Something strange is going on with axe's single-target endurance efficiency. That much I can see 
Its end efficiency is due to the calc insisting on using Pendulum in ST chains because at the level of recharge the only other available power to fill is Beheader, and it's DPAS sucks. I can weight endurance even more but it will result in lower Damage score. Will try that and see how it ends.
Great! Found the bug! A bad reference was keeping all sets but Battle Axe from applying the tanker melee modifier! That's why axe looked bad in both damage and endurance.
I'm much more happier with the current look of things, and it seems to represent something much closer to what I experience in game.
Well, I think that's it, I'll replace my site's charts with this new ones tomorrow, and may get ready to apply these new ones to scrappers and brutes.
Wait, how does Stone beat out Axe for AoE damage, and even WM for the 250% recharge? Are cones devalued that much (even then, Wh Axe & Mace do more damage. Does the increased radius of Tremor matter that much?).
An Offensive Guide to Ice Melee
Yes, cones are extremely devaluated in many players experience.
Many will argue they can hit 10 foes reliably with stone melee's 15ft radius, never hitting more than one foe with Cleave and rarely hitting 2 or 3 with Pendulum. And off course, never even getting close to hit 10 with Whirling.
Even so, I also think that skew is too high so I just tweaked it down a bit. SM still beats axe now, but only by 3% at 50% recharge and 11% at 250% recharge.
Keeping in mind a no-herding situation where you just rush to the next spawn and fight, this may be more accurate with many players.
i have not had a chance to look at the charts yet...(I am still out of town)
Do you have a way to show the added damage from AAO with various numbers of spawns around?
YMMV---IMO
Ice Ember
I theoretically can do it via a bit of tweaking and playing with the rules, but I would not be able to give players the choice to see it. It would have to be a whole new spreadsheet stuck with that. I personally would like to avoid that because then I have to please every primary/secondary combination, and I'm not touching Fiery Embrace on this thing. Different scalar for different damage types... can't handle that right now.
i would give FE the same treatment as BU. The more I have been playing my Fire/Ice tank with it, I now know why I was told, and advised to skip it. The added damage every 90 seconds is not worth it. I get more out of popping reds. The damage bonus from AAO is more consistent.
Thanks for the reply. And I dont blame you for not doing it, it is a bit of work. When I get back I will finish my testing with shield/ice vrs fire/ice.
I am really liking Shield defense. I cant wait to play the Shield fire and see how it is.
YMMV---IMOIce Ember
It's not too much work to do that, it's a lot of work to maintain it, though. The way I have this setup, if I change a formula I have to go to every document and change it.
If I make another variation of all charts with AAO, that automatically doubles how many documents I must update (already got 4 just with scrappers and tankers, once I'm done and put up doms and brutes I'll be at 8, and 6 of those would need AAO duplicates.
I can do a quicky but just as a oneshot that I would not maintain and would definitively delete within a few days.
Edit: also, would only show two scales: 1 foe and 16 foes (due to caps that would technically be 10 foes.)
I made some changes to my damage ranking calculator and would like some second eyes to take a peak. I expected the changes to either throw set rankings all over the place or not do anything, thing is, it sort of kept everything on the same ballpark but Battle Axe, this makes me think the set either was very sensitive to perpetuation or I have data entry errors I cant seem to find. Once I finalize this, these may be my last changes to the charts. I plan to finalize this and get strted on a much more ambitious and in depth project that may end in me shooting myself. Depending on the results of that project is that I may bother or not with any future updates for the charts.
Here is the link: http://foundersfallshigh.com/__/new_tank.html
To list the changes on this version (may be more this is off the top of my head
<ul type="square">[*]Removed 60s window analyzis in favor of true perpetuation (before it averaged attacks that fit 60s windows, this made things like low recharge footstomp and knockout blow less useful than they should be)[*]Adjusted my AoE weighting to be more loose. This means that larger radius show higher damage even if even 8ft radius PBAoEs can realistically hit 10 foes. This may make many players that complained about this issue happy (yes, that took Super Strenght to be second only to Fire in AoE.)[*]A new damage buff attribute column allows me to more dynamically calculate tiem consumed using such attacks and increased recharge averages. This means that at 250% rechage, Rage self stacks AND also gets more frequent crashes.[*]Added endurance analysis, the idea here is to put a bit of weight on prefering to use more end optimal attacks. Also display a final chart showing how endurance effective the set is at delivering the damage it does. [*]Removed Build Up Burst charts. They were not really consistent with the goal of my calculator, that is simply, in average, how do sets perform over a full play season in the hands of an average player that picks the right powers but does not maximizes with loads of IOs. I think this represent the majority of the non-forum going community, and a big chunk of the forum goers before they get to 50.[/list] A note on Dark Melee: the set has next to no AoE other than very high recharge powers. This means that if you want to look at the potential impact of the famous surround myself with critters to fight single targets you can look at the sets AoE rating and compare that rating to the Single Target rating of other sets.
OK, I think thats about it. There may be a few other things here and there, some that are not exactly open to tweak (I can internally filter powers by level now) but as noted at the start, my main priority is to have the entered data audited, mainly for battle axe.
If anyone actually manages to confirm attack chains or other analysis that confirm that Battle Axe should indeed be where it is now on the charts, I also would love to hear them, along with the oposite if anyone has oposite evidence.