The primary reason why the -res proc is so comparatively weak is because it only checks twice per 10 second period which means you'll only get roughly 6% -res over time from it.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I can't cut a lot of slack on this one

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing to do with the guy explicitly saying that your guide is wrong, right?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm IO'ing out a really tight build for my BS/WP and could only afford 4 free slots for both stamina and quick recovery. The WP toggles + tough + weave + maneuvers make this a very end-heavy build. So how would I slot these two powers for maximum benefit? Should I just slot three end mods for each or use performance shifters (%, endmod, endmod/acc)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because Quick Recovery is a larger buff than Stamina, it should get preferential slotting compared to Stamina. Before Stamina gets any slots, Quick Recovery should get 3.

If you've got QR, Stamina, and 4 slots to put between them, your best bet is this: Perf Shifter proc, Perf Shifter EndMod, and a level 50 common End Mod. The Perf Shifter proc is actually better than anything else you can put into Stamina and it's just as good as anything you can put into Quick Recovery (it's actually .01 end/sec worse than the first lvl 50 End Mod you put into it, but I rate the fact that you can't debuff the Perf Shifter proc to be better than .01 end/sec). After that, the 2 level 50 End Mod IOs (the Perf Shifter is just there to get that little set bonus but isn't really necessary) simply bring the enhancement up to the edge of the redzone. Any End Mod after that is going to be largely ineffective thanks to ED.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ooh! Anyone wanna know how I name my characters?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Before anyone else took the single names?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, all of those names are prefaced by "Umbral". Umbral Fist, Umbral Pact, Umbral Lantern, etc. I generally start the process of naming my characters by cursing the devs for stealing my name for their Warshades.