-
Posts
3682 -
Joined
-
I think where recharge goes depends on primary and goals. If DPS is the goal, you'll probably want the recharge for most primaries. If survivability is the goal, many primaries offer some additional survivability, and recharge will help there as well. So I do think that in many cases, for many goals, recharge will be higher than hit points. Hit points are definitely high on the list, though. And defense first, yes.
-
-
According to Mids':
AAO saturated = +68.75% damage
And keep in mind this is the buff to unenhanced damage.
Soul Drain saturated = +70% damage
Haven't studied Kinetic Melee yet, and not sure how to interpret what I'm seeing, so I'll leave that for someone else. -
And now I feel like I have to explain mitigation and survivability.
A while ago, the forum came to a consensus on at least the meaning of "mitigation". That's not the same as saying everyone agrees, more like saying "the handful of people participating in a thread about mitigation a long time ago agreed".
We decided that mitigation was the percentage of damage prevented that would have hit you if you'd had 0% defense and 0% resistance. So if enemies are putting out 500 DPS, no mitigation STILL has you taking only 250 DPS, because the enemies only have 50% to hit. Now, you might take a different amount from something other than even level minions. It doesn't actually end up mattering, because the percentage mitigation calculated this way works out the same regardless.
In a formula, mitigation is this (well, keeping in mind that 45% defense is the "cap"):
mitigation = 100% - (100%-2*defense)*(100%-resistance)
So if you have 45% defense and no resistance, you have 100% - (100%-2*45%)*(100%-0%) = 100%-10% = 90% mitigation
If you have 60% resistance and no defense, you have 100% - (100%-2*0%)*(100%-60%) = 100%-40% = 60% mitigation
If you have 45% defense AND 60% resistance, you have 100% - (100%-2*45%)*(100%-60%) = 100%-10%*40% = 100%-4% = 96% mitigation
Given the definition, we can revisit the first 0.4% vs. last 0.4% discussion, and we'll see that BunnyAnomaly is completely correct, that the mitigation of both is equal. I did not state otherwise, and did not disagree with this point.
0% defense = 100% - (100%-2*0%)*(100%-0%) = 0% mitigation
0.4% defense = 100% - (100%-2*0.4%)*(100%-0%) = 0.8% mitigation
difference = 0.8% mitigation
44.6% defense = 100% - (100%-2*44.6%)*(100%-0%) = 89.2% mitigation
45% defense = 100% - (100%-2*45%)*(100%-0%) = 90% mitigation
difference = 0.8% mitigation
So the same, right? Yes. The mitigation is the same.
But we have to introduce ANOTHER concept - survivability. There is less consensus on the definition of survivability, as well there should be. But a standard approach (and the one I use despite its weaknesses) is to treat survivability as the amount of incoming damage that you can on average survive indefinitely, ignoring such details as the fact that a random walk can still kill you. Survivability is then defined like this:
survivability = net healing and regeneration / (100% - mitigation)
So if you heal 25 hit points per second, and you have 90% mitigation (such as from 45% defense and no resistance), then you have 25 / (100%-90%) = 25 / 10% = 250 survivability. This corresponds in a fairly loose sense to how much incoming damage you can survive. As an aside, the "Wernerscore" from my survivability spreadsheet is essentially two times the survivability under this definition. Being used for relative comparisons only, as it should, the scale hardly matters and we could just as easily multiply by five or divide by PI.
Now we can reexamine the difference that 0.4% defense makes to our survivability. Again, scale doesn't matter, so for comparison, we can assume any amount of healing and regeneration. Let's stick with 25 hit points per second.
0% defense = 0% mitigation = 25 / (100% - 0%) = 25 survivability
0.4% defense = 0.8% mitigation = 25 / (100% - 0.8%) = 25.2 survivability
A 0.2 difference in survivability, very roughly speaking another 0.2 DPS that you can survive.
44.6% defense = 89.2% mitigation = 25 / (100% - 89.2%) = 231.5 survivability
45% defense = 90% mitigation = 25 / (100% - 90%) = 250 survivability
An 18.5 difference in survivability, very roughly speaking another 18.5 DPS that you can survive. Not a big deal, but maybe you can add another minion. (Edit: And of course it would be a much higher number if we also had resistance and better regeneration and healing. I'd put the RWZ challenge at about 500 survivability. I'd put no temp no insp AV soloing at about 1000 survivability. I believe that Scrappers max out around 2500 survivability outside of special cases, like a Dark Melee/Invuln facing purely smashing/lethal enemies.)
Contrary to what I was saying earlier, the last 0.4% makes very roughly 100x more difference than the first 0.4%. This at first took me by surprise, and had me double-checking math. But in my earlier argument, I was assuming the difficulty level stayed constant for each character. Here, each character essentially cranks up the difficulty to match their new survivability, and the high defense toon can crank it up MUCH more for a given actually-hitting-him DPS difference, because all of the additional damage is being heavily mitigated.
Or maybe I've made a horrible mistake, since it does sound excessive. If so, it'll have to wait, because I'm late to dinner at a friend's place. Or maybe someone else can point out where I'm wrong.
Edit: Ah, dinner's fallen apart. Still not sure about what I'm saying, but here's the chart I'm generating assuming 0% resistance and 10 hit point per second regeneration. It does show how the last 1% of defense gives a couple orders of magnitude more survivability than the first. Interesting.
OK, does this correspond to our normal understanding? We normally say that someone at 40% defense is taking twice as much damage as someone at 45% defense. This is reflected in having half the survivability score. Check. 30% should be another double, another half. Check. 10% should be another double, another half. Check. Yeah, looks right. So yeah, a couple orders of magnitude difference, not just one.
Edit2: No, I'm back to saying just one order of magnitude. I think what's important isn't the raw survivability increase, but the PERCENT survivability increase. I've added that as another column below, which gives the single order of magnitude difference between the first percent and the last percent that I think is most meaningful in terms of how it will actually feel in game.
Defense Mitigation Survivability Increment % Increase
0% 0% 10.0
1% 2% 10.2 0.2 2.0%
2% 4% 10.4 0.2 2.1%
3% 6% 10.6 0.2 2.1%
4% 8% 10.9 0.2 2.2%
5% 10% 11.1 0.2 2.2%
6% 12% 11.4 0.3 2.3%
7% 14% 11.6 0.3 2.3%
8% 16% 11.9 0.3 2.4%
9% 18% 12.2 0.3 2.4%
10% 20% 12.5 0.3 2.5%
11% 22% 12.8 0.3 2.6%
12% 24% 13.2 0.3 2.6%
13% 26% 13.5 0.4 2.7%
14% 28% 13.9 0.4 2.8%
15% 30% 14.3 0.4 2.9%
16% 32% 14.7 0.4 2.9%
17% 34% 15.2 0.4 3.0%
18% 36% 15.6 0.5 3.1%
19% 38% 16.1 0.5 3.2%
20% 40% 16.7 0.5 3.3%
21% 42% 17.2 0.6 3.4%
22% 44% 17.9 0.6 3.6%
23% 46% 18.5 0.7 3.7%
24% 48% 19.2 0.7 3.8%
25% 50% 20.0 0.8 4.0%
26% 52% 20.8 0.8 4.2%
27% 54% 21.7 0.9 4.3%
28% 56% 22.7 1.0 4.5%
29% 58% 23.8 1.1 4.8%
30% 60% 25.0 1.2 5.0%
31% 62% 26.3 1.3 5.3%
32% 64% 27.8 1.5 5.6%
33% 66% 29.4 1.6 5.9%
34% 68% 31.3 1.8 6.3%
35% 70% 33.3 2.1 6.7%
36% 72% 35.7 2.4 7.1%
37% 74% 38.5 2.7 7.7%
38% 76% 41.7 3.2 8.3%
39% 78% 45.5 3.8 9.1%
40% 80% 50.0 4.5 10.0%
41% 82% 55.6 5.6 11.1%
42% 84% 62.5 6.9 12.5%
43% 86% 71.4 8.9 14.3%
44% 88% 83.3 11.9 16.7%
45% 90% 100.0 16.7 20.0% -
Funny how my knickers would get in a massive knot after being accused of misleading people and lacking intellectual honesty. Most people don't mind such accusations, of course. Wait, whut?
-
Quote:If people read it just like I said it, that you'll take almost 10% more damage, that the last percentage point of defense is almost 10x more important than the first percentage point, then they're reading it RIGHT. I'm not BAMBOOZLING people with no grasp of statistics. I'm trying to FIX their incorrect perception. While true that losing 0.4% defense means you're hit by an extra 1 in 250 attacks, that extra hit matters MUCH more when you're barely being hit by any attacks at all. If you're already being hit by 125 in 250 attacks, an extra 1 makes almost no difference. If you're only being hit by 13 of every 250 attacks, that one more hit WILL make a difference, at least if you're playing at a difficulty level where being hit by 13 of every 250 attacks is a challenge.This here is exactly what I was talking about intellectual honesty. What you have written may technically be true but it is expressed in such a way as to bamboozle anyone who doesn't have a respectable grasp of statistics and to me that is not honest at all.
...
Compared versus actual received damage this is true. However, against incoming damage, it is false. 0.4% defence provides the same quantity of mitigation wherever and however it is applied. If you are going from 0% to 0.4%, it mitigates 0.4%. When from 44.6% to 45%, it mitigates 0.4%. If you were to undergo any sustained attack and calculated the mitigation provided, they are equal. Losing 0.4% defence means you are hit by an additional 1 in 250 attacks, whichever way you may choose to express it.
I am very explicitly saying that you're looking at it wrong. I'm not tossing out weird numbers to try to mess with people with a poor grasp of mathematics. I am very explicitly saying that yes, the way you're reading what I'm saying IS what I'm saying. That is exactly what I am trying to say, and it is correct. Even if you don't believe it is correct, it is not intellectually dishonest for me to say it. I'm being as honest as I can be about the truth as I understand it.
Quote:Firstly, here, I'd like us to move away from 0.4%. I expressed in my first post that this is not a logical number but one arrived at only in the total absence of ED. It is the most extreme difference possible, but it is not a rational difference. Why?
It is a dominant strategy to build to at least the ED cap, as it provides more returns/slot than any other way. If you want defence, build to the ED cap. Being under the cap is a dominated strategy because you will be expending more slots elsewhere to receive the defence you could have just by slotting it 'normally'.
Anyway, let's have a look at Enhancement Diversification for defense. You get full value to 40%. You get 90% of the value for the next 10%. You get 70% of the value for the next 10%. You get 15% of the value after that. So I'll agree that on a typical build, you'd want to go to the ED cap, by which you should mean the 60% mark or so, picking up 56% enhancement for your efforts. Anything above that is getting pretty wasteful. It might still be a good idea for some powers in some builds, but it wouldn't be the rule of thumb.
So your rule of thumb is to be AT 60%. Less, and you're not taking best advantage of the power. More, and most of the enhancement is wasted. If you're at 60%, that 4% difference in the luck of the gambler is a 4%*70% = 2.8% difference. Yes, it's hit by ED, but it's not removed by ED. That 0.4% difference becomes a 0.28% difference, and I believe you were talking about a single power, not all powers across the build.
In practice, some builds will be comfortably over the 60%, and will only be hit for 4%*15% = 0.6% difference, which will be fairly negligible, and seems to be what you're assuming. That could add up across an entire build sitting right at the soft cap, but it'll probably be rare. Some builds might have some powers low enough to get hit by 90% or 100% of the difference.
Quote:At 45% defence, you are taking 25 DPS.
At 44.9% defence, you are taking 25.5 DPS.
Over the course of a full 10 minutes of attack, this sums to a paltry 300 damage.
So at 45% defense, you are taking 25 DPS. At 44.6% defense, you are taking 27 DPS. Over 10 minutes of attacks, that's 1200 damage. Some of the fights that some of us care about last over 10 minutes. For some of those fights, that 1200 damage is the difference between success and failure.
Quote:This is where I believe the "10%" is not an intellectually honest answer. It does not display the reality (that it is significantly less than 0.4%, as I have written since the very beginning), nor does it reflect the real terms of difference. It is, to restate, also inconsistent throughout your argument when you say that 0.4% mitigates less than 0.4%.
Quote:Disclaimer: This was hard to write without sounding rude, take my apoligies on it first up...
I'm not interested in you putting words into the mouth of others here. Perhaps they feel this way, perhaps they don't, but it really is irrelevant as it doesn't validate an argument.
You: What you say makes no sense because no one would ever do this.
Me: Actually, some people do this.
You: Don't put words in other people's mouths. Also, that's irrelevant.
Me: ???
Quote:As a side tangent, this game is so spectacularly easy and so utterly skill deprived that it generally is just the (loudest/most prolific posters/most prone to present their achievements to others) that achieve such 'titles'. For all you know, you could be talking to anyone who has done exactly the same but hasn't felt the urge to tell the forums about it. Even if you were or are speaking to someone like that, it doesn't necessarily make them right!
Quote:You wrote something that is to me highly misleading. You furthered that by writing something that is untrue, that 0.4% applied to 0% defence provides less mitigation than adding 0.4% to 44.6%. They in fact mitigate the same quantity of damage. A lot of your other argument appeals to this concept of 10% damage.
(Edit: No, actually, I WILL make the stronger point that you're accusing me of having already made. I'll say that in practical situations, where the Scrapper is trying to get some sort of challenge rather than facerolling the keyboard through the mission, 0.4% extra defense DOES prevent more damage on the higher-defense Scrapper.
Your numbers start with both Scrappers facing the same enemies, the same attempted damage. That's not particularly realistic unless one Scrapper is woefully underchallenged or the other is killed in seconds. That's not how either will play in practice.
The Scrapper with 0% defense regenerating 25 hit points per second can only survive 50 DPS of attempted damage. Most of us would just say 25 hit points of damage that would hit a 0% defense 0% resistance Scrapper, but either convention works out the same. For a challenge, they'll be running missions at a setting that does about 50 hit points per second of attempted damage. Adding another 0.4% defense will prevent 0.4% of this damage, or 0.4% * 50 DPS = 0.2 DPS.
The Scrapper with 44.6% defense regenerating 25 hit points per second can survive 463 DPS of attempted damage. For a challenge, they'll be running at a setting that does about 463 DPS of attempted damage. Adding another 0.4% defense will prevent 0.4% of this damage, or 0.4% * 463 DPS = 1.852 DPS, or about 10x as much incoming damage.
Still overly simplistic, leaving out resistance, pretending that average damage regenerated is what you can survive and what you'll tune your missions to, but more representative of reality, I think, than both Scrappers facing exactly the same enemies with vastly different levels of mitigation.) -
Quote:Thanks, fixed, and thanks.I figured I'd jump in here to fix the typo in the above, now bolded, before someone discounts his entire spot-on post for a typo. Also, Werner is, quite frankly, the last person I'd ever think of accusing of "intellectual insincerity".
(Edit: In general, there is certainly a danger of me accidentally misleading people due to my rather singular focus on top end performance. For instance if someone asks about the comparative DPS between two sets, unless they specify otherwise, I'll be giving them the comparison between top end IO'd out level 50 characters dedicated to DPS. I think I often or usually put in appropriate disclaimers, but I may forget, or may think based on context that they can be omitted. So I might accidentally mislead someone if they instead were curious about DPS for the 1-25 level range, or about a level 50 on SOs, and simply didn't say this. Or if they're reading a thread about top end DPS, and think it applies to their level 30 AoE damage output since nobody explicitly says it doesn't.
But in my original post, I was responding to some specific points, and I feel that I included adequate disclaimers about when what I was saying did and didn't apply, and what made sense when "in most situations" what I was saying did NOT apply. So I didn't feel like my post would even accidentally mislead people (much less purposefully do so), as long as they read the whole thing and not just the first three sentences.) -
Let me present this from an ENTIRELY different vantage point. This buff isn't for your IO'd level 50. This buff is for the casual player. This buff is for the altaholic. This buff is for the legions of characters in the 1-19 range. It's a big quality of life improvement for them. For them, it's a MAJOR buff.
For an IO'd out level 50? Not so much. You CAN make some clever use of it, but that's a side effect at best, because it wasn't intended for you. IO'd level 50s are already crazy powerful, and didn't need buffing, so we don't get slots. Great quality of life improvement for the lowbies, only a small buff for the IO'd 50s, and comes with new build challenges. Works for me. -
Quote:I'm pretty sure it'll be fine. I have almost exactly the same net endurance recovery on mine, and the AoEs are slotted almost exactly the same (the only difference is an extra slot for a proc in both Fire Sword Circle and Fire Ball). Things die so fast and so many blues rain down that I have no problems, even with Carnies.You'll have end issues when you start unleashing your aoe carnage. To avoid that problem you need more end reduction in FSC and fireball, imo.
I WAS worried about it when I put the build together, and my back up plan was to replace my procs with endurance reduction if necessary. But it wasn't necessary. -
ZaurenXT, you're just fine with the level 25s. Stick with those. It wasn't a mistake. None of the following is likely to apply to you. I just feel a need to respond to some things.
Quote:It's a lot more than almost nothing for those of us pushing the survivability envelope on a defense toon. Soft-capped toons die all the time. That doesn't seem like "almost nothing". Put yourself in a +4x8 mission and the incoming damage, even at the soft cap, can be very high. 10% MORE incoming damage can mean the difference between death and success.This statistic does not really represent reality... Yeah, it's almost 10% higher hit rate on the percentage. But it's happening so infrequently that it doesn't really make a difference in practice. Ten percent of almost nothing is still almost nothing.
Quote:Where it makes a bigger difference is when you're fighting against higher-conning enemies...
Quote:...or when you've been debuffed. When your effective defense is significantly lower than the softcap minute amounts of defense definitely help.
Quote:So, yeah. You want to reach the softcap when possible. But it's not a magic bullet. There's always a bigger bad that will sneer at your soft-capped character, like DE with their quartzes, or Radiologists, or level 54 bosses.
Quote:The other consideration about what level to get your LotG: +recharge IO at is exemplaring. If you get all level 50s, you won't get that recharge bonus at level 44 and below. That means you won't have it when you run many of the TFs in the game, or when you run most Ouro content.
Quote:I'm not saying that the softcap is a bogus thing: I personally try to exceed the softcap. Because of ED, though, you can slot a level 25 LotG: +recharge with two other defense IOs and still get like 50% defense on all three positions on a shield tanker, for example, with the appropriate selections in other IO set bonuses.
If you exercise care in how you slot your lower level LotGs you should still be able to hit the softcap and keep your recharge at lower levels.
Quote:Nor does it represent common sense either. It quite literally takes the most extreme example possibly and ignores that no-one would ever do this.
But I didn't say EVERYONE played that way either. Most people don't. I was explaining why "some of us folks plan builds down to the last 0.1% in Mids'", which was brought up by Suspicious Package. I then went on to explain that "lots of people slot 30s or 35s to allow for exemplaring" and "In most situations, the level (past 25 or 30) won't make much difference."
Quote:It further ignores that I mentioned ED will drain away this difference. I don't believe there is any intellectual honesty given in this example of "up to 10% worse".
And seriously, you're saying that I'm being intellectually DISHONEST? That I'm frickin' LYING? Did you notice ANY of the qualifications I put on what I said? Anything about how what I was saying only applied in certain situations, and didn't apply "in most situations"? Or is accusing someone of lying your default when you don't agree with what they say?
Quote:For instance on my SD scrapper, electing to take a 25 IO over a 50 IO drops my melee defence by 0.0%. Mid's only puts it to one decimal place so there would be some loss, somewhere.
To me losing 0.0% to gain better examplaring is a no brainer.
35.66% L25 LotG 1 Enzyme
Not an entirely realistic example, but perhaps somewhere in the ballpark of the numbers you would see following a L25 vs. L50 slotting strategy. Again, obviously go for the L25s if you plan to exemplar much. But if not, we're seeing a 0.91% spread for the fairly unrealistic one Hamio example, and a 0.27% spread for the more realistic two Hamio example. The 0.4% number (which came from YOUR example, so I was just repeating your number as a for instance, not making it up myself) is probably a bit high for the average completed build, but may be a realistic representation of the difference on some builds, particularly those trying to conserve slots on defensive powers.
36.57% L50 LotG 1 Enzyme
39.42% L25 LotG 2 Enzymes
39.69% L50 LotG 2 Enzymes
(Edit: For a real example, my Fire/Shield has 45.05% melee defense. If I use a level 25 Luck of the Gambler in Deflection, my melee defense drops to 44.74%, resulting in an average 5% increase in incoming melee damage in most situations from a single IO change. Tiny enhancement differences can and do have significant effects on real builds. Could I change things around to soft cap again? Of course. But every change is a compromise. Since I "never" exemplar, that level 50 Luck of the Gambler is one less compromise I have to make.)
Quote:You are forgetting the mystical streak-breaking code. That is what makes the difference between 44.6% and 45% so profound.
Quote:No, I'm pretty sure the streakbreaker still isn't killing you. I'm not confident how it works, but let me take what seem to me to be the two most likely interpretations.
1) The count of misses is associated with you and each enemy.
This almost seems to be what you're suggesting with the idea that suddenly the streak breaker will make a LOT of enemies hit you, all at once. If so, the streak breaker doesn't do ANYTHING in our example - soft capped +1x8 with bosses. A +1 boss has a 5% * 1.1 * 1.3 = 7.15% chance to hit. That is well below the 20% limit for allowing 100 misses in a row. If you can't put down the entire spawn in the time it takes a boss to attack and miss you 100 times in a row, you must be off making a sandwich or something. Also, the chance of that boss missing you 100 times in a row is only 0.06%. It's not happening. This isn't killing you.
2) The count of misses is associated with you only.
You fight your way through several spawns. Everything has less than a 20% chance to hit you. There's more than bosses involved, so the chance of something hitting you is a little lower than the 7.15% we computed earlier, making a streak of 100 more likely. But even if it were only minions, there's still only a 0.35% chance. So at worst, every few hours of solid farming, one enemy will hit you that otherwise wouldn't have. Most likely a minion. This isn't killing you. Or just compare this chance to the general chance of enemies hitting you. Heck, let's say that EVERY boss hit had this 0.35% chance added. You think that's going to make the difference?
Now, I'm open to the idea that neither of these interpretations of the streak breaker are correct. But I'm hard-pressed to come up with an interpretation with any reasonable chance of killing you, ever. Possible? Yes. Has it happened ever in this history of all players playing CoH? Of course. Is it a reasonable thing to be concerned with? No. It's like saying you really need one more hit point to farm bosses, because the lack of that one hit point keeps killing you.
Or are you suggesting that when this DOES happen after several hours or days of farming, somehow all the attacks within a few seconds will auto-hit because of the streak breaker? That seems unlikely, and if so, is almost certainly a bug. The streak breaker should force ONE attack to hit. Not all attacks in a short period of time.
Streak breaker isn't killing you. Randomness is killing you. Eventually, the bosses get lucky, and a bunch hit you in a row. It's the nature of random numbers. -
Quote:On the other hand, if that 0.4% defense is the difference between 44.6% defense and 45% defense, slotting the 25 makes you get hit almost 10% more often. And you might be trying desperately to conserve slots, and thus not be getting hit by the ED cap very much. That's one of the reasons some of us folks plan builds down to the last 0.1% in Mids'.Without ED whittling away the difference, for an SD Brute, having the 25 in deflection instead of 50 makes a difference of 0.4% defence. With ED's effect, the difference is pretty much negligable.
Definitely should be slotting 25's
I believe lots of people slot 30s or 35s to allow for exemplaring without losing set bonuses. And I haven't checked prices for lower level stuff recently, but you can probably also save a fortune that way.
In most situations, the level (past 25 or 30) won't make much difference. And when exemplaring, that level 25 will be a lot better than that level 50. So it just depends on how you plan to play, what your budget is, and what your final numbers end up at. -
-
Any place with lots of enemies is a good place to go purple hunting. It's all about kill speed and vast numbers. So pick missions that let you spend full time tearing through mobs, and set it to +0x8 if that's all you're after. The Steadfast belongs in Tough, yes, but you should ALSO slot the power normally in my opinion (i.e., for endurance reduction and damage resistance).
-
Hasn't Shield Charge been totally nerfed?
It's still awesome. Like reason to play the set awesome. -
I don't know which would be better. I'm just pointing out one of the big advantages of Foot Stomp is the radius, by which I'm saying that the stated damage isn't the only thing that matters with an AoE. I do suspect the Scrapper will do better DPS. But again, I've run no numbers, and I can't really tell seat of the pants from playing both.
-
Probably the most recommended approach is Blinding Feint -> Sweep -> Attack Vitals, or at least having all those attacks. I have more tolerance for lack of AoE than most people. I also have more tolerance for pressing the same three attacks over and over than most people (four or five for my Dual Blades). Weaken and Empower are generally ignored. In regards to Weaken, I simply never care about mild debuffs, because I'm generally hunting uplevel, or AVs, and the debuffs are much less useful in those cases.
A big advantage to Foot Stomp is the 15 foot radius. That's much better than the 8 foot radius of Typhoon's Edge/Sweep. You can pretty much jump into a crowd and Foot Stomp and hit most everyone. Typhoon's Edge would take more work. If you're doing Sweep, though, probably everyone will have gathered pretty close before you hit it, at least if you're solo.
I'd give a damage comparison, but my Mids' has gone insane, such as reporting fire damage for Foot Stomp on a SS/Dark Brute, and I'm too lazy to look it up in game. -
Assuming we're after survivability, I'd say:
SR - soft cap positional defense, hit points, regen
WP - typed or maybe positional defense (I haven't compared what you can do taking advantage of Divine Avalanche), hit points
Regen - recharge, recharge, more recharge, positional defense -
My farmer is Fire/Shield, but I've sunk billions getting Fire Sword Circle, Fire Ball and Shield Charge recharging quickly. It wouldn't farm as well with those recharging more slowly, though it's not "perma Hasten or forget it". It just scales with recharge, and recharge gets expensive.
With soft-capped defenses, survivability is just fine for normal missioning. But I have no heal, so the survivability isn't great. On the other hand, I did a Rikti War Zone challenge on the first try in barely over 2 minutes, so maybe my concept of "good survivability" is a bit on the extreme side.
Why don't you think you can make an effective Shield Defense? Even if you don't soft cap, it's still going to be more survivable than Fiery Aura, and probably put out better damage. A single purple becomes your god mode power.
It wouldn't surprise me if Spines/Fire is your best budget option of what you've presented, though, if that's the issue. Spines is just such a little AoE machine, and then you add Burn and Fiery Embrace to it. I haven't played one, and just don't care for Spines personally for some reason, but it really should be great.
I loves me some Katana, but not for a farmer. -
If you're after DPS, then yes, recharge. If you're after survivability, probably hit points, then regeneration. Resistance too, but not much from sets since the values are so small - just grab Tough, and if you're rich and spendy, the Shield Wall +3% resist.
-
I believe it's this:
Incinerate (3.30, +204%) -> Cremate (3.43, +134%) -> Fire Sword (3.56, +69%)
Incinerate (4.22, +137%) -> Cremate (4.35, +84%) -> Greater Fire Sword (3.56, +237%)
Though I haven't poked my head into the recharge thread recently where Arcanaville was reviewing recharge requirements, and seeing something a little different than our standard calculations. I'd shoot for better than the above to be safe.
You can do slightly more DPS with Greater Fire Sword -> Incinerate -> Fire Sword, but that's a silly chain since it takes MORE recharge than the top chain to do less damage. I also have Incinerate -> Cremate -> Fire Sword -> Greater Fire Sword doing about the same DPS at much lower recharge (+134% in GFS), but that takes four attacks, so is inefficient in a different sense.
I'm not convinced I have the right damage info for Fire. Some things aren't quite making sense to me. I need to review it, but I'm not feeling up for it tonight. -
Honestly, I don't know which has better AoE. I played the Scrapper mostly single-target, skipping the major AoE attacks in favor of running Blinding Feint -> Attack Vitals, plus Power Slice at the end when Hasten was down. There's a little AoE in that chain, but not much. The Dual Blades has more AoEs, but Super Strength has Foot Stomp. Foot Stomp! I love that power. I really don't know that I can call it for one or the other.
I think I fought further uplevel on my Brute as I leveled, but I also remember dying a lot. I suspect they're about equal on survivability, with the Rage crash canceling any advantage the Brute would have had.
I enjoyed the Dual Blades/Willpower the most, but I also prefer the Scrapper mechanics to the Brute mechanics (fury chasing), and I hate the Rage crash, so if you like Brutes in general and don't mind crashes as much as I do, you might like the Brute. The Brute was still plenty of fun.
So yeah, not sure I'm much help, but I think it's probably because they're so comparable. It's hard to go wrong with either. Both are classics. -
Recharge doesn't begin until cast time ends.
-
Do eet! I leveled my Fire/Shield Scrapper with a couple Dual Pistols something or others. Both sometimes asked why they were there at all, since I had all the aggro, wouldn't die, and did probably half the damage. And two Fire/Shields will feed off each other defensively and put out a lot of damage. Greens should be sufficient for heals if you build them right, and in I19, Aid Self becomes a more viable option.
-
I haven't run any numbers on Brutes, so I don't have any hard facts for a comparison. But I do have both a DB/WP Scrapper and a SS/WP Brute at 50. Both were loads of fun to level, even though I'm not a fan of the Rage crash. I suspect that the Scrapper does better single target DPS. The Brute will have better survivability due to higher hit points, but it probably isn't a massive difference, and both have plenty of survivability for normal play and beyond.
-
Nope. But you can then keep you hit points permanently high, though I recommend only clicking on it when you also need the heal. And you don't really need it stacked, as with some accolades and a couple hit point bonuses, you'll hit the hit point hard cap.