My eyes are opened!

[Ultimo_]

And I'm not sure I like it.

I'll explain. I've recently been building a bunch of new characters, using power sets I've never used before. It's partly because I've been making characetrs that are intended as homages to existing characters, partly just to try new things.

Today I made a Claws/Regen Scrapper. All I can say is, Holy COW.

This character does enough damage to defeat one of my AE minions in one, sometimes two hits. He uses a miniscule fraction of the endurance that ALL my other characters use. He uses so little endurance, in fact, that he can fight through whole missions with Sprint turned ON!

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. I'm wondering why all other ATs and sets don't behave this way?

I mean, just compare the first power of several sets (the comparison is similar throughout the sets).

Claws-Swipe - 20.7 dps
Broadsword-Hack - 12.1 dps
Dark Melee-Shadow Punch - 15.1 dps
Dual Blades-Nimble Slash - 14.1 dps
Martial Arts-Thunder Kick - 15.1 dps

Claws outpowers everything, and by a fair bit. The damage per endurance stats are similar, but less pronounced. Overall, endurance per second is about the same across all the sets, but Claws uses less because it defeats its foes faster.

I'll say this, too. Because I'm using Regeneration, I have no toggles to use endurance up. However, even when I fight with toggles off, I'm doing less damage than Claws will do.

Why don't I like this? Because everyone else is being short changed! I mean, Tankers are gasping for breath after one minion. Claws Scrappers can go through whole missions and never fall below 75% endurance.

This is my suggestion. Rebalance endurance use so it is relative to damage output. That is, if it takes 1% endurance to do 5 damage, it should take 1% to do 5 damage for everyone. Tankers will use less endurance, Defenders will use less endurance, Blasters would use more. Of course, powers with additional effects should use a little more endurance, but this too, should be standardized.

[Bill Z Bubba]

Because when you're level 50 you won't have the best single target damage, won't have the best mitigation and won't have the best AoE damage.

Claws is simply good at it all. Nothing else to it.

[Jade_Dragon]

Seems like the solution to the problem of Tankers using more Endurance is to make Claws Tankers. :)

Seriously, though, Tankers are just going to use more Endurance in general. Claws/Regen is very efficient, yes, but so is Willpower. WP/SS is going to be fairly End efficient, since Rage will only be costing you End when it crashes. And Claws may also mature early, being much better in the early levels than, say, SS, and giving you the impression it will be better overall. I know from playing my Claws/Inv that it seemed to grow fairly quickly, but then around 25 or so it seemed like I couldn't squeeze any more damage out of it. It wasn't until I got Shockwave that I really felt like my damage got any better.

[Siolfir]

I disagree with the idea of standardizing DPE across the board; also the secondary effect of Claws as a whole is that it has cheaper endurance costs and faster recharges, which is why many of the attacks don't have any other effects.

So you're using the easiest set on your endurance, paired with the secondary that provides the earliest help with maintaining it and lowest consumption, and saying that it's not going through endurance quickly. Working as intended, move along.

Also I have no idea how you're calculating dps - those numbers aren't correct for any of the sets at any of the levels I was able to select.

Using the in-game numbers for DPA, which is what actually counts once you have an attack chain, you get the following (base numbers at level 50):
Broadsword / Hack - 77.14
Broadsword / Slash - 47.04
Claws / Swipe - 57.29
Claws / Strike - 57.75
Dual Blades / Nimble Strike - 51.02
Dual Blades / Power Slice - 51.84
Dark Melee / Shadow Punch - 63.32
Dark Melee / Smite - 85.14
Fire Melee / Scorch - 64.76
Fire Melee / Fire Sword - 73.20
Katana / Sting of the Wasp - 62.03
Katana / Gambler's Cut - 78.44
Martial Arts / Thunder Kick - 63.32
Martial Arts / Storm Kick - 99.50
Spines / Barb Swipe - 23.05
Spines / Lunge - 47.45

Looks like Claws is only ahead of Dual Blades and Spines with those first powers... maybe you should stop making things up?

[Ultimo_]

I got the numbers from Mids'. I didn't make anything up, and I am offended by the suggestion.

Part of why I posted was that I've only played Claws to around L10, and I thought it possible it would be outstripped later. However, it SO greatly eclipses everything I've played previously, that I can't imagine anything else coming close.

I think I stand by my suggestion. Personally, I think a degree of standardization would be good for the game. There seems to be a lot of arbitrariness.

[Emgro]

Lethal Damage = fail at higher levels, especially redside. My claws stalker sort of tapered off into uselessness in the 20s against Longbow.

[UberGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I stand by my suggestion. Personally, I think a degree of standardization would be good for the game. There seems to be a lot of arbitrariness.

[/ QUOTE ]

The following is not an attack. I really, really dislike the way you think. Your posts consistently seem to me to contain suggestions that I think are extremely myopic and, as a result, extremely poor for the game.

Allow me to try to explain why I think this about your latest suggestion.

Damage is not the only metric by which powersets or, indeed, ATs, are measured. Your post above makes it clear that you may think it is, and indeed there are plenty of players who agree with you. That does not make them, or you, correct.

Some powersets have secondary effects. Some have less damage in some powers and more in others. Some ATs bring other things to the table, like buffs and debuffs. Some ATs are balanced around being unlockable.

Finally, the DPS of one power as listed in Mids' is not a valid metric of how much damage that powerset deals. What matters is DPA (damage per activation) divided by activation time, because of how activation times are the limiting factor in how quickly you can deliver damage once you have enough attacks (or enough recharge, or both) to sustain a continuous attack chain.

In other words, even if you were right about how things should be balanced (and I very much believe you are not), you've gone about analyzing that balance wrong.

Edited per Umbral's suggestion. I think of DPA as the abbreviation for what he's talking about, but that wouldn't be clear to readers.

[Umbral]

[ QUOTE ]
What matters is DPA (damage per activation) because of how activation times are the limiting factor in how quickly you can deliver damage once you have enough attacks (or enough recharge, or both) to sustain a continuous attack chain.

In other words, even if you were right about how things should be balanced (and I very much believe you are not), you've gone about analyzing that balance wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may want to tweak that and specifically say "Damage per Activation second". Damage per Activation is how much damage is dealt from a single application. DPA (as is used by number crunchers) is that number divided by the activation time (generally modified for Arcanatime).

[Fulmens]

You're seeing two effects, most likely.

1) Low Level Scaling. At level 1 a scrapper can 1-shot a minion with Hack. I think that stops working at level 3. At level 8 a blaster can 1-shot a spawn with Frost Breath. That stops working at level 9 or 10. You aren't working with the "true" AT- to -AT ratios till 20 , and the AT-to-badguy ratio keeps changing till level 35. If you want to see this look even more impressive, roll up a Fire/Energy, getting Fireball at 2, Build Up at 4 or 6 and Fire Breath at 8. Now go to Perez.

2) Regen, specifically, gets "stamina at level 4". It's slightly better than actual stamina, and it lets you cruise through the lower levels. I don't think you are seeing massively more efficient Claws, I think you're seeing 33% more End Recovery. I could be wrong, and it could be the combination. But everyone else is going to be pretty much in the same place endwise by level 20-24. You're not so much BETTER as EARLIER.

Regen's strong, and I like Claws, but lemme know if that build seems as hideously overpowered at level 30.

[Jibikao]

I actually think it's better for the game is sets are LESS standardized. It gives people more reason to pick certain sets.

Instead of comparing tier 1 to tier 1 power, it is more interesting to compare set 1 vs set 2. Some sets can have sucky tier 1 and tier 2 attacks but tier 3 is really good (ex: Cosmic Burst!).

Don't forget Claw doesn't have Build Up so your burst damage is less. Follow Up can be an advantage and a disadvantage too.

I think Claw is a great set. It's probably my most favorite Stalker set so far. I love the knockdown from Focus and now Eviscerate does good damage too.

And don't forget lethal resistance. It does get really annoying when you fight Longbows, Malta and any robots.

[Ultimo_]

So I'm hearing that it balances later. Ok, I can deal with that. It's kind of unfortunate in a way, since endurance problems are most sever at lower level. I'll let you know how it goes, but I tend to level very slowly, and I have a lot of alts.



I took no offense, Uber, you took the time to explain, and I appreciate that. Perhaps I should explain where my ideas often come from, though.

Many moons ago, I played Champions. Many of you will remember. In Champions, you would purchase powers using points. The overall effect of the powers would be modified based on advantages and idsadvantages that the specific power had.

For example, an Energy Blast would cost 5 points per 1d6 damage. I could, however, add a modifier to that, such as No Normal Defense (which would make the power ignore normal defenses). This modifier would increase the cost per die to 10/1d6.

I envision a balanced game working similarly. That is, two identical powers should have identical stats. However, that's not the case in CoH. Look at Blasters and Defenders. A Defender's Energy Blast does far less damage than the Blater's identical power, yet costs the same endurance. To me, that's unbalanced. The Defender's power should cost less endurance.

The same basic idea should be applied to all ATs and all damage sources. That is, they should cost endurance based on the damage they do, modified by the special effects involved. To me, that's balanced. There's a lot of discussion on the boards about endurance woes, I think something along these lines might alleviate much of the complaining.

[Dispari]

You should try a widow. Claw speed with bonus DoT = NICE!

[UberGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
A Defender's Energy Blast does far less damage than the Blater's identical power, yet costs the same endurance. To me, that's unbalanced. The Defender's power should cost less endurance.

[/ QUOTE ]

This on its own might not be a bad idea. I think it's been suggested in the past, and I'm not really sure what harm could come of it, as long as it was as much a "rule" as the current endurance rules are. That's to say, the devs sometimes "break" the current rules intentionally as part of the features of a power or powerset (and Claws is an example of that).

For what it's worth, it actually used to be worse. Tankers and Defenders not only did less damage than Scrappers and Blasters for equivalent attacks, they also payed more endurance.

Some of us sometimes joke that the devs come up with three ways to attack a perceived balance problem, and then implement them all. This seems to have been a case of that at design time. Thankfully they backed off of it.

[Miyabi]

Standardization of powersets based on a single value is a very, very bad idea.

Please cite PvP as a prime example.

[illicity]

Quick Reply, to OP:

Wow...its so late, i must go to bed. I see some very respectable names posting their input on this and im thouroughly convinced eveything is full of deeply scrutinized details!

But without having the mental stamina to make proper tribute to everything said yet, i must say this to Ultimo...and this is my own personal view on this game over 60+ months playing it...Welcome to CoH diversity! I discovered some of this game particularities very late also i may humbly add. What your talking about is what makes any scrappers and controllers and defenders equal in some way -while stifly differenciate them also. It all reside in the skills required to achieve the same results.

[Starsman]

Claws "secondary effect" is an endurance discount on all powers.

It also has a recharge discount, meaning it does more damage per recharge second.

It also has a third effect designed precisely to make sure the game does not get to do too much dps, it's a more recent addition, but it tries to make sure no attack does more than 1 scale damage per activation second.

All it rounds to an extremely fun low level experience (you run out of endurance less therefore you can attack longer and kill things you may not be able due to endurance issues in other toons) but you wont be killing faster than anyone else in a team or after endurance stops being an issue.


[ QUOTE ]
To me, that's unbalanced. The Defender's power should cost less endurance.

The same basic idea should be applied to all ATs and all damage sources.

[/ QUOTE ]

At one point I would had agreed but not today. These days there are only two ATs you can safely mess with their endurance costs: tankers and defenders.

Other ATs may do "less damage" but have inherent abilities that push the average damage up.


<ul type="square"> Scrappers, Blasters, Stalkers and Brutes already do higher than standard damage per endurance by definition, they were meant to be THE damage ATs. Brutes actually do this by a damage buff, their base is rather low but it gains in damage without increasing in end cost.
Corruptors get scourge that in avrage can take their damage from .75 to .90
Dominators (for now) get Domination that takes their damage from .65 to around 1
Controllers do double damage with containment taking them to about 1 damage mod.
Masterminds are nearly impossible to quantify and actually their own attacks and powers are intentionally magnified in endurance cost to compensate that their pets are doing almost everything for them.
Soldiers get increased endurance recovery
Kheledian's forms give them increased end recovery
[/list]

Tankers and defenders get hosed though. IF these two ATs got looked at for endurance efficiency, I would not just lower endurance cost. Instead, since all other ATs already go around end consumption in interesting ways, I would modify their inherents to benefit their endurance issues. I like the idea of making the tanker endurance bar much higher while expanding the defender's Vigilance endurance discount to always work even if no team mate is harmed, only make it get stronger if allies get harmed.

[Plyxx]

So to sum it up....close your eyes. :))

[Ultimo_]

An interesting analysis, Starsman, I have to agree. It would be a significant task to make this whole thing work.

As for Defenders and Tankers, how do you like these ideas (I think I've posted them elsewhere before):

Gauntlet would generate an endurance discount for each foe affected by the punchvoke effect. Thus, he'd have a larger benefit in larger groups.

Vigilance currently generates a discount based on the state of the Defender's team. I wonder if allowing it to work based on the Defender's (as a team of one) own state. That is, as he gets in hotter water, he gets a bigger discount.

Obviously I've not got any numbers, these are just concepts. What do you think?

[Umbral]

[ QUOTE ]
Gauntlet would generate an endurance discount for each foe affected by the punchvoke effect. Thus, he'd have a larger benefit in larger groups.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering how Gauntlet is implemented (by creating a second AoE at the point of impact of the initial target) having the effect feed back and generate a buff on the Tanker would be... problematic. The only way to feasibly generate this would be for the Gauntlet AoE effect to generate a second AoE that targets the Tanker and his allies, distributing end redux that way (re: every attack is a Fulcrum Shift with Taunt instead of -dam and end redux instead of +dam). I don't really see that as being a viable option for obvious reasons...

If they really wanted to give Tankers greater endurance, they could just reduce the endurance of all of their attacks or give each attack an end reduction benefit that is simply applied right back to the Tanker similar to how Blasters get +dam from Defiance. Personally, I don't really see much problem with it. Tankers are fine as an AT, imo. The only things broken about them are a couple of their powers (I'm lookin' at you Rage!).

[ QUOTE ]
Vigilance currently generates a discount based on the state of the Defender's team. I wonder if allowing it to work based on the Defender's (as a team of one) own state. That is, as he gets in hotter water, he gets a bigger discount.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been proposed numerous times and pretty much everyone agrees with it. It would be awesome if Defenders actually included themselves in their vigilance calculations, though, personally, I'd rather just get a more useful inherent than a bit of end redux. Some defenders love it for reasons I can't quite comprehend (well, I can, but I don't see it as a reason to love it, especially when +recov is so prolific on teams via set bonuses). I'd much rather have an inherent that provides +dam to compensate for defenders pathetic and demonstratively low damage. Defenders are stuck at .65 whereas every other AT can easily attain at least .85 naturally or via benefit from their inherent, which doesn't balance out with the fact that their buff/debuff scalar is only .25 better than all of the other support ATs, some effects of which aren't even affected by it (rech for instance).

[Wiccania]

I disagree on your guys points about tankers. You seem to be leaving out the point that most tankers I see can walk into a spawn and stand there holding agro with the taunt in thier aura and never die. I saw an Invuln sitting there with 5 master illusionists and only need a heal once every maybe 5 minutes.

Tanker survivability is so extreme that I sometimes wonder if the devs over did it.

[Fulmens]

I'm just going to mention that Invulns have no protection against most of the stuff master illusionists do and leave it at that.

[UberGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree on your guys points about tankers. You seem to be leaving out the point that most tankers I see can walk into a spawn and stand there holding agro with the taunt in thier aura and never die. I saw an Invuln sitting there with 5 master illusionists and only need a heal once every maybe 5 minutes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm with Fulmens. This is either massive hyperbole or you were missing something critical, like the fact that those MIs were -3 to the Tanker or something. The only mitigation an Invuln has to MI attacks is Dull Pain, and an Invul who went and sat in 5 even-level (or higher) MIs would not be sitting there long.

[Fulmens]

... even force fields don't stop some of that MI damage.

I've seen an INV tank walk into a room full of +7 freaks and basically fight them to a standstill, but the tank in question had the little bubbles from force fields. (Sometimes the exemplar/autoexemplar rules get mixed up when you're doing a respec... and sometimes you go "What if we try it anyway?" )

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
An interesting analysis, Starsman, I have to agree. It would be a significant task to make this whole thing work.

As for Defenders and Tankers, how do you like these ideas (I think I've posted them elsewhere before):

Gauntlet would generate an endurance discount for each foe affected by the punchvoke effect. Thus, he'd have a larger benefit in larger groups.

Vigilance currently generates a discount based on the state of the Defender's team. I wonder if allowing it to work based on the Defender's (as a team of one) own state. That is, as he gets in hotter water, he gets a bigger discount.

[/ QUOTE ]


The problem with those two ideas is that teams is usually the last point you need endurance at (unless you extremely lowbie trying to run all toggles and tank for a full team but hp is also an issue there) so making the endurance discounts better when herding/teaming leaves the people that are in the most need of a boost in the cold.

I would simply say for tankers that they were designed around the idea that they would take longer to kill things because they CAN stand there longer to take the damage, but this is true due to high mitigation and higher hp than anyone else. However, how can you do this if your endurance is burnt at the same speed as everyone else even if you kill slower? In the end, you run out of endurance before you can kill the same target a more endurance efficient at would. By boosting the base endurance you are actually giving the tanker the one tool they need to be able to stand there longer and fight longer but slower.

Many would think I'm insane by looking at the number but should you ever want to truly make the tanker match endurance efficiency of a scrapper without critical, you would need to increase his base endurance from 100 to 140. Due to critical the tanker would still be 10% behind in endurance efficiency.

As for defenders: making the vigilance kick in on his own demise is not going to help them much. How much good is an end discount going to help them if they are close to dying already? An endurance discount would be much better for them. Now, the defender has other issues, soon they will be the lowest damage AT in the entire game (doms without domination where about there too.) IF you wanted him to have the same endurance efficiency as a 1 Scale Damage AT, you would have to give him a 54% endurance discount. But that's not going to do much to his effectiveness as the defender does not have the tanker's luxury to fight for a long period of time, therefore defenders need a more in dept look than just endurance, specially given that they were the only AT exclusively designed to be team ATs.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree on your guys points about tankers. You seem to be leaving out the point that most tankers I see can walk into a spawn and stand there holding agro with the taunt in thier aura and never die. I saw an Invuln sitting there with 5 master illusionists and only need a heal once every maybe 5 minutes.

Tanker survivability is so extreme that I sometimes wonder if the devs over did it.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I noted on my previous post and I will redundantly state here:

The tanker was designed to take longer to fight, by virtue of having the luxury to survive that long. He, however, burns endurance at the same speed as everyone else, and regains it at the same speed everyone else. The result is that the tanker must kill with the same endurance budget so he looses the luxury of perpetuity and is forced to look into additional endurance regain tools and even more blue insps to be able to do that (this may change with IOs but the game can't be balanced around IOs, specially since many just can't afford IOing until the high end game and it's the low end that these issues are the most obvious.)

Let's pretend it takes 15 swings of normal attacks for a scrapper to kill a boss.
The tanker would take 21 swings to kill the same boss provided he does not regenerate first.

Now, imagining a fake world where every attack does exactly 1ds of damage, you can only swing 19 times before you run out of endurance, and thats not counting that your toggles are also consuming endurance.


Compensating the endurance consumption of the tank (via more endurance recovery like fortunatas, or via endurance discounts, or via increased base endurance) would finally give the thing they were missing to do what they were intended to do: stand there and kill slowly without requiring backup* or to fall back.

With my proposal the tanker still would have to swing those 21 blows, but he would actually have the endurance to do so.

[Umbral]

[ QUOTE ]
I would simply say for tankers that they were designed around the idea that they would take longer to kill things because they CAN stand there longer to take the damage, but this is true due to high mitigation and higher hp than anyone else. However, how can you do this if your endurance is burnt at the same speed as everyone else even if you kill slower? In the end, you run out of endurance before you can kill the same target a more endurance efficient at would. By boosting the base endurance you are actually giving the tanker the one tool they need to be able to stand there longer and fight longer but slower.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that you're forgetting something very important: recovery is a percent recovery. By increasing base endurance, you'd also be increasing end/sec recovery significantly to such a point that every Tanker on the planet would have end recovery better a */Regen Scrapper as soon as he/she gets Stamina (1+.25+.30 &lt; 1.4*1.25). That's more than a bit borked.

[ QUOTE ]
Many would think I'm insane by looking at the number but should you ever want to truly make the tanker match endurance efficiency of a scrapper without critical, you would need to increase his base endurance from 100 to 140. Due to critical the tanker would still be 10% behind in endurance efficiency.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
As for defenders: making the vigilance kick in on his own demise is not going to help them much. How much good is an end discount going to help them if they are close to dying already? An endurance discount would be much better for them. Now, the defender has other issues, soon they will be the lowest damage AT in the entire game (doms without domination where about there too.) IF you wanted him to have the same endurance efficiency as a 1 Scale Damage AT, you would have to give him a 54% endurance discount. But that's not going to do much to his effectiveness as the defender does not have the tanker's luxury to fight for a long period of time, therefore defenders need a more in dept look than just endurance, specially given that they were the only AT exclusively designed to be team ATs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stars, something else you're either ignoring or ignorant of is that the DPE numbers are determined for attacks before AT scalars are applied to the damage. This works quite well because it doesn't unduly penalize the endurance of high damage ATs, which isn't balanced, especially since everyone has essentially the same endurance capabilities. If DPE were calculated after AT scalars were applied, you'd also need to do the same to defensive toggles and powers (although this would be much less devastating thanks to the lower proportion of endurance that goes to toggles). Thankfully, it isn't.

It's pretty easy to see if you actually start comparing power sets to power sets across ATs. Slug costs as much for a Blaster as it does for a Corrupter. Swipe costs as much to Scrapper as it does for a Stalker. Thanks for trying to make the argument though. It looked decent but doesn't follow through with the actual information.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]

Except that you're forgetting something very important: recovery is a percent recovery. By increasing base endurance, you'd also be increasing end/sec recovery significantly to such a point that every Tanker on the planet would have end recovery better a */Regen Scrapper as soon as he/she gets Stamina (1+.25+.30 &lt; 1.4*1.25). That's more than a bit borked.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not, not when the stuff you are using costs more endurance than anyone else's. It's just like comparing regeneration and +HP, the most reliable way to do it to not think at all as HP as a number but as a bar that goes from zero to 100, at that point hp buffs equate resistance to all damage types, including healing.

An increase to endurance would do the same, it would be a resistance to endurance cost AND also resistance to click endurance regain tools, like energy absorption or blue pills. That's right: if the end bar of a tanker was increased blue insps would do even less for them than for anyone else, where everyone usually gets 25% of their endurance back with a blue, a tanker would get 17.8%

Additionally, true analysis of the impact of this change would be much more complex than stating how much end per second you recover. You also have to check how much longer the at must fight and how much endurance is wasted due to lower modifiers and quite a few other aspects. I did a partial study on this a long time ago, but not something in presentable form. I may actually pull that stuff up and clean it up for presentation sometime in the near future.


[ QUOTE ]
Stars, something else you're either ignoring or ignorant of is that the DPE numbers are determined for attacks before AT scalars are applied to the damage. This works quite well because it doesn't unduly penalize the endurance of high damage ATs, which isn't balanced, especially since everyone has essentially the same endurance capabilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

First: you should assume everyone having the same endurance capabilities while talking about balance.

Second: the way multiple ATs are designed you can't modify endurance cost after it's scaled for many issues. Best example are brutes. How do you manage them? Such a change would actually lower their endurance cost, not increase it, yet they do much more damage than many other ATs if you play Fury smartly.

All ATs except tankers and defenders get tools that make their endurance cost relative to damage gravitate towards 1 modifiers.



[ QUOTE ]
If DPE were calculated after AT scalars were applied, you'd also need to do the same to defensive toggles and powers (although this would be much less devastating thanks to the lower proportion of endurance that goes to toggles). Thankfully, it isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I seen this implied before and I tend to slam the desk with my head every time i do, mostly because not only is it wrong but because it's so half baked. IF you were going to go that way you would also start to charge endurance for secondary effects and make sure this endurance was higher for stronger secondary effects, you would also make defender powers cost more endurance for stronger buffs, etc etc.

However, there are no rules anywhere in the game that dictate a power must cost more endurance based on any attribute other than damage. Other than that it's all up to the devs whim and pursue of desired balance to give any defensive power whatever endurance cost they want. Should they choose to compensate damage to endurance ratio issues of any AT they are not forced to change at all to deal with defensive tools.

[ QUOTE ]
It's pretty easy to see if you actually start comparing power sets to power sets across ATs. Slug costs as much for a Blaster as it does for a Corrupter. Swipe costs as much to Scrapper as it does for a Stalker. Thanks for trying to make the argument though. It looked decent but doesn't follow through with the actual information.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are ignoring the inherent abilities of these ATs that make their average end cost go down.

In average, Scourge accounts for a 20% damage buff, this takes the base damage from .75 to about .9, still not full 1 but much less of an endurance penalty than it looks like at first.

The stalker critical rate is also high enough to make them match scrapper damage + criticals.

In the end, looking at base damage is not even trying to compare, it's just pretending you did.

[Fleeting Whisper]

[ QUOTE ]
Rebalance endurance use so it is relative to damage output.

[/ QUOTE ]Endurance cost is already a part of the balance equation.

[ QUOTE ]
That is, if it takes 1% endurance to do 5 damage, it should take 1% to do 5 damage for everyone. Tankers will use less endurance, Defenders will use less endurance, Blasters would use more.

[/ QUOTE ]That is, frankly, a stupid idea. It essentially removes the need for Blasters and Scrappers entirely. The balancing equation the devs use currently is based on the power's damage scale, not the actual damage it does. That means that the endurance cost is unaffected by the AT's ranged and melee damage modifiers, meaning there can be AT differentiation apart from simply power lists.

[Sarrate]

[ QUOTE ]
All ATs except tankers and defenders get tools that make their endurance cost relative to damage gravitate towards 1 modifiers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, Controller powers aren't balanced as attacks. Take the single target hold Fossilize (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Controller_Control.Earth_Control.Foss ilize) for example, it deals scale 1 damage and costs 8.528 end, or ~64% more than a normal attack. The single target immobilizes aren't much better; Chilblain (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Controller_Control.Ice_Control.Chilbl ain) deals scale 1 damage (as a dot) and costs 7.8 end, 50% more than a normal attack. Then there are enigmatic powers like Lift (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Controller_Control.Gravity_Control.Li ft) that deals scale 0.8 damage and still costs 6.864 end, 65% more than it should. (Lift looks like a clone of Levitate (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Controller_Control.Mind_Control.Levit ate) that deals less damage and costs the same end ... Levitate's cost is as it should be.)

That's not even mentioning the fact that most times these powers are slotted for, well, control rather than damage.


Things aren't much better with their epics, either:
Mental Blast (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Epic.Psionic_Mastery.Mental_Blast) - scale 1 damage, 6.5 end (25% high)
Power Blast (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers /power.php?id=Epic.Primal_Forces_Mastery.Power_Blas t) - scale 1 damage, 10.66 end (105% high)
Ice Blast (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Epic.Ice_Mastery.Ice_Blast) - scale 1 damage, 10.66 end (105% high)
Fire Blast (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Epic.Fire_Mastery.Fire_Blast) - scale 1.1 damage (no dot), 6.5 end (13.6% high)
Hurl Boulder (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Epic.Stone_Mastery.Hurl_Boulder) - scale 1.64 damage, 11.7 end (37.2% high)
Seismic Smash (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Epic.Stone_Mastery.Seismic_Smash) - scale 2.6 damage, 18.511999 end (36.9% high)
(Not sure if those are bugs, or intentional because of Containment; somewhat dubious though since their higher costs are inconsistent.)

[Umbral]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Except that you're forgetting something very important: recovery is a percent recovery. By increasing base endurance, you'd also be increasing end/sec recovery significantly to such a point that every Tanker on the planet would have end recovery better a */Regen Scrapper as soon as he/she gets Stamina (1+.25+.30 &lt; 1.4*1.25). That's more than a bit borked.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not, not when the stuff you are using costs more endurance than anyone else's. It's just like comparing regeneration and +HP, the most reliable way to do it to not think at all as HP as a number but as a bar that goes from zero to 100, at that point hp buffs equate resistance to all damage types, including healing.

An increase to endurance would do the same, it would be a resistance to endurance cost AND also resistance to click endurance regain tools, like energy absorption or blue pills. That's right: if the end bar of a tanker was increased blue insps would do even less for them than for anyone else, where everyone usually gets 25% of their endurance back with a blue, a tanker would get 17.8%

Additionally, true analysis of the impact of this change would be much more complex than stating how much end per second you recover. You also have to check how much longer the at must fight and how much endurance is wasted due to lower modifiers and quite a few other aspects. I did a partial study on this a long time ago, but not something in presentable form. I may actually pull that stuff up and clean it up for presentation sometime in the near future.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still curious as to why you think that every AT needs to use the same amount of endurance to fight the same target. It makes no sense. Tankers should expend more endurance on the same enemy than a damage focused AT because the enemy poses less risk to them. They're also spending less endurance and time on survival than any other AT in the game, which is the balancing factor to their higher cost of endurance for attacks.

The basic design mechanic that you're trying to attain is that, rather than spending the same amount of endurance per second as any other AT using the same powers, that each AT should, instead, spend the same amount depending on how long they've got to use them in order to have the same effect. That makes no sense whatsoever, especially from a balance standpoint. Endurance efficiency is a baked in functional benefit of the ATs, which makes sense because endurance is a percentage mechanic rather than a flat number mechanic. Tankers are paying more for each point of damage because damage isn't their schtick. So are Defenders.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stars, something else you're either ignoring or ignorant of is that the DPE numbers are determined for attacks before AT scalars are applied to the damage. This works quite well because it doesn't unduly penalize the endurance of high damage ATs, which isn't balanced, especially since everyone has essentially the same endurance capabilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

First: you should assume everyone having the same endurance capabilities while talking about balance.

[/ QUOTE ]

With the exception of a few power sets for a few ATs, they do. When you bring in sets that specifically have powers devoted to endurance recovery, that's simply part of the benefit of selecting that power set. They're losing out the additional survivability or damage available to them by having that power available. So yeah, I'm going to take the assumption that every AT has the same endurance recovery potential outside of a few sets that have greater endurance recovery as a baked in benefit of selecting that set. Most builds only get 100 endurance (or more with IO sets and accolades) and Stamina available to them. Anything above that is abnormal.

[ QUOTE ]
Second: the way multiple ATs are designed you can't modify endurance cost after it's scaled for many issues. Best example are brutes. How do you manage them? Such a change would actually lower their endurance cost, not increase it, yet they do much more damage than many other ATs if you play Fury smartly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simple. They've got a lower scalar so their attack does less damage. It still costs the same. Shadow Punch costs the same everywhere. The DPE changes, but the endurance for the individual attack (which is where the balance is) doesn't change.

[ QUOTE ]
All ATs except tankers and defenders get tools that make their endurance cost relative to damage gravitate towards 1 modifiers.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got to be ignoring Vigilance, but I'll excuse that. Vigilance is... ignorable. Well, not entirely. It can get pretty big. That's a pretty big case to ignore.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If DPE were calculated after AT scalars were applied, you'd also need to do the same to defensive toggles and powers (although this would be much less devastating thanks to the lower proportion of endurance that goes to toggles). Thankfully, it isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I seen this implied before and I tend to slam the desk with my head every time i do, mostly because not only is it wrong but because it's so half baked. IF you were going to go that way you would also start to charge endurance for secondary effects and make sure this endurance was higher for stronger secondary effects, you would also make defender powers cost more endurance for stronger buffs, etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that's why it's a pointless suggested hypothetical. There are reasons that Defender have bigger secondary effects from their powers for the same endurance cost that Controllers pay: theirs are more efficient. Everyone is paying the same cost. Some people are getting more out of it.

[ QUOTE ]
However, there are no rules anywhere in the game that dictate a power must cost more endurance based on any attribute other than damage. Other than that it's all up to the devs whim and pursue of desired balance to give any defensive power whatever endurance cost they want. Should they choose to compensate damage to endurance ratio issues of any AT they are not forced to change at all to deal with defensive tools.

[ QUOTE ]
It's pretty easy to see if you actually start comparing power sets to power sets across ATs. Slug costs as much for a Blaster as it does for a Corrupter. Swipe costs as much to Scrapper as it does for a Stalker. Thanks for trying to make the argument though. It looked decent but doesn't follow through with the actual information.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are ignoring the inherent abilities of these ATs that make their average end cost go down.

In average, Scourge accounts for a 20% damage buff, this takes the base damage from .75 to about .9, still not full 1 but much less of an endurance penalty than it looks like at first.

The stalker critical rate is also high enough to make them match scrapper damage + criticals.

In the end, looking at base damage is not even trying to compare, it's just pretending you did.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not looking at base damage. You're assuming that I'm looking at base damage because that's what you're looking at. I'm looking at flat endurance cost. Not DPE. Just endurance. Every AT will have the same endurance costs for using a power as any other does. The difference is that some ATs will get more from that specific expenditure than others do. That is completely balanced because some ATs are just better at certain things than others are, not just in end effect, but also in efficiency of cost.

You're ignoring the fact that scalars contribute just as much to endurance efficiency as they do to the end effect. A Tanker spends 40% more endurance to do the same amount of damage that a Scrapper does because the Scrapper is all about dealing damage. Dealing damage isn't a Tanker's primary job function. It's going to have to pay more to do things outside of its specific domain of functionality. It's the same reason why Scrappers have to pay more for Petrifying Gaze than a Defender does. They're doing things that are outside of the normal scope of their functionality which means that they've got to pay somehow.

If DPE were "balanced" as you think it should be, the only difference would be time, which is pointless, because that simply means that Tankers are just as good at dealing damage as Scrappers given enough time, whereas no one else is as good at survival as a Tanker given enough time.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
If DPE were "balanced" as you think it should be, the only difference would be time, which is pointless, because that simply means that Tankers are just as good at dealing damage as Scrappers given enough time , whereas no one else is as good at survival as a Tanker given enough time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had a big point by point reply but after reading this i realized there is no point. If you truly think that being as good dealing damage can even be on the same sentence as given enough time then there is nothing else to say, you have no clue what damage ATs are balanced around in this game.

[Umbral]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If DPE were "balanced" as you think it should be, the only difference would be time, which is pointless, because that simply means that Tankers are just as good at dealing damage as Scrappers given enough time , whereas no one else is as good at survival as a Tanker given enough time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had a big point by point reply but after reading this i realized there is no point. If you truly think that being as good dealing damage can even be on the same sentence as given enough time then there is nothing else to say, you have no clue what damage ATs are balanced around in this game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually that was a poorly worded statement. I'll admit it. The point I was trying to make is that power efficiency is part in parcel with the balance metric of the game (namely, scalars). The system you propose is suggesting that, given the same endurance, that a Tanker should be able to deal the same damage as a Scrapper, ignoring time. For example, 100 endurance on a Tanker is worth just as much damage as it is for a Scrapper. Unless you're proposing that every power effect should follow that same model (everything being based off of a flat "effect per endurance" model rather than the current model wherein the power costs a certain amount and is modified by the AT's scalar), that should never happen. But then, if you did, every AT would have to be able to do everything to really have it matter at all.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
Things aren't much better with their epics, either:
Mental Blast (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Epic.Psionic_Mastery.Mental_Blast) - scale 1 damage, 6.5 end (25% high)
Power Blast (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers /power.php?id=Epic.Primal_Forces_Mastery.Power_Blas t) - scale 1 damage, 10.66 end (105% high)
Ice Blast (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Epic.Ice_Mastery.Ice_Blast) - scale 1 damage, 10.66 end (105% high)
Fire Blast (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Epic.Fire_Mastery.Fire_Blast) - scale 1.1 damage (no dot), 6.5 end (13.6% high)
Hurl Boulder (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Epic.Stone_Mastery.Hurl_Boulder) - scale 1.64 damage, 11.7 end (37.2% high)
Seismic Smash (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Epic.Stone_Mastery.Seismic_Smash) - scale 2.6 damage, 18.511999 end (36.9% high)
(Not sure if those are bugs, or intentional because of Containment; somewhat dubious though since their higher costs are inconsistent.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting... not in the sense that you intended though... all Epics are meant to have end penalties but those two powers in bold are over the edge... they are likely a bug from when they used to do inherent double damage, they got all nerfed but they most have missed fixing the end cost for all of them... If i'm not wrong all should have a 25% end penalty (with the exception of fire due to the bonus DoT that should make that penalty look smaller)

[Sarrate]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Things aren't much better with their epics, either:
Mental Blast (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Epic.Psionic_Mastery.Mental_Blast) - scale 1 damage, 6.5 end (25% high)
Power Blast (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers /power.php?id=Epic.Primal_Forces_Mastery.Power_Blas t) - scale 1 damage, 10.66 end (105% high)
Ice Blast (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Epic.Ice_Mastery.Ice_Blast) - scale 1 damage, 10.66 end (105% high)
Fire Blast (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Epic.Fire_Mastery.Fire_Blast) - scale 1.1 damage (no dot), 6.5 end (13.6% high)
Hurl Boulder (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Epic.Stone_Mastery.Hurl_Boulder) - scale 1.64 damage, 11.7 end (37.2% high)
Seismic Smash (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Epic.Stone_Mastery.Seismic_Smash) - scale 2.6 damage, 18.511999 end (36.9% high)
(Not sure if those are bugs, or intentional because of Containment; somewhat dubious though since their higher costs are inconsistent.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting... not in the sense that you intended though... all Epics are meant to have end penalties but those two powers in bold are over the edge... they are likely a bug from when they used to do inherent double damage, they got all nerfed but they most have missed fixing the end cost for all of them... If i'm not wrong all should have a 25% end penalty (with the exception of fire due to the bonus DoT that should make that penalty look smaller)

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't aware there was an end penalty, but when I compared Fire Blast/Fire Ball to Pyre/Fire Ball, there was indeed a 25% end penalty. I thought recharge was the only one applied. Good to know!

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
The system you propose is suggesting that, given the same endurance, that a Tanker should be able to deal the same damage as a Scrapper, ignoring time.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the AT can not ignore time. All sets have cast times that bottle neck the damage output. You can't do more damage than what the power set allows you. At that point only way to do more damage is the AT modifier and, off course, damage buffs and enhancements and so on.

That's why no matter how much end you give a tanker, even if you made him never run out of endurance (that i do think would be unbalanced for other reasons) he would still, kill slower.

Just as a note: The average set can't dish out more than .92 ds of damage, there are some that do a bit more others a bit less and off course the ball goes off the park with AoE, this is ST.

This means, without endurance reduction, you can in average spend 4.78 end per second if you stick to single target attacks. It will take anyone 32.1 seconds to run out of endurance during this time, provided no toggles running.

If the buff I propose was implemented (40% extra end) the tanker would take 45 seconds to run out of endurance (yes i am factoring recovery on both cases.)

During this time period, doing .92 ds per second, the scrapper would do 34.89 scale damage while the tanker would have taken 40% more time to dish out 33.08 ds. This is 5% less damage in a 40% bigger window.


Now, I'll give you this: this is before stamina. Lets check it all with stamina 3 slotted:

At this point the scrapper will take 43.5 seconds to entirely drain out of endurance. The tanker will take 60.9 seconds to drain out of endurance. During this time window the tanker will do 44.8 DS of damgae and the scrapper 47.2 DS, again, within a 40% larger time frame.

All this is not accounting for the scrapper having a stronger damage buff modifier (stronger buildup) and that the scrapper may only be fighting minions (5% crit chance anything else is 10%)

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Things aren't much better with their epics, either:
Mental Blast (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Epic.Psionic_Mastery.Mental_Blast) - scale 1 damage, 6.5 end (25% high)
Power Blast (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers /power.php?id=Epic.Primal_Forces_Mastery.Power_Blas t) - scale 1 damage, 10.66 end (105% high)
Ice Blast (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Epic.Ice_Mastery.Ice_Blast) - scale 1 damage, 10.66 end (105% high)
Fire Blast (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Epic.Fire_Mastery.Fire_Blast) - scale 1.1 damage (no dot), 6.5 end (13.6% high)
Hurl Boulder (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Epic.Stone_Mastery.Hurl_Boulder) - scale 1.64 damage, 11.7 end (37.2% high)
Seismic Smash (http://coh.redtomax.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Epic.Stone_Mastery.Seismic_Smash) - scale 2.6 damage, 18.511999 end (36.9% high)
(Not sure if those are bugs, or intentional because of Containment; somewhat dubious though since their higher costs are inconsistent.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting... not in the sense that you intended though... all Epics are meant to have end penalties but those two powers in bold are over the edge... they are likely a bug from when they used to do inherent double damage, they got all nerfed but they most have missed fixing the end cost for all of them... If i'm not wrong all should have a 25% end penalty (with the exception of fire due to the bonus DoT that should make that penalty look smaller)

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't aware there was an end penalty, but when I compared Fire Blast/Fire Ball to Pyre/Fire Ball, there was indeed a 25% end penalty. I thought recharge was the only one applied. Good to know!

[/ QUOTE ]

Hurl Boulder may also have an implementation issue: all ranged attacks within melee sets that have a melee modifier also suffer of a small penalty. There are not many that can be analyzed properly, but both Hurl Boulder and Hurl from tanker and brute sets show this. The penalty is of 9.75%.

Now, if you copy and paste this power to the controller epics, and then you add a 25% penalty on top of the baked in previous penalty you end with a 37.2% endurance penalty, exactly what you have there...

I think I have a PM to send to Castle.

[Arcanaville]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still curious as to why you think that every AT needs to use the same amount of endurance to fight the same target. It makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, while there is no numerical justification for making everyone have *identical* DPE, there is a strong fundamental reason for everyone to have *similar* DPE. The reason is that outside of teams, DPE is a fundamental limiter to performance, and for high defense characters (anything as strong or stronger than a scrapper) DPE becomes the primary limiter to performance for most builds until you apply inventions to the build or the build has enhanced recovery. In this case, I'm using the word "performance" to mean levelling performance as a subset of all reward-earning ability, consistent with how the devs measure balance in the game.

Since the devs have a performance range within which they expect all powerset combinations to live within for the powersets and archetypes to be balanced, wide ranges of DPE create unnecessary problems for that balance requirement.

For something to be "damage-oriented" it only needs to be able to deal damage faster. It does not need to deal that damage more efficiently to the same degree. In the case of "damage-centric" archetypes like blasters, higher efficiency makes sense. But in the case of, say, scrappers and tankers, the 50% spread in DPE doesn't have a clear justification. And when it comes to balance-significant game elements, the burden of proof is on the differences. All such differences should have an explicit reason for being there, and the differences in DPE don't actually always appear to have an explicit reason for being there.

[Umbral]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The system you propose is suggesting that, given the same endurance, that a Tanker should be able to deal the same damage as a Scrapper, ignoring time.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the AT can not ignore time. All sets have cast times that bottle neck the damage output. You can't do more damage than what the power set allows you. At that point only way to do more damage is the AT modifier and, off course, damage buffs and enhancements and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misunderstood that comment as well. My meaning was to give a static quantity of endurance with which to use, ignoring recovery, that both Tankers and Scrappers would deal the same amount of damage (ignoring inherents). It's not a DPS issue, which is why it ignores time, it's a DPE issue, which is why you can ignore endurance.

[ QUOTE ]
That's why no matter how much end you give a tanker, even if you made him never run out of endurance (that i do think would be unbalanced for other reasons) he would still, kill slower.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also realize this but I'm curious as to why you think that it should change at all. What's the point of putting forth all of the work to normalize for DPE when there isn't even a significant reason for it beyond your desire for a pseudo standardized DPE mechanism across all ATs.

[ QUOTE ]
Just as a note: The average set can't dish out more than .92 ds of damage, there are some that do a bit more others a bit less and off course the ball goes off the park with AoE, this is ST.

This means, without endurance reduction, you can in average spend 4.78 end per second if you stick to single target attacks. It will take anyone 32.1 seconds to run out of endurance during this time, provided no toggles running.

If the buff I propose was implemented (40% extra end) the tanker would take 45 seconds to run out of endurance (yes i am factoring recovery on both cases.)

During this time period, doing .92 ds per second, the scrapper would do 34.89 scale damage while the tanker would have taken 40% more time to dish out 33.08 ds. This is 5% less damage in a 40% bigger window.


Now, I'll give you this: this is before stamina. Lets check it all with stamina 3 slotted:

At this point the scrapper will take 43.5 seconds to entirely drain out of endurance. The tanker will take 60.9 seconds to drain out of endurance. During this time window the tanker will do 44.8 DS of damgae and the scrapper 47.2 DS, again, within a 40% larger time frame.

All this is not accounting for the scrapper having a stronger damage buff modifier (stronger buildup) and that the scrapper may only be fighting minions (5% crit chance anything else is 10%)

[/ QUOTE ]

It still remains that you've yet to answer the question of what purpose it serves aside from allowing Tankers, which are already at the least risk of any AT, to have a longer period of time (thanks to additional endurance) to deal damage in. I realize that it's not increasing their damage, your method is simply a very roundabout way to simply reduce the endurance costs of their powers by 40% in order to achieve some normalized system of DPE for Tankers.

Is there a some specific purpose you're trying to accomplish? It makes no sense to me that Tankers (or anyone for that matter) should have more efficient powers simply because those powers have a lesser affect. Is that really all you're asking for? If you are, it seems to me like a convoluted method by which to ask for a Tanker specific increase in DPE for no other reason than you think that they should, even though their DPE is already modified by their scalar thanks to the reduction in damage.

Is there any reason you can think of why DPE (on whatever varying scale you can think of) shouldn't be specific to the AT and tied to whatever damage scalar it uses?

[Starsman]

I think i wrote the answer BUT it may had been on the long post I scratched. Anyways, Arcanaville said exactly the reason above your post.

[Fulmens]

(qr)[ QUOTE ]
That is, if it takes 1% endurance to do 5 damage, it should take 1% to do 5 damage for everyone. Tankers will use less endurance, Defenders will use less endurance, Blasters would use more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah! Nerf Blasters!

[JupiterMoon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm still curious as to why you think that every AT needs to use the same amount of endurance to fight the same target. It makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, while there is no numerical justification for making everyone have *identical* DPE, there is a strong fundamental reason for everyone to have *similar* DPE. The reason is that outside of teams, DPE is a fundamental limiter to performance, and for high defense characters (anything as strong or stronger than a scrapper) DPE becomes the primary limiter to performance for most builds until you apply inventions to the build or the build has enhanced recovery. In this case, I'm using the word "performance" to mean levelling performance as a subset of all reward-earning ability, consistent with how the devs measure balance in the game.

Since the devs have a performance range within which they expect all powerset combinations to live within for the powersets and archetypes to be balanced, wide ranges of DPE create unnecessary problems for that balance requirement.

For something to be "damage-oriented" it only needs to be able to deal damage faster. It does not need to deal that damage more efficiently to the same degree. In the case of "damage-centric" archetypes like blasters, higher efficiency makes sense. But in the case of, say, scrappers and tankers, the 50% spread in DPE doesn't have a clear justification. And when it comes to balance-significant game elements, the burden of proof is on the differences. All such differences should have an explicit reason for being there, and the differences in DPE don't actually always appear to have an explicit reason for being there.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is the proverbial nail

if this game used some other form of expended resource to activate abilities - like mana in other mmorpg's - that was a variable amount instead of this set 100 (which can be modified by io's and accolades, but not to the degree mana is different between classes in other games) then the efficiency argument would make sense

but it doesnt really. if the power does less dmg, heals for less then it should cost less in this game.

will it make tankers overpowered suddenly? hell no. just because they can beat on that av longer doesnt mean they are suddently doing enough dps to overcome the av regen.

[Umbral]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, while there is no numerical justification for making everyone have *identical* DPE, there is a strong fundamental reason for everyone to have *similar* DPE. The reason is that outside of teams, DPE is a fundamental limiter to performance, and for high defense characters (anything as strong or stronger than a scrapper) DPE becomes the primary limiter to performance for most builds until you apply inventions to the build or the build has enhanced recovery. In this case, I'm using the word "performance" to mean levelling performance as a subset of all reward-earning ability, consistent with how the devs measure balance in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering we're talking about the 2 ATs that are supposed to be especially team focused, I'm curious as to how that is supposed to be taken into account. Tankers pay for their higher efficiency defenses by having less efficient damage dealing capabilities and Defenders pay for their higher efficiency support capabilities (both through their primary and their secondary) by having less efficient damage dealing capabilities, though they are made more efficient when on a team whenever said team is taking damage (which just asks for an arbitrary value to be placed on Vigilance for balance purposes).

That's what I find to be the unaccounted for variable. DPE is continually brought up without reference to the other side of the coin. Damage is not the only thing that endurance is spent on. If a standard DPE is going to be applied or even aimed for, shouldn't there also be some standard of "effect per endurance" (EPE) also be applied to powers in order to account for this?

[ QUOTE ]
Since the devs have a performance range within which they expect all powerset combinations to live within for the powersets and archetypes to be balanced, wide ranges of DPE create unnecessary problems for that balance requirement.

[/ QUOTE ]

It also brings up the question of variable EPE across ATs. Tankers pay 75% of what Scrappers pay on an EPE basis for their survival powers. Defenders pay between roughly ~85% and ~75% (depending on the effect in question) of what Controllers pay on an EPE basis for their support powers. Tankers and Controllers have an EPE discount concerning their powers that aren't directly concerned with damage. If DPE is really that great and powerful of a balance metric, shouldn't EPE be addressed as well?

[ QUOTE ]
For something to be "damage-oriented" it only needs to be able to deal damage faster. It does not need to deal that damage more efficiently to the same degree. In the case of "damage-centric" archetypes like blasters, higher efficiency makes sense. But in the case of, say, scrappers and tankers, the 50% spread in DPE doesn't have a clear justification. And when it comes to balance-significant game elements, the burden of proof is on the differences. All such differences should have an explicit reason for being there, and the differences in DPE don't actually always appear to have an explicit reason for being there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't the reason for the 2 ATs that are, by design, meant to be team intensive and support based less efficient on their own at dealing damage but more efficient at providing their role when on a team? I'm pretty confident that Tankers are more end efficient at getting and maintaining aggro on large numbers of targets than Brutes are thanks to the effects of Gauntlet. I'm definitely sure that Defenders are more end efficient at team support simply because they put out higher number with their sets than anyone else.

The reason that every other AT is capable of maintaining the sacred DPE "scalar" of 1 that Starsman is attempting to find is because they all pay roughly the same for the non-damaging support powers within their archetypal domain. Scrappers, Stalkers, and Brutes, thanks to having the same self defense buff scale, all pay the same EPE cost. Corrupters and Controllers pay the same EPE cost. Masterminds actually pay 25% more EPE than Corrupters or Controllers, though they've got the most efficient form of damage in the game (19.5 end for damage that is highly efficient because it comes from a completely separate entities; most of the end cost is simply front loaded and, after paying for it, is functionally free).

Tankers and Defenders, avoid the same DPE scalar as all the others by paying less for their non-damaging powers, which explains the differences, thereby satisfying Arcanaville's vaunted burden of proof for a difference to exist.

[Ultimo_]

Endurance woes are meant to limit the ability of the Tanker to last as long in fights? Is that what I'm seeing? If that's so, increase the damage to nominal, because they're suffering a penalty to damage (to make them less offensive) AND a penalty to endurance efficiency (to make them even LESS offensive, AND less defensive, since they will lose their toggles if they run out of endurance).

As to the question WHY?

The mantra the devs say they go by is "Is it FUN?" I don't find standing in a group pressing taunt every now and then because I don't have the endurance to do anything else, FUN. I don't find having to get a group to do ANYTHING, FUN. What's fun is being able to compete, whatever AT and power set I'm using. The game already has too many ways to force the players to stand around watching helplessly as their characters get killed (stuns, holds, slows, -recharge, etc.). Having no endurance is among them, and is very frustrating indeed.

Endurance is an issue for everyone, but it should be EQUALLY an issue. As it is, Tankers and Defenders (and Scrappers, to some extent) get the short end of the endurance stick.

[Fulmens]

Having soloed a Dark Armor/Energy tank through the first 20-some levels, I can confidently say that you're overstating the case, Ultimo. Just say "I'm greedy" and put it in your sig.

[Besserwisser]

[ QUOTE ]
As to the question WHY?

[/ QUOTE ]

So that all ATs have roughly the same EPS and thus equal endurance woes.

[WhyNot]

QR:

Extra end use due to taking longer is partly mitigated by the extra time leading to more total recovery tics before the conclusion of the fight.

Also, consider Rest: a Tanker may well run low on End before a Scrapper, but the Scrapper will likely run low on Health before the Tanker. Do the times at which they elect to use Rest roughly match? Does the number of foes defeated before electing to use Rest roughly match?

[Ultimo_]

[ QUOTE ]
Having soloed a Dark Armor/Energy tank through the first 20-some levels, I can confidently say that you're overstating the case, Ultimo. Just say "I'm greedy" and put it in your sig.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're having a discussion here, and personal attacks are neither warranted nor welcome. So far everyone has contributed to the subject in a reasoned, civil fashion and I suggest you do the same.


(edited for typo)

[Twisted Toon]

[ QUOTE ]
if this game used some other form of expended resource to activate abilities - like mana in other mmorpg's - that was a variable amount instead of this set 100 (which can be modified by io's and accolades, but not to the degree mana is different between classes in other games) then the efficiency argument would make sense

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, it makes perfect sense. Someone who is specialized in a certain set of skills will perform those skills more efficiently than someone who is not. They would be better at controlling their energy expenditure with those skills than a novice. That is basic common sense.

I see no problem with a Tank using the same amount of Endurance as scrapper and doing less damage. The Tank is not specialized in dealing damage. he's much better at controlling Aggro and taking the damage. He also gets better protection for the same amount of Endurance usage as a scrapper.

The same goes for Defenders and Blasters. The Blaster is specialized in dealing ranged damage. The Defender is not.

[BrandX]

Last I knew, tankers and scrappers had the same DMG to RCH to END USE ratio.

But tanker have the lower damage scalar.

As it should be.

[Nettik]

[ QUOTE ]
We're having a discussion here, and personal attacks are neither warranted or welcome. So far everyone has contributed to the subject in a reasoned, civil fashion and I suggest you do the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's "neither... nor".

Carry on.

[Nihilii]

(QR)

So tanker attacks should cost less because they do less damage than scrappers.

Yet, nobody is arguing scrapper shields should cost less because they give less protection than tankers.

Tanker bias, anyone ?

[Umbral]

[ QUOTE ]
(QR)

So tanker attacks should cost less because they do less damage than scrappers.

Yet, nobody is arguing scrapper shields should cost less because they give less protection than tankers.

Tanker bias, anyone ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh... That's been the basis of my entire argument, Nihili.

[NeoSporin]

I have a Spines/Invul scrapper and a friend of mine has a Claws/Regen. Before IOs were introduced into the game, we raced each other clearing a level 50 Family map. He went up one side, I went up the other. Then, when we finished, we reset and traded sides and raced again. Spawns were level 52. To pad up the number of foes, we had 6 teammates, but they remained at the door (not because they were PLing, but because it was a race between the claws and my spines)

Although his Claws scrapper can kill a boss a little faster then my Spines can. I cleared whole groups of foes nearly twice as fast. I would clear up my side and round the top and start clearing down his side meeting up with him as he was about 2 thirds up on his side.

Spine's AoEs and Cones simply make it tons better at dealing with large numbers of foes then Claws. While Claws can kill a boss a faster.

I'm not sure how you would work that into your balance suggestion.

[FireWyvern]

/JRanger to your ideas and your baddly made "calculations"

Please stop trying to break the game with your "ameliorations".

[Ultimo_]

... What calculations? As for the rest, I'll think and say what I please. No one is making you read it.

Actually, if Scrappers get less benefit from defenses, I would agree that they should use less endurance from the shields. For example, Temporary Invulnerability is available to both Tankers and Scrappers. If it's going to cost the same endurance for both, they should both get the same benefit. Since that's evidently not how they want it to work, and scrapper invulnerability is less effective, they should pay less endurance.

An interesting post, Neo, and definitely something to consider in the long run...

[Captain_Bavaria]

[ QUOTE ]
... What calculations? As for the rest, I'll think and say what I please. No one is making you read it.

Actually, if Scrappers get less benefit from defenses, I would agree that they should use less endurance from the shields. For example, Temporary Invulnerability is available to both Tankers and Scrappers. If it's going to cost the same endurance for both, they should both get the same benefit. Since that's evidently not how they want it to work, and scrapper invulnerability is less effective, they should pay less endurance.

An interesting post, Neo, and definitely something to consider in the long run...

[/ QUOTE ]
It would seem that the logical extension of your argument to Neo's point is that AoE attacks should, like all powers, have a fixed effect/cost ratio. Thus the cost should vary with the number of targets hit. It should be less than the end cost for a single target attack of the same damage/effect, at least for all targets after the first, to account for the inefficiency of spreading damage, in general.

[EvilRyu]

[ QUOTE ]
(QR)

So tanker attacks should cost less because they do less damage than scrappers.

Yet, nobody is arguing scrapper shields should cost less because they give less protection than tankers.

Tanker bias, anyone ?

[/ QUOTE ]I can only think of one instance where they did do this. Back when unyielding had the penalty. Brutes and scrappers got the full penalty but it was later scaled down. Thinking about this now shouldnt brute granite have less of a penalty since it gives less protection than tanker granite?

[EvilRyu]

Also I wanted to say I just cant play claws. The whole no build up thing drove me batty on this and dual blades. Thats why I can play dual blades on stalkers. I cant play claws on stalkers because they have no aoe (shockwave doesnt count because its scatters).

[Fulmens]

Ultimo said:
[ QUOTE ]
I'll think and say what I please. No one is making you read it.

[/ QUOTE ]

... new! improved!
[ QUOTE ]
*** You are ignoring this user ***

[/ QUOTE ]

[Brawlnstein]

Heh, but in doing that post you learned that quoting an ignored user lets you see what they wrote.... :D

[hepheastus]

[ QUOTE ]
Lethal Damage = fail at higher levels, especially redside. My claws stalker sort of tapered off into uselessness in the 20s against Longbow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a claws stalker in the late 30's and I'm calling bs on this statement.

[UberGuy]

It's a common claim, but I disagree with it strongly on anything with at least a Tanker's damage output. Anything below that and it starts to feel pretty painful. One of the last things you want to be is a lethal/smashing dealer on Defender or Dominator (out of Domination). It's viable, but I don't enjoy it very much.

[Umbral]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a common claim, but I disagree with it strongly on anything with at least a Tanker's damage output. Anything below that and it starts to feel pretty painful. One of the last things you want to be is a lethal/smashing dealer on Defender or Dominator (out of Domination). It's viable, but I don't enjoy it very much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whenever Castle gets his Dominator changes in, Dominators will have a very nice base scalar, meaning better DPE. The only ATs that will be at a disadvantage somehow are Tankers and Defenders, because they have lower scalars and no extra damage capability from their inherent.

[Ultimo_]

Not that it matters, but who is Fulmens ignoring? Me or FireWyvern?

Anyhow, back to the topic. Area effects attacks would use more endurance, but the amount would be standardized. To use Champions as an example, Area Effect (Radius) was a +1 modifier, which doubled the base cost (in points and endurance cost) of a power. Using that as a model, if Power Bolts did 50 damage, and used 5% endurance, then an AOE power that had the same attributes as Power Bolts (in terms of range and so on), and did 50 damage in an area, would use 10% endurance.

I'm not saying these numbers are what should be used, it's just an example.

[The Grim Heaper]

[ QUOTE ]
Not that it matters, but who is Fulmens ignoring? Me or FireWyvern?

[/ QUOTE ]
Considering he quoted you, and then the introduction to the next quote was "New! Improved!"... I'd say it's a fair bet YOU are the one he ignored. But, if nothing else, he is taking your "No one is making you read it." advice to heart and making sure he never has to read it again. :p

Although, he may be ignoring FireWyvern too, but didn't seem to make a post dedicated to the fact (that I've seen). *shrug*

[Sarrate]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tanker bias, anyone ?

[/ QUOTE ]I can only think of one instance where they did do this. Back when unyielding had the penalty. Brutes and scrappers got the full penalty but it was later scaled down. Thinking about this now shouldnt brute granite have less of a penalty since it gives less protection than tanker granite?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since Brutes have a lower damage scale, the damage debuff from Granite has a lower impact on them than Tankers. When you count Fury, it's even smaller. (15 Fury completely negates the damage debuff.) They'll still be slower, but each hit will deal considerably more damage.

Ex:
Tanker Seismic Smash in Granite - 261.3 dmg [edit: 308.8 dmg out of Granite, ~15% drop [~47.5 dmg lost]]
Brute Seismic Smash in Granite - 452.8 dmg (70% Fury), [edit: 497.4 dmg out of Granite, ~8.97% drop [~44.6 dmg lost]]

[Fulmens]

Sorry for the ambiguity. I am not, in fact, ignoring FireWyvern.

[Bill Z Bubba]

Had a thought about this thread last night that I figured I should share. I haven't read the thread in its entirety so this may have been brought up.

Take a couch potato and a marathon runner. Have them both run 2 miles. If they weigh the same and run at the same speed, they will burn the same number of calories.

Only one of them will be puking at the end of it.

Same goes for the game.

A blaster is a blaster because he is more efficient at turning energy into damage than a defender is.

A scrapper is more efficient at turning energy into damage than a tank is.

A tank is more efficient at using his energy to mitigate damage than a scrapper is.

This is why we have AT modifiers.

This is why a blast should have the same base damage, the same base end cost and the same base recharge.

DM Smite:
1.32 damage
6.864 end
6 second recharge

I just double checked and those values are constant amongst brute, scrapper and tank.

This is as it should be.

[UberGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
A blaster is a blaster because he is more efficient at turning energy into damage than a defender is.

A scrapper is more efficient at turning energy into damage than a tank is.

A tank is more efficient at using his energy to mitigate damage than a scrapper is.

This is why we have AT modifiers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not disagreeing with the above, but I want to point out that it's only one way of looking at this.

We could just as easily have a system where the characters are equally effortefficient at producing an effect, but bit equally time efficient.

As an example, imagine that a Blaster can put forth the energy to blast through a 1' concrete block, but a Defender can only get through 8" of it in one shot. In order to get through the whole foot of conrete, the Defender has to use two blasts, because he just can't summon as much power for one shot.

Relating it back closer to your race analogy, both racers can run two miles, but one guy has to run slower. Yes, your analogy for miles/calorie is much better at relating your example to endurance, but I'm saying we could instead fix max calorie/sec. The slower runner could be less efficient at burning calories and turning them into speed, but if he was more efficient, he'd be faster.

[_Mojo_]

The analogy could just go so many different ways.

In my eyes, even if the second runner has to run slower than the guy who does it often, he'd still be burning more endurance over time because the first runner is trained to do it.

The first runner is A) Faster (killing speed) B) Better Conditioned (Endurance Cost). In that sense, a scrapper/blaster should be better overrall at killing enemies, not just faster.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
Had a thought about this thread last night that I figured I should share. I haven't read the thread in its entirety so this may have been brought up.

Take a couch potato and a marathon runner. Have them both run 2 miles. If they weigh the same and run at the same speed, they will burn the same number of calories.

Only one of them will be puking at the end of it.

Same goes for the game.

A blaster is a blaster because he is more efficient at turning energy into damage than a defender is.

A scrapper is more efficient at turning energy into damage than a tank is.

A tank is more efficient at using his energy to mitigate damage than a scrapper is.

This is why we have AT modifiers.

This is why a blast should have the same base damage, the same base end cost and the same base recharge.

DM Smite:
1.32 damage
6.864 end
6 second recharge

I just double checked and those values are constant amongst brute, scrapper and tank.

This is as it should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a huge difference here, though, specially about tankers: they are no couch potatoes, they are meant to actually be able to fight longer by virtue of surviving for longer periods of time. This is the only virtue they have coming to them in solo play and it's meaningless due to not having the endurance to back it up.

[Starsman]

Wanted to add: two days ago (yesterday was busy to post) I made a calculator that would tell me exactly how far endurance takes each AT.

BillZBubba's example is actually nice for this, yea im inclining now to it because it is convenient for my case, sue me.

Here is the thing: his example notes that both racers will finish the race consuming the same 2 mile trip consuming the same calories (humanity's endurance.) The key here is: they both finish without additional calories influx.

Here is my case: The tanker will not finish the race the scrapper starts, he wont have enough endurance.

Example:

<ul type="square"> Parameters: Stamina 3 slotted.
Damage Per second: .92 ds per second (not arbitrary, this is the average of all melee sets)
Toggle Use: .78 (the lowest consumption a set has other than Willpower)[/list]

With these parameters both ATs will run out of endurance in 32.47 seconds.
<ul type="square"> The scrapper will kill 2 bosses and chip away 30% of a third.
The tanker will kill one boss and chip away 54% of the second.
The scrapper will kill 1 EB and chip away 6% of a second.
The tanker will just chip away 71% of the EB's hp.[/list]

AT this point both ATs need more endurance influx, unlike the racer example, the tanker can't finish the race the scrapper can.

A fun thing about my calculator is how it shows ME wrong, the 40% endurance buff I noted indeed was too high. 25% is the proper amount. Rerunning the same example but this time with the tanker having 25 extra base endurance:

<ul type="square"> The scrapper will kill 2 bosses and chip away 32% of a third.
The tanker will kill 2 bosses and chip away 33% % of the second.
The scrapper will kill 1 EB and chip away 6% of a second.
The tanker will kill 1 EB and chip away 7% of a second.[/list]

How long does the tanker takes to do this, though? 50.84 seconds. The scrapper still gets it done at 32.47 seconds. That's 57% slower. With THIS amount, both racers end the race. The tanker though, went so slowly he does not get to puke at the end of the fight.

This is not accounting how Build Up is much stronger for the scrapper and will provide one huge advantage to kill faster and be more endurance efficient. If the race included this (the equivalent of sprinting to gain advantage) the scrapper may finish a race that will become impossible for the tanker to finish, he will puke even without finishing (toggles crash, mob stuns/hold/whatever, tanker dead)

Final note: Higher end heavy secondaries, even if available for both ATs, are worse for the tanker because he fights longer.

[Fulmens]

... how about if the scrapper needs to run Tough to survive, while the Tanker can survive with just his unmodified defenses?

The problem with simple models is making sure you ignore the right things.

[Starsman]

A: Most tankers actually take Tough and run it all the time, if I was to add the end cost to one i'd add it to both.
B: Most scrappers kill so fast they don't need it to survive.
C: Lets no go into side builds because IOs bring for free levels of defense that Tough can never match, for no endurance cost.

D: I humored you:
With tough running ONLY on the scrapper:

The Scrapper kills 2.1 bosses in 29.33 seconds (the new time to drain his end)
The tanker kills 1.54 bosses in 32.47 seconds (the time to drain his end)

The Scrapper takes the EB down to 96% of his HP, no kill.
The tanker takes the EB down to 71% of his HP, no kill.

Actually just realized something.... i averaged scrapper damage low, i'm dealing with bosses and EBs and still using a lower average of 2 minnions 1lt to calculate the benefit of criticals.

Fixing that error takes the EB to 99% to for the scrapper, using BU even once during the fight will make him finish without needing a single end redux enhancement or blue insp. The tanker, he still drains his blue with an EB that is still at 30% hp.

[Fulmens]

I formed my argument poorly.

Given that there are a tremendous number of possible differences (I have been known to solo tanks with only one or two of the four or five toggles running) and given that it's difficult to say what any given tank or scrapper loadout requires, in Endurance, to survive, how does one guarantee that one's model is correct?

(For example, it's near-impossible to get any significant amount of Defense from IO's without getting considerable EndRed as well. Look at what 6-slotting Touch of Death or Mako's gets you, for instance...)

[Starsman]

And as I noted on C: specific build options are endless.

But I noted how much more efficient the scrapper is even if's running an additional 42% Toggle Endurance Budget, that is likely what you are asking about. Only now you rephraced it to turning toggles off.

But lets assume the tanker can turn off half of his toggles to get an endurance advantage:

The Scrapper kills 1.09 EBs in 32.47 seconds.
The Tanker chips away 80% of the EB's HP before running out of end after 37.18 seconds. Turning half the toggles off only bought him 4.7 seconds of activity.

The tanker would have to kill all his toggles off (at witch point the tanker is easier to kill than the toggled up scrapper) and still not kill that EB, he would be stuck at 93% after 43.48 seconds. All this while the scrapper running all toggles killed the EB with a bit of endurance to spare and all his toggles up.


... I am loving this calculator btw, will see if i can share the toy somehow, perhaps make a Javascript version or something.

[Ultimo_]

It's that number of possibilities that standardization is meant to accomodate.

What I'm looking to achieve is a better degree of balance between the sets and ATs. There's been some good analysis here. It's not really what I started the thread about, but kudos to all. It's interesting to say the least.

[Siolfir]

[ QUOTE ]
It's that number of possibilities that standardization is meant to accomodate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Except that there's a standard now (endurance to damage scalar), you just don't like it.

If you don't like the AT modifiers, talk about them. Don't talk about "standardization" by changing how each and every power is defined as it applies to those modifiers.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
Except that there's a standard now (endurance to damage scalar), you just don't like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only a standard if no one has ways to do more damage for free (beyond modifiers) effectively increasing the ratio.

As it stands only two ATs dont have those means, and one actually does but only if the team is dying.

[Bill Z Bubba]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a huge difference here, though, specially about tankers: they are no couch potatoes, they are meant to actually be able to fight longer by virtue of surviving for longer periods of time. This is the only virtue they have coming to them in solo play and it's meaningless due to not having the endurance to back it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they are meant to be able to take more damage. Not fight longer. And they do take more damage because for the same amount of end they get more benefit out of toggle mitigation. They get more benefit out of passives. They get more benefit out of just being tanks due to higher hit points.

[ QUOTE ]
The tanker will not finish the race the scrapper starts, he wont have enough endurance.

[/ QUOTE ]

The tank will finish. He just takes longer. Why does the tank have to fight at the same pace as the scrapper when he has the mitigation to let him take longer to finish the race?

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
The tank will finish. He just takes longer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not guessing. Without additional endurance sources the tanker will run out of endurance or be stuck fighting weaker foes.

[ QUOTE ]
Why does the tank have to fight at the same pace as the scrapper when he has the mitigation to let him take longer to finish the race?

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is not about fighting at the same pace, I am not asking for them to fight any faster only the endurance to be able to fight longer to finish the same encounters. Again, not guesses this is pure math accounting for boss/eb regeneration.

[Bill Z Bubba]

Then I'm not following your math. As long as the tank's damage output exceeds the enemy's regen rate, and his mitigation is greater than the incoming damage, he could let himself regain endurance with base recovery and use nothing but brawl.

It's like you're ignoring that base recovery and mitigation exist.

[Umbral]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The tank will finish. He just takes longer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not guessing. Without additional endurance sources the tanker will run out of endurance or be stuck fighting weaker foes.

[ QUOTE ]
Why does the tank have to fight at the same pace as the scrapper when he has the mitigation to let him take longer to finish the race?

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is not about fighting at the same pace, I am not asking for them to fight any faster only the endurance to be able to fight longer to finish the same encounters. Again, not guesses this is pure math accounting for boss/eb regeneration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then shouldn't Scrappers and everyone else get an increase in their regeneration and resistance to allow them to survive fights that are going to last longer?

It's the same argument. A tanker has a much higher immortality and survivability curve set than any other AT in the game thanks to higher base mitigation values and higher base hp. They've got to pay for that somehow and having a lower dps but greater DPE doesn't balance out.

As to the metaphorical couch potato to marathon runner analogy, it's hyperbole. I don't believe that Billz was attempting to say that Tankers are completely bad at dealing damage. He was trying to say that the person who is less equipped for that specific challenge (the Tanker is less equipped for dealing damage than the Scrapper is) should be, by their very definition less efficient. That's part of what makes that a primary function of the AT (and no, damage is not the primary function of the Tanker AT).

The other thing that you're doing is paying attention exclusively to solo considerations. On a team (which should be the primary location of comparison anyway), the mitigation difference is much more significant. A Tanker is capable of surviving aggro that no other AT (with the exception of a buffed Brute) can match. Their mitigation capabilities are wasted when they're not on large teams in challenging circumstances.

You're also ignoring inspiration contribution, which, when talking about soloing EBs, should be taken into consideration. In the Scrapper/Tanker, situation, assuming it's an EB that will actually require the Tanker's greater mitigation capability (elsewise it's pointless because if we're only including situations in which the Scrapper's defenses are perfectly adequate, you're not including any of the situations in which the Tanker has the advantage), the Scrapper is going to have to use green, purple, and orange inspirations to account for the lower mitigation and the Tanker is going to increase his damage and endurance efficiency by popping reds and blues.

I'm still trying to figure out a place wherein you can actually say that this is a problem, anyways. You keep coming up with situations in which you can discount the advantages of the Tanker to make the offensive deficit seem out of proportion with the vast increase to personal survivability. For someone who likes to think of themselves as considering everything within their calculations and concepts, you're continually ignoring the contributions of the higher hp and superior damage mitigation capabilities that work in a multiplicative manner that are designed as the offset to their lower endurance efficiency in attacks.

PS. Didn't I specifically tell you that 40% +end was too high because you weren't incorporating the additional recovery to go with the greater pool of endurance? Vindication is most gratifying.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
Then shouldn't Scrappers and everyone else get an increase in their regeneration and resistance to allow them to survive fights that are going to last longer?

[/ QUOTE ]

No but ironically most ATs do get the tools needed to survive, too. From holds to "team" buffs and debuffs that affect self. If so desired, defenders get just as much resist and defense from pools as tankers do!

The only AT that gets next to no tools is the blaster yet he is given two tools:

Range, that allows him to be exposed to less damage (all critters have less ranged attacks and these are always weaker than their melee attacks)

Damage: enough damage to make sure the fight does not last longer.

Soloing the AT, though, was intended to be hard from the start and require a lot of skill. It holds true.

Tankers, though where from day one described as an AT that would solo effectively but slowly, and I don't ask for a change on the slow part, only on the effectively part.

[ QUOTE ]
As to the metaphorical couch potato to marathon runner analogy, it's hyperbole.

[/ QUOTE ]

Off course it's hyperbole. The right analogy would be a body builder racing a marathon versus a marathon runner. It would had been a perfect analogy that way. The couch potato would not even get to the race before getting tired.

[ QUOTE ]
The other thing that you're doing is paying attention exclusively to solo considerations. On a team (which should be the primary location of comparison anyway),

[/ QUOTE ]

Because in teams, endurance efficiency means nothing, only the ability to kill fast means something and it's something the tanker does not aquire from improved endurance efficiency.

[ QUOTE ]
You're also ignoring inspiration contribution

[/ QUOTE ]

There is where any argument ends. Inspirations are not part of any balancing and are not available on demand. This argument is a dead end.

[ QUOTE ]
You keep coming up with situations in which you can discount the advantages of the Tanker to make the offensive deficit seem out of proportion with the vast increase to personal survivability

[/ QUOTE ]

Witch means next to nothing solo. You said it yourself, its all wasted. Heck using your own logic: the scrapper gets enough survival bonus to survive any solo challenge in the game, in solo play, his secondary is just as effective as his primary. I am not even asking for the tanker secondary to be as effective as the scrappers, the notion of endurance efficiency does not even land in that realm, it just allows the tanker to keep going until he does what the scrapper finished 50% faster.

[ QUOTE ]
For someone who likes to think of themselves as considering everything within their calculations and concepts, you're continually ignoring the contributions of the higher hp and superior damage mitigation capabilities that work in a multiplicative manner that are designed as the offset to their lower endurance efficiency in attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean those things that bring nothing to solo play because they are only useful in teams? Precisely the teams where endurance efficiency will mean nothing?

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
Then I'm not following your math. As long as the tank's damage output exceeds the enemy's regen rate, and his mitigation is greater than the incoming damage, he could let himself regain endurance with base recovery and use nothing but brawl.

It's like you're ignoring that base recovery and mitigation exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once I sit back on my laptop where I have all the code I'll post you the full methodology.

[Umbral]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The other thing that you're doing is paying attention exclusively to solo considerations. On a team (which should be the primary location of comparison anyway),

[/ QUOTE ]

Because in teams, endurance efficiency means nothing, only the ability to kill fast means something and it's something the tanker does not aquire from improved endurance efficiency.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd disagree that it means nothing. Endurance efficiency means less, but it, by no means, shouldn't be a consideration at all. The only time it's going to be pointless is when there are plenteous +recov buffs being thrown around, which isn't every team anyway.

However, the important thing to bring up is that Tankers are not designed to be particularly effective soloers. They are designed to be aggro magnets that can survive holding all of that aggro. We can tell this because Tankers have so much mitigation that it's largely redundant while solo, and an inherent power that grants no benefit while solo (they're already attacking you). They have lower damage (and thusly lower DPE efficiency because the scalar balance metric used considers the 2 to be part and parcel) to make up for the mitigation capabilities that are only useful on team.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're also ignoring inspiration contribution

[/ QUOTE ]

There is where any argument ends. Inspirations are not part of any balancing and are not available on demand. This argument is a dead end.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it's not. You just don't want to consider it. If you're a Tanker and you're prepared, you're going to bring in some blue inspirations. They're not available on demand while in a mission, but every player is capable of getting the same allotment at every level before he or she begins a mission thanks to the numerous inspiration vendors scattered throughout the city.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You keep coming up with situations in which you can discount the advantages of the Tanker to make the offensive deficit seem out of proportion with the vast increase to personal survivability

[/ QUOTE ]

Witch means next to nothing solo. You said it yourself, its all wasted. Heck using your own logic: the scrapper gets enough survival bonus to survive any solo challenge in the game, in solo play, his secondary is just as effective as his primary. I am not even asking for the tanker secondary to be as effective as the scrappers, the notion of endurance efficiency does not even land in that realm, it just allows the tanker to keep going until he does what the scrapper finished 50% faster.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to tell me that a Tanker is going to be having more problems than a Blaster when soloing on the same difficulty (and, according to you, soloing is fighting Bosses and EBs rather than minions and Lts) thanks exclusively to the ability to deal less damage with a full endurance bar, then I'm going to ask if you've ever actually solo'd on a Blaster. It's nowhere near as easy as it is for a Tanker because of the lack of mitigation techniques. The Blaster is going to either be bringing in inspirations or waiting 3 minutes after most fights just to use Rest again (which is another thing you neglected to include, especially).

Ahh... Rest. It's a wonderful little power that most people ignore (except Arcanaville, who is simply the deific manifestation of universal inclusion, though I do think she counts it a bit high). It's going to provide pretty much all of the additional recovery you need when soloing because the enemies aren't coming at you in some uncontrollable manner. You choose to continue running at them even though your blue bar is low. When solo, you're not going to face 2 bosses in one group at any time, unless you're specifically choosing to collect them as such, which is your own damn fault.

As to the EB issue, the only time you're going to fight them is when you are specifically warned. If you choose to forgo that warning, it's your own fault, especially if you're not bringing every tool available to you to bear because another AT that is uniquely suited to the task doesn't have to.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For someone who likes to think of themselves as considering everything within their calculations and concepts, you're continually ignoring the contributions of the higher hp and superior damage mitigation capabilities that work in a multiplicative manner that are designed as the offset to their lower endurance efficiency in attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean those things that bring nothing to solo play because they are only useful in teams? Precisely the teams where endurance efficiency will mean nothing?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you want to provide a buff to an AT for solo situations whenever it's an AT that only actually finds itself meaningfully challenged when on a team? Are you being serious? You're specifically looking for a situation in which the AT is not ideally suited and using it as a reason to receive a substantial buff for all situations.

The other big problem you've got is that you're comparing Tanker performance to the performance of an AT designed specifically for solo play (just enough capability given over to personal survival with everything else dumped into damage; that's optimization). Scrappers are, for good reasons, considered the perfect soloing AT. Compare Tanker performance to Blasters if you want something more accurate, especially if you're willing to actually consider that personal survivability contributions matter whenever you're solo and don't have team members there to back you up. You'd probably find a greater degree of parity than you'd be comfortable with though.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
Then I'm not following your math. As long as the tank's damage output exceeds the enemy's regen rate, and his mitigation is greater than the incoming damage, he could let himself regain endurance with base recovery and use nothing but brawl.

It's like you're ignoring that base recovery and mitigation exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK BillZBubba, here we go:

First of all a disclaimer: While typing this i found a minor accuracy error in my calculations. Nothing huge but something that will make certain numbers look different.

First of all, we have to determine how fast we are attacking. If we are on a .92 damage per second bottleneck, thats as fast as we can go.

This means we burn 4.78 end per second.
With stamina 3 slotted, everyone recovers 2.48 endurance per second.

For now, I'll ignore toggle usage, so this is a net loss of 2.30 endurance per second.

Now we simply divide to find that with such an end consumption endurance is exhausted after exactly 43.48 seconds.

Now, things fluctuate by level but relatively speaking they remain the same. Still we need an HP table for critters to fight. For now, I'll stick to EBs, not due to goals but because it's easier to deal with a single foe instead of the 14 minions the scrapper can kill with the end the tanker only kills 9.

We already know how much DS per second we can toss out: .92.

For the scrapper, accounting for average crit rate, this means 76.22 damage per second.
For the tanker, it means 49.27 damage per second.

Keep in note, both are going to last the same amount of time dealing those different levels of DPS.


Now, things are different across levels so we got to pick a specific level. Let's pick a level where stamina is fully slotted but is still low level enough: 25.

At this level the EB has 2112.80 HP. He regenerates 13% of this per minute, or 4.58 hp per second. This means the net damage dealt is:

Scrapper: 71.64
Tanker: 44.69

Over a period of 43.48 seconds, the respective ATs can deal a net total (dealt - regenerated) of:
Scrapper: 3114.84
Tanker: 1943.27

If you divide this by the EB base HP it means that the scrapper killed one EB and was 47% done with the next. The tanker only got to 92% before it was forced to seek endurance from some external source.

I can recalculate everything again with toggles running, for the consistency of previous examples, .78 end per second.

Cutting to the chase, this ends in the scrapper killing 1.1 EBs and the tanker only going 69% through one.

This does not stick at EBs, other ranks are also yielding a much longer race for the scrapper in much shorter time the tanker can't match even in a slower race (with .78 from toggles:)

Scrapper/Tank
Minnions Defeated: 9.97/6.74
Lts Defeated: 5.19/3.33
Bosses Defeated: 2.49/1.58
EBs Defeated: 1.10/0.69
AVs Defeated(chipped really): 18%/8%

The change I propose would simply give the tanker the time he needs to do the same killing, he still would have to do it as slowly as he would had before. Even with such a change the tanker would be done when the scrapper is half way done with his next round of combat.

If you are interested in playing with the calculator, I can set it up in Google Docs for you to mess with, can't really make it fully public because I can't restrict people to only specific cell changes and I had already been forced to deal with hourly rollbacks due to users deleting everything.

[Starsman]

Umbral, I'm not really interested in convincing you specifically about the merits of such a change. At this time all I care to dissmiss is the false statement that the tanker can kill the same things that the scraper can given enough time.

I'm replying to Bill because he appeared to care for my evidence.

The only thing I do have to say to your post right now, though is that yes, I have played blasters. Fire Fire to be precise, arguably the most dangerous to play solo. I used to dismiss "ranged as a form of defense" until I played that guy. In certain situations, range made this blaster more survivable than my tanker, and no, that's no hyperbole. Staying at range (via hover or smart immobs) can keep you at arms reach from some devastating attacks to witch your specific tanker may have holes.

Whoever denies that range can be an effective defense either does not play blasters AND melee ATs regularly, or simply happens to always play in teams.

Side note: relying on range as a form of defense happens to be endurance free. When 100% of your end can go to damage, you end up killing much more than you can with a scrapper. I admit that was a shocking discovery.

[Twisted Toon]

Starsman,

You need to take you little calculator and...

...rewrite it to include incoming damage, health, and damage mitigation, to name a few things. Then you might actually see that a Tank will last a lot longer against an EB than a Blaster will. Both of which (note the correct spelling), are team oriented ATs. Whereas the Scrapper is a solo oriented AT. Of course the Scrapper will be more efficient vs most everything solo. That is the way its designed.

However, you take 3 scrappers and put them in a race against a Tank, and Defender, and a Blaster and see what happens. Again, you might be surprised.

In short, and many people have stated this already, Endurance is not the only factor used for balance.

[Ultimo_]

I think what's being suggested is that once Endurance is gone, the Tanker can last longer and therefore has more ability to recover endurance and continue fighting. Am I getting this correctly?

After spending the afternoon on my Defender, I'm curious to know how they measure up to Stars' calculator...

[Starsman]

Assuming the same dps bottleneck: Defenders manage to kill
1.70 Bosses

I think from now on I'll just use the minion and lt examples since everyone is so focused on the EB data point. I wont include those again in the results.

For comparison:

Minnions Defeated:
Blaster 14.35
Scrapper 9.97
Tanker 6.74
Defender 7.32

Lts Defeated
Blaster 7.14
Scrapper: 5.19
Tanker: 3.33
Defender 3.61


Why the defender kills more with that end than tanks? Because he is not running shields. Also that's not accounting for the primary, certain defender primaries boost endurance and/or damage or may debuff foe resistance, etc etc.

[Umbral]

[ QUOTE ]
Umbral, I'm not really interested in convincing you specifically about the merits of such a change. At this time all I care to dissmiss is the false statement that the tanker can kill the same things that the scraper can given enough time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was stating that was what you were trying to do. I still don't see the point. And the reason why you should care about convincing me is that I'm probably going to be a much easier person to convince than Castle is, especially considering all of the repercussions of your proposed change (lowered effect of end drains, lowered comparative benefit of +end, other balance considerations that you'd just ignore).

[ QUOTE ]
I'm replying to Bill because he appeared to care for my evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm amused that you think I don't care for the evidence. I care for it. I just don't think it's valid because you're ignoring a number of other variables in an attempt to make your entire argument appear artificially valid.

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing I do have to say to your post right now, though is that yes, I have played blasters. Fire Fire to be precise, arguably the most dangerous to play solo. I used to dismiss "ranged as a form of defense" until I played that guy. In certain situations, range made this blaster more survivable than my tanker, and no, that's no hyperbole. Staying at range (via hover or smart immobs) can keep you at arms reach from some devastating attacks to witch your specific tanker may have holes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're assuming that I don't argee with the "range as defense" argument. Excellent way to read something into my statements that I never said.

The argument that you're using here (that, if you use immobilizations and range, you can become more survivable than a tanker whenever s/he is fighting a target that s/he is weak to), it fundamentally flawed in a couple respects. First off, Tankers have 55% more hp than Blasters, which, isn't really going to outweigh ranged attacks doing 80% of the damage of melee attacks for NPCs unless you're talking about some very specific outlier situations that are capable of ignoring the significantly higher resistance and defense values of a Tanker. The only possible disparity would be in the Tanker having to be exposed to danger a longer period of time than the Blaster thanks to the Blaster's higher damage (close to 40% longer) but you've got to keep in mind that all of that immobilization is going to eat into damage dealt and increase the time it takes to defeat your targets. However much time it adds to the fight is dependent on the individual attack string and how many foes are present, so it's not going to be as easy to quantify. Of course, we're talking about an extreme outlier case in which a Tanker with a complete defensive hole is forced to fight these targets. Interestingly enough, that's the only time that the "Range as an equivalent defense" argument becomes valid.

[ QUOTE ]
Whoever denies that range can be an effective defense either does not play blasters AND melee ATs regularly, or simply happens to always play in teams.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strangely enough, I do play both varieties of AT (in fact, I regularly play all ATs blue side) both solo and on teams and agree that it's a viable defensive mechanism, but I've found that it doesn't come remotely close to outweighing or even being equivalent to the defensive advantages of having a power set devoted to personal survival. You're assuming they do. They don't. This is why Blasters aren't Tankers.

[ QUOTE ]
Side note: relying on range as a form of defense happens to be endurance free. When 100% of your end can go to damage, you end up killing much more than you can with a scrapper. I admit that was a shocking discovery.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, relying on range as a form of defense is not endurance free. You've either got to rely on mez effects or flight powers, neither of which are free, in order to do so. Thank you for being wrong, and, before you attempt to tell me that the mez effects are incorporated into the cost of attacks and don't have an additional cost associated, you're forgetting that they're going to extend the duration of the combat because you're not using all of your endurance for damage.

[Bill Z Bubba]

You're still completely ignoring that the tank has the mitigation to allow him to slow his attacks down, thus allowing more time for his recovery to do its thing.

If the tank can withstand more damage longer, he can take longer to defeat the enemy and end up with the same amount of endurance after it's all said and done that the scrapper ended up with.

Taking longer to defeat the enemy means he has more time to recover endurance.

And if I only need to exceed 4.58 dam per second, I don't think that's going to be a big deal.

So until you can show me that the tank's increased mitigation and decreased damage somehow do not fairly correlate to the scrapper's increased damage and decreased mitigation, I will unable to accept any change you put forth that will buff tanks.

[Ultimo_]

The need to slow down, however, is a disadvantage not shared by the scrapper. That's a sign of imbalance. This is also why I don't like the argument that Defenders have an advantage in buffing others, and that they pay for that by not having much offense or personal defense. Being able to buff others is not an advantage when solo. Thus, a solo Defennder is more disadvantaged than other classes, and that isn't fair.

The same applies to Tankers relative to Scrappers in this case.

[Umbral]

[ QUOTE ]
The need to slow down, however, is a disadvantage not shared by the scrapper. That's a sign of imbalance. This is also why I don't like the argument that Defenders have an advantage in buffing others, and that they pay for that by not having much offense or personal defense. Being able to buff others is not an advantage when solo. Thus, a solo Defennder is more disadvantaged than other classes, and that isn't fair.

The same applies to Tankers relative to Scrappers in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

The need to slow down is an incorporated benefit of operating in the optimal situation for one's AT/build. There's a reason that Fire/Kin controllers are great at steamrolling through 6 man spawns but slow down significantly when presented with bosses and other hard targets. They're built to plow through large numbers of reasonably soft targets, just like Tankers are designed to get beat in the face and draw aggro from their teammates so that their teammates take as little damage as possible. Dealing damage isn't as critically important to them as the ability to take damage is.

[HelinCarnate]

Close your eyes and get back to having fun instead of trying to fix non existant problems.

[Ultimo_]

This is a discussion forum. If all you have to contribute is "shut up" in not so many words, then you're not contributing anything.

We'd be delighted to hear your actual thoughts on the subject of discussion. If you have none, don't waste everyone's time telling us to shut up. We're enjoying the discussion. If you're not, don't read it. No one if forcing you to.

[Umbral]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a discussion forum. If all you have to contribute is "shut up" in not so many words, then you're not contributing anything.

We'd be delighted to hear your actual thoughts on the subject of discussion. If you have none, don't waste everyone's time telling us to shut up. We're enjoying the discussion. If you're not, don't read it. No one if forcing you to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this quote just a bit hypocritical?

[_Mojo_]

QR.

The arguments for change are pretty funny in the sense that they are neglecting everything but damage and endurance, and even just endurance in an all out attacking scenario.

It's been pointed out but I'll just reiterate:

To starsman:
By your logic and calculations, a blaster has the easiest time taking down any enemy due to their high damage. We all know this isn't the case as incoming damage will kill them depending on the strength of the enemy. You also can't ignore the fact that the Tanker doesn't have to spam his attacks constantly to kill an EB, as Billz pointed out all they have to do is overcome the regeneration rate of the enemy while recovering endurance.

If you don't think survivability takes a factor into time taken to kill an enemy then you've got an argument with too many assumptions to be viable. Comparing X only to Y and disregarding the rest of the alphabet is just silly, and that's why the Devs disregard this kind of debate.

And just to keep typing, since I'm bored:

The scrapper's job is to do good damage while being able to survive on his/her own. A tanker's job is to take the aggro and protect his/her party members while surviving and dishing out some damage. A defender's role is to provide support in the form of buffs, debuffs and ranged damage. A blaster's role is to provide lots and lots of good ol' fashioned ranged and melee damage with little ability to protect themself. The list goes on all the way through CoV AT's as well.

Each AT has a different role to play and executes their roles separately. Saying a defender or tanker should be able to kill as efficiently as the classes designed for this intent is illogical. By that same logic a scrapper and blaster should be able to provide buffs and debuffs as efficiently as defenders, mitigate crowd control as efficiently as tankers, provide mob control as efficiently as controllers, etc.

If you want to call for a buff to defenders and tankers then find another argument other than "They don't kill as efficiently as the damage classes."

[Siolfir]

&lt;QR&gt;

To be slightly less polite about it than others have been - stop ignoring facts to try to pretend there's a problem that doesn't exist.

Closing your eyes, handwaving any facts that disagree (ie, not all ATs have to maintain the exact same DPS to defeat a specific encounter, merely enough to exceed a mob's regeneration) in order to deludedly pursue a totally invalid point (that somehow if you get low on endurance during a fight you can't possibly slow down :eek:) shows that you don't have a clue and should just sit down, shut up, and go back to playing the game, or else prove why everything you're just handwaving off is irrelevant.

I haven't seen anything more convincing than "I want more damage for my endurance without having to slot for it". Guess what? I want purple IOs to rain down on my character's heads. They're both about as likely to happen.

Obvious blind stupidity doesn't prove a point, it shows that you simply don't have one.

[Bill Z Bubba]

[ QUOTE ]
The need to slow down, however, is a disadvantage not shared by the scrapper. That's a sign of imbalance. This is also why I don't like the argument that Defenders have an advantage in buffing others, and that they pay for that by not having much offense or personal defense. Being able to buff others is not an advantage when solo. Thus, a solo Defennder is more disadvantaged than other classes, and that isn't fair.

The same applies to Tankers relative to Scrappers in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

The need to be fast for a scrapper is directly due to its lowered mitigation. If it takes too long, it dies and fails the race.

It's balanced. No change needed.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
You're still completely ignoring that the tank has the mitigation to allow him to slow his attacks down, thus allowing more time for his recovery to do its thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. Foes also regenerate though, I dont necesarely agree but It's a worthwhile test:

The tanker would have to slow down to 63% of his normal killing speed for recovery do do enough for him to kill the same challenge the target can kill. This is equivalent of gutting the tanker damage to .504. The net tanker damage ends up being 42% of the scrapper damage and that's against minnions. Against anyting else it's at 40.7%

That's not noting that even end heavier armor sets (I'm testing with the end lightest armors here) would be forced to slow even more. These sets are not necessarily more survivable.

Despite what others may say: the tanker WAS designed to solo, soloing was just not their main thing. When the game came out tankers and scrappers both were listed as solo ATs, but the tanker was noted to do so slower. Dev hearsay back in the day was that the intention was for the tanker to perform at 75% of the scrapper speed (witch btw, it does not, base tanker damage is at 67.7% of the scrapper damage vs minions, 64.6% vs everything else)

Do you actually agree the Tanker should kill at 40% the scrapper speed?

Edit:
Correction: against anything other than minions the tanker has to actually go down to 60% of the speed to achieve the same, taking the tanker all the way down to 38.7%. not 40%. I forgot to take into account the higher regen rate of non-minions.

For time perspectives: this means the tanker would be forced to take 85.74 seconds to defeat what the scrapper defeats in 32.47 seconds. That's 53.27 extra seconds, almost an extra minute to kill what the scrapper killed in nearly half a minute, not because the tanker lower damage but because his endurance became a bottleneck.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a discussion forum. If all you have to contribute is "shut up" in not so many words, then you're not contributing anything.

We'd be delighted to hear your actual thoughts on the subject of discussion. If you have none, don't waste everyone's time telling us to shut up. We're enjoying the discussion. If you're not, don't read it. No one if forcing you to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this quote just a bit hypocritical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only slightly. "Shut up if all you going to say is Shut Up" may sound hypocritical but is rather valid. It's like "never say never."

[Bill Z Bubba]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you actually agree the Tanker should kill at 40% the scrapper speed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering that a well built tank can herd up to the aggro cap and then go for a smoke while a scrapper doing the same will faceplant?

Sure.

[Starsman]

Herding is only effective if the set has heavy AoE therefore very powerset based. It's a mid to high level phenomena that only certain builds can do. At those levels scrapper survivability is also robust enough to herd, by witch point the scrapper shows an even higher disparity against the tanker.

If you don't have one of the select sets at the proper level ranges you are forced to do loads of St damage and may be better off just going from one foe to the next.

Super Strength is pure ST all the way to 38! 39 if you consider the thing is unslotted until that level.

Now, they could modify all tanker secondaries to be AoE heavy from an early level, thing I also have suggested in the past but would require too much redesign and likely the addition of new powers into the set, something that is very unlikely to happen.

[Umbral]

He's referring to mitigation capability and the lack of risk in solo situations.

[Bill Z Bubba]

It's all moot, man. I understand that you don't feel that tankers' greater mitigation is enough to account for their lower damage.

I understand that you believe tanker damage should be raised because of this.

I disagree.

I don't play tanks because they are too slow on the killing front for me. I'd rather have Just enough mitigation to get keep me standing long enough to take the spawn in question out.

Tank mitigation is high enough that they get to be leisurely as they destroy spawns. It doesn't matter if all I have is whirling hands when I can set it on auto and go drink a beer while the spawn gets slowly pulverized.

If you want tank damage to be higher so that they kill faster, fine, let's do it. But you have to give up an equal amount of mitigation to get it.

[Siolfir]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want tank damage to be higher so that they kill faster, fine, let's do it. But you have to give up an equal amount of mitigation to get it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wait for Going Rogue and just make a Brute (or Corruptor), play it heroside. All issues resolved.

Or if you somehow still have issues with that, then you should campaign for benefits to those ATs.

/thread

[Umbral]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want tank damage to be higher so that they kill faster, fine, let's do it. But you have to give up an equal amount of mitigation to get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I don't believe he's asked for an increase in Tanker damage anywhere. He's asked for a strange and roundabout method to give tankers an extra 40% endurance efficiency to bring the end DPE of their attacks to Scrapper levels.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]

I understand that you believe tanker damage should be raised because of this.


[/ QUOTE ]

I actually don't.

Asking for a damage buff would actually help, but I actually agree with you partially on being able to use our longevity at surviving without counter-intuitive slow downs.

For the record: if the devs were to sustain the "75% scrapper of damage" that has been tossed around, the tanker damage should actually be .9. But again, I personally would just rather ask for the endurance efficiency required to sustain the tanker slower killing speed.

[Fulmens]

I listen to Starsman. I just use a freaking plate of salt because of statements like "In certain situations, range made this blaster more survivable than my tanker, and no, that's no hyperbole. "

In certain situations, melee gets you identical damage to ranged. But we aren't fighting 100% Gunslingers and Rikti Drones from level 1 to 50, are we?

My rough estimate (I remembered the result, forgot the methodology) was that an Inv scrapper at level 35-ish was SIX TIMES HARDER TO KILL than a Blaster, NOT COUNTING THE MEZ PROTECTION.

Back to your "Tankers should use 40% less endurance for their attacks, because... um... it sounds good in my head" discussion.

[Bill Z Bubba]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I understand that you believe tanker damage should be raised because of this.


[/ QUOTE ]

I actually don't.

Asking for a damage buff would actually help, but I actually agree with you partially on being able to use our longevity at surviving without counter-intuitive slow downs.

For the record: if the devs were to sustain the "75% scrapper of damage" that has been tossed around, the tanker damage should actually be .9. But again, I personally would just rather ask for the endurance efficiency required to sustain the tanker slower killing speed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Flip side to that is the fact that scrappers don't have 75% the survivability of tankers, do they?

I hear you, Starsman. I really do. But nothing you've shown me so far has been enough to sway me from the belief that for X amount of endurance, tankers shouldn't be more efficient with toggles just as scrappers shouldn't be more efficient with attacks.

[Starsman]

That's why I note "if the devs sustain", it was tossed about in a time that they themselves didnt understand the game mechanics. The first time they said that they also said scrappers should be 75% as survivable, but ironically that would indeed be broken because making scrappers take only 25% more damage than tankers would allow them to be full tanks.

The same does not hold true with damage, though. Either way, I'm staying away from asking more damage.

[ QUOTE ]
tankers shouldn't be more efficient with toggles just as scrappers shouldn't be more efficient with attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just out of curiosity though, why do scrapper gets stronger -tohit than tankers? RTTC is stronger for scrappers than tankers, for one, as are all -tohit and -damage debuffs (that would be noticed when Ice Armor gets proliferated)

Out of curiosity: how can some one that agrees dominators that can lock down everything do as much damage as they are going to do now be so against a simple endurance boost?

If castle came out tomorrow and said tankers go their damage boosted to .95, would your next post be how broken it is or how you are going to now play a fun tank? I'm seriously curious if you would be upset with him stating such a buff was in.

If one thing that change shows is that the devs don't intend to balance survivability vs damage output anywhere near as low as I propose here.

[Twisted Toon]

NOTE: Consolidated post replies

[ QUOTE ]
The need to slow down, however, is a disadvantage not shared by the scrapper. That's a sign of imbalance. This is also why I don't like the argument that Defenders have an advantage in buffing others, and that they pay for that by not having much offense or personal defense. Being able to buff others is not an advantage when solo. Thus, a solo Defennder is more disadvantaged than other classes, and that isn't fair.

The same applies to Tankers relative to Scrappers in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to inform you since you seem to not know about this little tidbit...

There are 5 ATs Hero side. 4 of those 5 ATs are team oriented ATs. That means that they function more efficiently when they are doing their job rather than everyone elses.

The Defender's job is to buff/debuff. Not to deal or take massive amounts of damage.

The Tankers job is to take massive amount of damage. Not to deal it, or buff/debuff.

The Blaster's job is to deal massive amount of damage. Not take it or buff/debuff.

The Controller's job is crowd control. not to deal or take massive amounts of damage. Although, they can buff/debuff, its not their primary function.

Scrappers were designed to be the solo oriented AT. That means that they were designed to deal and take damage. However, since they do both, they won't do it as well as Blasters and Tanks with their specialties.

You really shouldn't compare apples and meatloaf.

note: I do understand that there are some cases where an AT will perform beyond their roles admirably. That isn't the standard though.

[ QUOTE ]
The tanker would have to slow down to 63% of his normal killing speed for recovery do do enough for him to kill the same challenge the target can kill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slow and steady wins the race?

[ QUOTE ]
Despite what others may say: the tanker WAS designed to solo, soloing was just not their main thing. When the game came out tankers and scrappers both were listed as solo ATs, but the tanker was noted to do so slower.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I understand. ALL the ATs were designed to be played solo all the way to 50. They just don't solo as well as the Scrapper. Also, just because you can play an AT solo, doesn't mean that you can solo everything in the game.

[Bill Z Bubba]

[ QUOTE ]
Just out of curiosity though, why do scrapper gets stronger -tohit than tankers? RTTC is stronger for scrappers than tankers, for one, as are all -tohit and -damage debuffs (that would be noticed when Ice Armor gets proliferated)

[/ QUOTE ]

No idea. Seems broken to me. Tanks should get more benefit from all debuffs while scrappers should get more benefit from all buffs in my mind. Debuff = mitigation, Buff = offense.

[ QUOTE ]
Out of curiosity: how can some one that agrees dominators that can lock down everything do as much damage as they are going to do now be so against a simple endurance boost?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm for is having the damage buff removed from domination and used to buff the base damage of dominators. I do not believe that doms can "lock down everything." Dom controls are their mitigation and I consider it massive hyperbole for someone to state that dom controls are as good as tank mitigation at keeping a player alive.

[ QUOTE ]
If castle came out tomorrow and said tankers go their damage boosted to .95, would your next post be how broken it is or how you are going to now play a fun tank? I'm seriously curious if you would be upset with him stating such a buff was in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would tell Castle to quit mainlining cocaine and then ask where the scrapper mitigation buff was.

[Umbral]

[ QUOTE ]
From what I understand. ALL the ATs were designed to be played solo all the way to 50. They just don't solo as well as the Scrapper. Also, just because you can play an AT solo, doesn't mean that you can solo everything in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of the ATs and all power sets were designed to be playable from 1 to 50. This doesn't mean they'll be particularly good at it or do it particularly fast. Castle and multiple other devs have stated this as one of their basic balancing tenets. Capable of soloing. Not designed for soloing.

And, honestly, the Scrapper's role has changed a bit in the lifetime of the game. Way back when, the Scrapper was designed to be a soloing monster. That's why he got good damage (but less than the Blaster) and good defenses (but less than a Tanker). He didn't contribute as much on a team as either a Tanker or a Blaster, but he was designed not to.

Later on, many of us Scrappers threw a fit because Blasters got to deal their damage with the protection of range (and the lower damage of ranged attacks), better damage and and better AoE potential. There was very little reason to roll Scrapper unless you wanted to solo. This was when we got the very first inherent power: Critical hit. The devs gave Scrappers this to specify their role on groups: Boss killer. It was a slight damage buff over all but was most effective on nice hard targets that individuals needed greater survivability to stand toe-to-toe with.

There have been some other changes (Blaster hp increase to improve their solo capability, Defiance changes to improve ST damage and mez tolerance), which have blended their roles a bit more, but, as it stands, a Blaster and a Scrapper are pretty much on equal functional footing on a team. When you're looking for damage, you're no longer ignoring a Scrapper because a Blaster will contribute substantially more, and Blasters can actually solo reasonably well.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
Slow and steady wins the race?

[/ QUOTE ]

The tanker by default is already moving slowly at 64% the speed, you also want him to stop every few steps to catch a breath on top of moving slow? The final speed is 38% the speed. That's drastically slower and definitively not steady if you have to pause.

[ QUOTE ]
From what I understand. ALL the ATs were designed to be played solo all the way to 50.

[/ QUOTE ]

At first this was not true.

<ul type="square"> Controllers specifically were designed to not be able to solo, they had next to no attacks.

Defenders were meant to be originally horrendously inefficient to solo due to extremely low damage.

Blasters were meant to be dangerous to solo but, with smarts and perhaps the right power set, soloable. The devs actually feared kiting would become the norm and certain critter xp was specifically nerfed due to blaster hunting them exclusively.

Scrappers were the best well rounded soloist, with enough survivability to stand toe to toe with the foe and enough damage to kill fast.

The tanker was meant to last against the same foes as the scrapper but kill them at a slower speed with increased safety. The fact that tanker damage has already been boosted in the past is testament to damage being one of the tanker's main roles even if it's not their dedicated team role.[/list]

After design intention, though, the devs found the greatest virtue of the game was soloability and decided everyone should be able to solo at comparable speeds, although certain ATs should have advantages the advantages should not be extreme. I dare bet the devs don't expect scrappers to have a +160% advantage over tankers. My endurance bottleneck suggestion still gives scrapper +56.5% advantage, due to pure superior damage.

The fact that endurance cost does not change with damage modifiers, if I recall correctly, was an artifact that was not designed upon, it was something that actually happened on it's own. Arcanaville posted her full load of evidence on the matter a while back on a thread on the same topic at the tanker forums.

[_Mojo_]

You can write as much as you want but your argument still sucks because you still ignore everything else.

Damage efficiency is the only thing in your eyes right now, mitigation and other benefits mean nothing to you.

[Smurch]

[ QUOTE ]
Lethal Damage = fail at higher levels, especially redside. My claws stalker sort of tapered off into uselessness in the 20s against Longbow.

[/ QUOTE ]

My claw/regen stalker is level 47 and can hunt AVs solo.

Not agreeing with the OP that it's the most powerful set, but it's far from useless at high levels.

[Ultimo_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a discussion forum. If all you have to contribute is "shut up" in not so many words, then you're not contributing anything.

We'd be delighted to hear your actual thoughts on the subject of discussion. If you have none, don't waste everyone's time telling us to shut up. We're enjoying the discussion. If you're not, don't read it. No one if forcing you to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this quote just a bit hypocritical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only slightly. "Shut up if all you going to say is Shut Up" may sound hypocritical but is rather valid. It's like "never say never."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just trying to keep the thread from devolving into unproductive attacks and demands that we stop discussing the topic. I would simply like everyone to contribute productively, as most have. Telling us to stop discussing it isn't productive.

By all means, disagree with the ideas, but tell us why you disagree (or agree). Make suggestions of your own. Present ideas. That would be productive, and very much welcome.

As I said, I'm delighted to hear what people think.


(btw, calling people names does nothing to make your position stronger, so do try to restrain the namecalling. I'm not "greedy" or "stupid" for example.)

[Aura_Familia]

[ QUOTE ]


I would tell Castle to quit mainlining cocaine and then ask where the scrapper mitigation buff was.

[/ QUOTE ]

Werd.

anyone who thinks that this would happen in any reality (with tanks getting such high a buff while NOT giving up ANYTHING), has

a) never seen Castle post
b) needs to stop mainlining the cocaine themselves.

[_Laxx_]

I'm sorry, Ultimo, but I think "close your eyes and start having fun instead of trying to fix nonexistent problems" is a valid point of argument. There isn't anything wrong, but you're insisting on seeing something that isn't there so you can get a buff that you don't need. Rather, it's a buff you want, and you're trying to reason why this "want" is actually a "need".

He didn't tell you to stop discussing it. He merely stated that there is no problem and, therefor, there is no fix required. It was probably also written in the way it was because of your usual threads and your tendency to ignore basic facts about the game. That is, it was made short and to the point because, frankly, trying to argue anything with you is almost always an exercise in futility. What I mean here is, you assume that the way you play the game, and what you think the game should be, is how everyone plays the game or how the game should be and... most of the time, the things you notice are faults in your character design/playstyle and have nothing to do with the game at large.

In short, I'm agreeing with him: there is no problem to fix, so go back to playing the game.

[Ultimo_]

What I'm after isn't necessarily a buff, it's a more level playing field. That might even mean a NERF, though I honestly think that would only compound the problems with endurance.

The problem I see is that endurance is not an issue for some characters and is positively gamebreaking for others. I was just hoping to find a way to alleviate the problem in a balanced fashion.

[Bill Z Bubba]

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm after isn't necessarily a buff, it's a more level playing field. That might even mean a NERF, though I honestly think that would only compound the problems with endurance.

The problem I see is that endurance is not an issue for some characters and is positively gamebreaking for others. I was just hoping to find a way to alleviate the problem in a balanced fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this were the case, you wouldn't be comparing scrappers and tanks. Or brutes and tanks.

You'd be comparing powersets with endurance management tools and those without.

An invul/stone tank is going to run dry far more often than a willpower/dark tank, won't he?

Chasing after this concept of "damage should equate to end expenditure" won't get you anywhere. Not in this game.

[HelinCarnate]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, Ultimo, but I think "close your eyes and start having fun instead of trying to fix nonexistent problems" is a valid point of argument. There isn't anything wrong, but you're insisting on seeing something that isn't there so you can get a buff that you don't need. Rather, it's a buff you want, and you're trying to reason why this "want" is actually a "need".

He didn't tell you to stop discussing it. He merely stated that there is no problem and, therefor, there is no fix required. It was probably also written in the way it was because of your usual threads and your tendency to ignore basic facts about the game. That is, it was made short and to the point because, frankly, trying to argue anything with you is almost always an exercise in futility. What I mean here is, you assume that the way you play the game, and what you think the game should be, is how everyone plays the game or how the game should be and... most of the time, the things you notice are faults in your character design/playstyle and have nothing to do with the game at large.

In short, I'm agreeing with him: there is no problem to fix, so go back to playing the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

What he said.

[Ultimo_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I'm after isn't necessarily a buff, it's a more level playing field. That might even mean a NERF, though I honestly think that would only compound the problems with endurance.

The problem I see is that endurance is not an issue for some characters and is positively gamebreaking for others. I was just hoping to find a way to alleviate the problem in a balanced fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this were the case, you wouldn't be comparing scrappers and tanks. Or brutes and tanks.

You'd be comparing powersets with endurance management tools and those without.

An invul/stone tank is going to run dry far more often than a willpower/dark tank, won't he?

Chasing after this concept of "damage should equate to end expenditure" won't get you anywhere. Not in this game.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I mean is that if endurance use was relative to power effect (damage was the easiest to discuss), then there would be balance. That would mean that people would use endurance relative to the amount of damage an attack caused. The endurance used by toggles would be relative to the amount of defense it provides.

I don't see how this could unbalance anything. It's not going to add power to anyone, it's just going to ensure that no one pays more for less.

That said, I don't expect a change. The whole discussion is likely just for the sake of discussion alone. On the other hand, you never know. The Devs read these pages, maybe they'll see an idea or an analysis here that they didn't think of, or that sparks an idea that will be good for the game.

Sharing ideas, good and bad, is never a bad thing.

[Bill Z Bubba]

I agree that discussion is good.
I agree that the devs will not run with this idea.

They want blasters to be more efficient at damage dealing than the defender.
They want tanks to be more efficient at taking damage.
They want scrappers to be more efficient at dishing it out.

Why else would defenders get an endurance buff when their team is dying?

[Twisted Toon]

[ QUOTE ]
Controllers specifically were designed to not be able to solo very fast, they had next to no attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed that statement for you. I solo'd a Controller in Issue 1. Did so quite well.

As I stated before, The Tank, Defender, Controller, and Blaster were designed to be team players. All the ATs were designed to be played, solo, from 1 to 50. They were not designed to take on the same things with equal ease or speed.

[Umbral]

[ QUOTE ]
What I mean is that if endurance use was relative to power effect (damage was the easiest to discuss), then there would be balance. That would mean that people would use endurance relative to the amount of damage an attack caused. The endurance used by toggles would be relative to the amount of defense it provides.

I don't see how this could unbalance anything. It's not going to add power to anyone, it's just going to ensure that no one pays more for less.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interestingly enough, this is the way it already is when you look at it within the same AT. A Tanker pays as much for his damage as any other Tanker does. A Scrapper (except for a claws Scrapper because that's their shtick!) will pay as much for his damage as any other Scrapper does. It not exact, but it's close enough (cuz Arcanatime screws with everything!).

Your (and Starsman's) problem is that you want every point to cost the same over all ATs. I (and most of the people that agree with me) don't really see that as a valid point. There isn't a definite game balance reason that has yet been posed as to why a change like this should occur just so that Tankers (and Defenders feasibly) will be capable of attacking without a break for longer than any other AT just because they do less damage and are, by game design, less endurance efficient at it.

[Ultimo_]

Well, I've had another experience tonight that may illustrate why I have a problem with this.

I made a mission on the MA (it's the first of what will be an arc). This mission pits the character against Mooks. They're a group that falls below L20. The mission objective is to defeat a boss. All aspects of the mission are set to minimum difficulty. The character is playing on Heroic.

It took my Defender (FF/EB) 3 and a half hours to do this mission. It took my Scrapper (Claws/Regen) 15 minutes.

The reason? The typical spawn was three minions (all yellow - for some reason the MA insists on never using white conn foes). The Defender would go in, constantly blast one with Force Bolt to keep him from attacking, then power bolt one of the others while soaking up the attacks of the third. The only toggle running was Hover. I could have run Dispersion Field, but I would run out of endurance in 3 or four attacks.

Using this strategy, I was out of endurance and health by the time I defeated that one foe.

I would then retreat and Rest. Once back to full health and endurance, I would reengage with the same strategy. Defeating one foe used all my endurance, after which I would turn on PFF and wait to get enough back to fight some more (since rest was still recycling).

Typically, I would have time to go do something else for several minutes. I would have much rather been playing the game, but I don't find sitting doing nothing much fun. The Devs seem to disagree. We're SUPPOSED to have to stop and do nothing for several minutes at a time. If their mantra is to say "is it FUN," then I can only conclude they think standing doing nothing is fun.

My Scrapper, on the other hand, blitzed through the whole mission in the time it took the Defender to deal with one spawn. The reasons were that the Scrapper never had to stop. He did stop once because he'd taken enough damage to warrant a Rest. The Defender was stopping every half a spawn.

The reason is that the Defender was faced with defeating the same foes as the Scrapper. That means he has to do the same amount of damage to complete the mission as the Scrapper. The trouble is that, because he does so little damage for the same endurance cost, he lacks the ability to DO that much damage before he's out of endurance. If his attacks used porportionately less endurance, this would not be the case.

Now, I'll concede that Claws may not be the best set to compare to, if its thing is reduced endurance, but it points out the disparity. Claws is more fun because you don't have to stop playing repeatedly. We should be able to say much the same for any set. Put another way, it's not fun to have to stop all the time, and there shouldn't be any set that's not fun.

I'll also point out that this is only one example of this; I've experienced the same thing on many other characters. However, it seems to be my Tankers and Defenders that suffer from this more than anyone else. Oddly, my Controller has almost no endurance trouble, though he takes FOREVER to complete missions.

[Umbral]

First off, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you just suck. I've soloed plenty on my Defender and never had anywhere near the problems you've had. You should really consider the fact that you're a bad player running with bad slotting rather than some inherent flaw in the game.

Secondly, you're once again comparing the AT that is the worst at soloing with the AT that is the best at soloing. Trying finding something a little less obviously imbalanced for next time.

[_Laxx_]

[ QUOTE ]
First off, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you just suck. I've soloed plenty on my Defender and never had anywhere near the problems you've had. You should really consider the fact that you're a bad player running with bad slotting rather than some inherent flaw in the game.

Secondly, you're once again comparing the AT that is the worst at soloing with the AT that is the best at soloing. Trying finding something a little less obviously imbalanced for next time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, Umbral, that's the crux of all of his complaints to date. He doesn't want to entertain the idea that he might just be bad, or could even be mistaken on what he sees, but would rather lay blame at the game. In effect, he wants the game to change to his style of play, which is pretty reminiscent of another poster who shall remain nameless at this time.

Also, another unfortunate thing here is that he's going to use your "Defenders aren't as good at soloing as a Scrapper is" against you because that's precisely what he wants to change. He's just going about it the wrong way and ignoring a multitude of other facts that were already pointed out earlier.

Frankly, I've come to the conclusion that he just runs up to mobs and tries to spam attacks until something dies. That could explain how he doesn't appear to have a problem with Scrappers, yet every other AT he touches is somehow riddled with "design flaws".

[Catwhoorg]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I've had another experience tonight that may illustrate why I have a problem with this.

I made a mission on the MA (it's the first of what will be an arc). This mission pits the character against Mooks. They're a group that falls below L20. The mission objective is to defeat a boss. All aspects of the mission are set to minimum difficulty. The character is playing on Heroic.

It took my Defender (FF/EB) 3 and a half hours to do this mission. It took my Scrapper (Claws/Regen) 15 minutes.


[/ QUOTE ]

Arc ID ?

I'll take a defender through it, and I doubt it would be more than 30 mins.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Controllers specifically were designed to not be able to solo very SLOOOOOW, they had next to no attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed that statement for you. I solo'd a Controller in Issue 1. Did so quite well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once he got his pets and loaded up in hasten to summon herds of pets, which was not intended and eventually nerfed. That was, though, one of the points where the devs decided no AT should really be that slow at soloing and doubled the damage the AT did from level 1 thanks to containment while nerfing the pets they found overpowered.

The full intention to this was to make the Controller a solo AT, not just a team one. It was from that patch that the Controller was considered redesigned to solo.

[_Laxx_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I've had another experience tonight that may illustrate why I have a problem with this.

I made a mission on the MA (it's the first of what will be an arc). This mission pits the character against Mooks. They're a group that falls below L20. The mission objective is to defeat a boss. All aspects of the mission are set to minimum difficulty. The character is playing on Heroic.

It took my Defender (FF/EB) 3 and a half hours to do this mission. It took my Scrapper (Claws/Regen) 15 minutes.


[/ QUOTE ]

Arc ID ?

I'll take a defender through it, and I doubt it would be more than 30 mins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reading through his post again, I've discovered that he's fighting level 20 enemies with just Power Bolt, the weakest attack in the Energy Blast set. Unenhanced, that's around 36 points of damage every 4 seconds for 5 endurance spent. He's spending another 5 endurance every 4 seconds on Force Bolt, again unenhanced.

If this is a character who's only offensive options are Force Bolt and Power Bolt, then we're either dealing with a team-oriented FF/EB Defender (so much so that it forgoes ANY additional offensive output from either FF or EB, akin to the Empath that only takes heal powers and the forced first attack), or it's a character that's below 20 and is being auto-sk'd to the arc, which has a similar effect. So not only is he comparing a Defender to a Scrapper, but he's taking a specific Defender who clearly isn't built to solo.. and comparing it to the best solo AT in the game.

If this Defender isn't 20, please let us know what level it fought the Mooks at, though if your strategy was Force Bolt one, Power Bolt the other, and pray the third didn't wipe you out... it probably won't matter what level you were at, to be honest. This is a terrible strategy to use when all you have a single attack. You sound like you just stood in one spot and didn't try to play games with the guys who could take you out, messing with their AI. Even then, if you're below level 20, they would have scaled down to you and you should have been fine regardless.

You see, Ultimo, this is why nearly everyone is suspect of your "fixes" and "realizations" and your "eye openings". You draw conclusions from faulty evidence.

[Bill Z Bubba]

[ QUOTE ]
It took my Defender (FF/EB) 3 and a half hours to do this mission.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your defender is poorly built.

[Starsman]

I'm afraid I have to agree that the endurance management on Ultimo's character was just bad. Force bolt does .2 damage and uses 5.2 end, it's a waste of 80% endurance. Given this accounted for half his chain it was burning endurance 66% faster than it should. I'm not saying he may not had been forced to this defensive oriented tactics to survive (nor am I saying he was required) but the endurance budget was mostly used for self preservation than for offensive.

His end issues, though had NOTHING to do with the use of Power Bolt, although the power is bad DPS, bad DPS does nothing for your endurance efficiency, as a matter of fact, bad dps chains actually are the equivalent of slowing down, as proposed earlier by BillZ, witch still makes you kill slower than your damage modifier dictates, but gives you slightly more time to recover endurance. I don't think at this level with limited attack selection that makes much difference, thought. At such a level Power Bolt may even be the best attack to use, when no full attack chain is available it's better to relly on attacks that offer better damage over time than ones that offer better damage per second as their quick recharge makes them net in faster killing, but again, only if you don't have a full attack chain.

Whether the Power Bolt itself is too expensive for what it does is an entirely different topic, though. Although it relates to end issues it's not exactly specific to the AT and much more specific to the power.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It took my Defender (FF/EB) 3 and a half hours to do this mission.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your defender is poorly built.

[/ QUOTE ]

You read minds? Not to be offensive but we know his defender was played way too defensively, we don't know if he had more attacks but choose these to play it safe. Based on the last time I played my defender (way too long ago) i would say such tactic was overkill against minions but would had been required against bosses (certain bosses even if they went down to lt as I had big issues with certain power selection more than the rank damage itself.)

[Bill Z Bubba]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It took my Defender (FF/EB) 3 and a half hours to do this mission.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your defender is poorly built.

[/ QUOTE ]

You read minds? Not to be offensive but we know his defender was played way too defensively, we don't know if he had more attacks but choose these to play it safe. Based on the last time I played my defender (way too long ago) i would say such tactic was overkill against minions but would had been required against bosses (certain bosses even if they went down to lt as I had big issues with certain power selection more than the rank damage itself.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Starsman, the fact that you're even attempting to defend a build/player that states it took him over 3 hours to get through a mission on heroic with ANYTHING makes me sad.

If he had stated it was a custom mission with nothing but thugs/pain mastermind EBs, then I could show some tolerance. But mooks? On heroic?

For a player that's been around long enough to have sands of mu and the wand or staff?

There's so much BS in that statement that he's going to need a landmover the size of a small stadium to dig himself out of it.

[_Laxx_]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid I have to agree that the endurance management on Ultimo's character was just bad. Force bolt does .2 damage and uses 5.2 end, it's a waste of 80% endurance. Given this accounted for half his chain it was burning endurance 66% faster than it should. I'm not saying he may not had been forced to this defensive oriented tactics to survive (nor am I saying he was required) but the endurance budget was mostly used for self preservation than for offensive.

His end issues, though had NOTHING to do with the use of Power Bolt, although the power is bad DPS, bad DPS does nothing for your endurance efficiency, as a matter of fact, bad dps chains actually are the equivalent of slowing down, as proposed earlier by BillZ, witch still makes you kill slower than your damage modifier dictates, but gives you slightly more time to recover endurance. I don't think at this level with limited attack selection that makes much difference, thought. At such a level Power Bolt may even be the best attack to use, when no full attack chain is available it's better to relly on attacks that offer better damage over time than ones that offer better damage per second as their quick recharge makes them net in faster killing, but again, only if you don't have a full attack chain.

Whether the Power Bolt itself is too expensive for what it does is an entirely different topic, though. Although it relates to end issues it's not exactly specific to the AT and much more specific to the power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except I could have done the very same thing he did, and beat the mission only half as quickly as his Scrapper did (around 30-35 minutes). While he only spent time spamming Force Bolt and Power Bolt, this is exactly how newbies to the game have to kill things with a brand-new FF/EB Defender, and yet, I don't see them complaining about taking 3 hours to beat a heroic mission that's below level 20. My post was more to point out Ultimo's flawed methods of data collection and reasoning than to bring up Power Bolt's DPS.

Specifically, it's taking what is clearly a 100% team build and forcing it to solo. It will all hinge on his combat level at this point, in my opinion. Below around level 7 or 8, having only a single attack can work. Beyond that, if all your other support powers are ally-only, or don't do much to keep you up/kill enemies faster, that single attack will start to become useless for soloing purposes and you'll have to pick up at least one other attack.

For reference, my Dark/Dark Defender, at level 22, solos heroic in Faultline with just using Dark Blast, Gloom, and Twilight Grasp. I save Darkest Night and Tar Patch for bosses (which I don't see on heroic), and EB/AVs, which I ran into plenty of in Faultline. I soloed these EBs without too much effort. Recently grabbing TT on her build has only sped up her endurance usage, presently, but I still mostly use it only against EBs for additional damage when in a pinch (or to immob Sands' drones to keep them around a corner).

Ultimo just doesn't play the game very well and he wants the game to change so he can continue to play it badly, except he wants his bad play to suddenly become good play. I do not support this.

[NeoSporin]

[ QUOTE ]
The need to slow down, however, is a disadvantage not shared by the scrapper. That's a sign of imbalance. This is also why I don't like the argument that Defenders have an advantage in buffing others, and that they pay for that by not having much offense or personal defense. Being able to buff others is not an advantage when solo. Thus, a solo Defennder is more disadvantaged than other classes, and that isn't fair.

The same applies to Tankers relative to Scrappers in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I recall correctly, during the installation of the game from the CDs, the various splash/info screens that pop up include a little stub of info on each class. I'm certain that in those stubs, the one about the scrapper actually says the scrapper is the easiest to solo.
That being said, the game was not developed so each AT are as perfectly capable as the other. The original design was to build ATs that were team synergenic. The idea of how soloable each AT took a lower priority then how well do the ATs function together.

It was not a point on the Devs part to make each AT soloable. The point was to promote teaming. That doesn't mean by design there are some ATs that cannot solo. All ATs can be soloed, but some are more challenging and require far greater patience and attention to detail then others.

I have 4 Level 50 tanks. Fire/Fire, SS/Invul, SS/Willpower, and Fire/Ice, I can't say that Endurance is a major issue with any of them except for the Fire/Fire. (Currently they are using either all SOs or all Common IOs, no IO set bonuses).

When looking at taking down a specific number of foes, each AT, by themselves, will take a different amount of time to do it. Scrappers should be able to do it faster then tanks. They simply are not meant to be equal, or equivalent. By design it is feasible that a tank could encounter a foe that they they can fight to a standstill but lack a point or two of damage to defeat. The same foe under the same circumstance could feasibly be defeated by a scrapper. This is by design. (Although, the design was conceived and implemented by humans, and therefor cannot be perfect)

[Schismatrix]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It took my Defender (FF/EB) 3 and a half hours to do this mission.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your defender is poorly built.

[/ QUOTE ]

You read minds? Not to be offensive but we know his defender was played way too defensively, we don't know if he had more attacks but choose these to play it safe. Based on the last time I played my defender (way too long ago) i would say such tactic was overkill against minions but would had been required against bosses (certain bosses even if they went down to lt as I had big issues with certain power selection more than the rank damage itself.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Starsman, the fact that you're even attempting to defend a build/player that states it took him over 3 hours to get through a mission on heroic with ANYTHING makes me sad.

If he had stated it was a custom mission with nothing but thugs/pain mastermind EBs, then I could show some tolerance. But mooks? On heroic?

For a player that's been around long enough to have sands of mu and the wand or staff?

There's so much BS in that statement that he's going to need a landmover the size of a small stadium to dig himself out of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

/Ultimo_ It's the new jranger.

Seriously though, i don't know how anyone could take 3 hours to solo a mission at level 20 with a Defender other than exemplaring while playing a Defender who is a pure &lt;something&gt;. (H34lz0r, buffer, debuffer, sock puppet.) i have never played a Defender who solos that slowly with any set. i'd be willing to bet that even without vet attacks my FF/Rad could solo it in less than 30 minutes unless the mobs were set to extreme or something. Hell, i'd be willing to take a crack at it with my FF/Archery once i get to 20. i've never been a fan of Energy Blast for whatever reason, so FF/Energy is out.

[i]Edit: D'oh. Mooks, so not custom mobs and no extreme setting. Custom mobs tend to be tougher than regular mobs anyway. Yeah, bring on the mooks; none of my Defenders would spend the fight in Molasses Swamp.

[Talen Lee]

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm after isn't necessarily a buff, it's a more level playing field.

[/ QUOTE ]You don't consider that the advantages different types of characters have is actually part of what makes the playing field equal, do you?

As far as Stars/Billz' discussion goes, it seems really weird that there's this discussion about tanker survivability, as if tanker survivability isn't designed to be overkill for solo play.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
Starsman, the fact that you're even attempting to defend a build/player that states it took him over 3 hours to get through a mission on heroic with ANYTHING makes me sad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not defending him. I'm trying to accuse him of the right crime. We know nothing of his build so far, so we can't judge his build.

We know his tactic, though. And I agree that it was the wrong tactic to follow for the given threat and desired defeat rate.

Perhaps I went too verbose going into the details making you miss my point: in summary I said he used too much endurance heavy control against low threat foes.

[ QUOTE ]
For a player that's been around long enough to have sands of mu and the wand or staff?

[/ QUOTE ]

IF he was aiming to compare ATs the use of those powers would be a huge foul that would compromise everything. I don't know if that's why he didnt use the powers though. He may be magic origin using the wand. Since his mind was set on self preservation mode opted to use powers with knockback, entirely discarding the use of the wand. Never mind that killing would had been a more effective option even for survival (due to faster kills) he assumed (admitedly wrong assumption) that knock back would do a better job at keeping him healthy.

[ QUOTE ]
There's so much BS in that statement that he's going to need a landmover the size of a small stadium to dig himself out of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would use different words but yes, he dig himself a big hole there. Unfortunately, as soon as a rabid dog sees a wounded prey they decide to jump him like... rabid dogs and shred him apart. I rather point at him and tell him what he did wrong so next time he runs the same path he does not fall in the same hole and perhaps come out with more accurate comparisons.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
Except I could have done the very same thing he did, and beat the mission only half as quickly as his Scrapper did (around 30-35 minutes).

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah the time is one point I did not even bother going into because the tactic itself was so flawed that I figured it was entirely irrelevant.

I have no in game experience with FF or Energy Blast (in any set, few attacks in my lowbie dom though) So I can't say by experience how long that would take. I have not taken the time to crunch numbers either. So I can't comment on the time other than what I stated in my first sentence: the tactic was so flawed it became irrelevant to a discussion of endurance efficiency.

[ QUOTE ]
Ultimo just doesn't play the game very well and he wants the game to change so he can continue to play it badly, except he wants his bad play to suddenly become good play. I do not support this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't talk for him but I do think the endurance disparity exists and is a subtle issue that is hard to notice but subliminally strong to the point where some things will feel more fun than other without obvious conscious reasoning. I didn't always used to think about this until I started looking into the possibility that the people mentioning it may be right. Knowing that Arcanaville actually thinks there is merit to the issue reassures me I'm not crazy.

[Bill Z Bubba]

[ QUOTE ]
IF he was aiming to compare ATs the use of those powers would be a huge foul that would compromise everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you're the mind reader now? You know he's not using them on his scrapper?

Ultimo has a long history, and he's not alone here, of leaving out or flatly ignoring information if it suits his cause to do so.

[_Laxx_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Except I could have done the very same thing he did, and beat the mission only half as quickly as his Scrapper did (around 30-35 minutes).

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah the time is one point I did not even bother going into because the tactic itself was so flawed that I figured it was entirely irrelevant.

I have no in game experience with FF or Energy Blast (in any set, few attacks in my lowbie dom though) So I can't say by experience how long that would take. I have not taken the time to crunch numbers either. So I can't comment on the time other than what I stated in my first sentence: the tactic was so flawed it became irrelevant to a discussion of endurance efficiency.

[ QUOTE ]
Ultimo just doesn't play the game very well and he wants the game to change so he can continue to play it badly, except he wants his bad play to suddenly become good play. I do not support this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't talk for him but I do think the endurance disparity exists and is a subtle issue that is hard to notice but subliminally strong to the point where some things will feel more fun than other without obvious conscious reasoning. I didn't always used to think about this until I started looking into the possibility that the people mentioning it may be right. Knowing that Arcanaville actually thinks there is merit to the issue reassures me I'm not crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I mentioned the time difference is because that's what he's going to use to show his Defender is broken. To him, his tactics are sound and should be "good enough", so all arguments that tell him otherwise get brushed off. All he sees is that it took him 3 hours to beat a mission that takes normal people 30 minutes, and suddenly the game isn't balanced properly.

Incidentally, I also mentioned how flawed the tactic was, because I prefer to cover all my bases when in a debate.

I don't think there's an "endurance efficiency" problem, or if there is, it's not significant enough to warrant change. Defenders and Blasters pay the same for their blasts, but Blasters spend more of that energy on the damage part and Defenders spend more of it on the secondary effect part. Or, in the case of some sets, some Defenders are just not as good at channeling their energy into damaging attacks as a Blaster (for those attacks that do less damage without a secondary effect).

The only reason this comes up at all is because the only way to advance your character is to defeat enemies, and to defeat enemies you have to deal damage to them. Damage comparisons are not avoidable, but comparing classes that have a focus on damage to classes that focus on self preservation through defenses instead isn't going to help much, especially in a game that emphasizes team play.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IF he was aiming to compare ATs the use of those powers would be a huge foul that would compromise everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you're the mind reader now? You know he's not using them on his scrapper?

[/ QUOTE ]


I also think I noted another option about simply IF he wanted to play defensively. I just state IFs, all though, do question the final tactics used.

Let me put it in even shorter words as my pervious one again seem to have been too verbose:

He used the wrong powers for the situation. Test is inaccurate and irrelevant.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I mentioned the time difference is because that's what he's going to use to show his Defender is broken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not implying the time should not be questioned, just that even if it was reanalyzed and adjusted it still would be irrelevant to an efficiency discussion. Even if he said 4 hours or 30 minutes, the amount of time was not meaningful and tossed out of the court room.

While judging one should not even taint his future opinions by looking at invalid evidence. That's why I personally avoided it in my post.

[_Laxx_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reason I mentioned the time difference is because that's what he's going to use to show his Defender is broken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not implying the time should not be questioned, just that even if it was reanalyzed and adjusted it still would be irrelevant to an efficiency discussion. Even if he said 4 hours or 30 minutes, the amount of time was not meaningful and tossed out of the court room.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not listening. This is Ultimo's thread and the time difference is the proof he's going to site whether we like it or not. This is how the man thinks, based on past experiences. It doesn't matter to the rest of the class if we're all on the right page regarding the matter -- he's not going to see it that way.

I also want to point out that a class designed to kill things quickly beating a mission twice as fast as a class designed to help other people achieve power through buffs/debuffs doesn't sound like a problem to me.

My previous post already touched on the "issue" of endurance efficiency, so I won't repost that here.

[Bill Z Bubba]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IF he was aiming to compare ATs the use of those powers would be a huge foul that would compromise everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you're the mind reader now? You know he's not using them on his scrapper?

[/ QUOTE ]


I also think I noted another option about simply IF he wanted to play defensively. I just state IFs, all though, do question the final tactics used.

Let me put it in even shorter words as my pervious one again seem to have been too verbose:

He used the wrong powers for the situation. Test is inaccurate and irrelevant.


[/ QUOTE ]

Translation: His build sucks.

Stop wasting my time.

[Starsman]

[ QUOTE ]
Translation: His build sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know I'm arguing semantics (for some) here, as some[one] may call it: minutia, but :

His playstyle sucked.

[ QUOTE ]
Stop wasting my time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't put a gun to your head to reply. If it's a waste of time, it's you wasting it yourself. :eek:

[Twisted Toon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Controllers specifically were designed to not be able to solo very SLOOOOOW, they had next to no attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed that statement for you. I solo'd a Controller in Issue 1. Did so quite well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once he got his pets and loaded up in hasten to summon herds of pets, which was not intended and eventually nerfed. That was, though, one of the points where the devs decided no AT should really be that slow at soloing and doubled the damage the AT did from level 1 thanks to containment while nerfing the pets they found overpowered.

The full intention to this was to make the Controller a solo AT, not just a team one. It was from that patch that the Controller was considered redesigned to solo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me quote something said earlier in this thread...

[ QUOTE ]
You read minds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh right, that was you wasn't it?

My Controller was not built to summon hoards of pets. He also made level 35 before Containment. Most controllers don't get pets until they're level 32. The Illusion Controller gets Pseudo-pets at level...18, I believe. But, its recharge is very long compared to the duration of the Phantom Army. So, they can't be relied upon for every battle. Unless, of course, you wait 3 minutes after each one. I'm not that patient.

The Controller was never meant to play solo at the same speed as a Scrapper. The fact that a Fire/Kin can is a fluke of the synergy of 2 sets. But then, the Fire/Kin does have its problems just like any other Power-sets/AT.

[Starsman]

I read dev posts. I also read the manual and strategy guide that came with the game that noted how Controllers were "the only team centric" AT.

You know, those books they publish to told us what they intended so we didn't had to read their minds?

I think I never said the Controller was buffed to solo as a scrapper though. I said it got it's damage doubled so it was able to solo reliably without being forced to rely on the pets (that they clearly stated were never intended to begin with.)

[Ultimo_]

My build is L12. There's not much I can do with it at that point. The Scrapper is ALSO L12.

It's the typical argument. I describe a situation and am attacked as being a bad player. That's not an argument, that's simply dismissive and says nothing.

The Minions were doing around 20 damage each. If I entered melee range, that jumped to 40 each. With 235 health (or so), facing three such minions, I would not have lasted very long had I not sought to take one out of the fight. Not having damage output, I had to find a defense. I used the Force Bolt juggle. It may not have been the most endurance efficient, but it's the only defense I had. Power Bolt is the only attack I have, other than melee powers (Air Superiority, Sands of Mu).

The point was that using two powers, and only two powers, completely drained my character's endurance in the time it took to defeat one foe, and a minion at that. Had I been playing a Blaster, Scrapper, Controller, or even a Tanker, I wouldn't have had that problem. The Tanker would have been borderline.

I never said the character should solo as fast as a Scrapper. I said the endurance used to achieve the same ends should be comparable. I can't imagine why that notion generates such resistance.

[_Laxx_]

[ QUOTE ]
My build is L12. There's not much I can do with it at that point. The Scrapper is ALSO L12.

It's the typical argument. I describe a situation and am attacked as being a bad player. That's not an argument, that's simply dismissive and says nothing.

The Minions were doing around 20 damage each. If I entered melee range, that jumped to 40 each. With 235 health (or so), facing three such minions, I would not have lasted very long had I not sought to take one out of the fight. Not having damage output, I had to find a defense. I used the Force Bolt juggle. It may not have been the most endurance efficient, but it's the only defense I had. Power Bolt is the only attack I have, other than melee powers (Air Superiority, Sands of Mu).

The point was that using two powers, and only two powers, completely drained my character's endurance in the time it took to defeat one foe, and a minion at that. Had I been playing a Blaster, Scrapper, Controller, or even a Tanker, I wouldn't have had that problem. The Tanker would have been borderline.

I never said the character should solo as fast as a Scrapper. I said the endurance used to achieve the same ends should be comparable. I can't imagine why that notion generates such resistance.

[/ QUOTE ]

And there it is. It's not a "bad argument" because it's so frequently applicable to your studies, Ultimo. You just plain don't play very smart and your tests always skew your results in your favor.

For fun, I pulled up a FF/Energy Defender of my own to look at it's build at level 12. I will admit that I built it to take advantage of KB rather than use defensive shielding (it was a concept I later abandoned, mostly due to wanting to try something else with sets I hadn't played much instead) so it has three attacks by level 12. Taking out ET in place of a standard FF shield, and maybe taking Detention Field out and opting for Dispersion Bubble, I still have two attacks to kill spawns... and that's plenty for a Defender at that level. When soloing her, I also jumped around a lot to confuse the AI -- something you never seem to do, or report doing, which just leads me to think that you don't think when you're playing.

In short, I'm attacking your strategies because they're the basis for your arguments. If your strategies are faulty, then your arguments crumble by default because they have nothing to stand on. Honestly, this is my preferred method of debate and I really wish it wasn't so easy to employ on you. You really do have some interesting ideas at times, but you insist on basing them on problems that don't exist and it ends up getting in the way of your idea.

Also, the two powers you chose to use were the weakest Defender attack, and an attack that does basically no damage that costs the same as your weakest damage power. This is not a valid test. Run the test again with Power Bolt and Power Blast and see how that goes. Just remember that you're a defender -- you're not built to absorb hits like a Scrapper and have to take certain actions a Scrapper doesn't to avoid as much damage as possible.

As to your last point, if you weren't trying to say that your Defender should be able to be comparable to a Scrapper, then why bother telling us how long it took you to flail about as one? That's just pointless data that only serves to back up the claims of your inability to play intelligently, which hurts your argument foundations.

[Jade_Dragon]

[ QUOTE ]
I used the Force Bolt juggle. It may not have been the most endurance efficient, but it's the only defense I had. Power Bolt is the only attack I have, other than melee powers (Air Superiority, Sands of Mu).

[/ QUOTE ]

At level 12, you should not have needed Force Bolt to provide defense. You haven't reached the 0.65 damage modifier yet, and you have more hit points relative to your foe than at level 20. You're no Blaster at that level, but you should have been able to deal enough damage to finish the fight. You did not, because you don't have enough attacks.

My main Defender is FF/Rad, so I've gone through that sort of mission with LESS damage per shot than you have. I'll grant you it's slow, I've been saying FF needs a damage boost since release. But if Power Bolt is all you've got, that's because you have chosen to only take Power Bolt. At 12 I had Neutrino, Irradiate, Punch, and Brawl, and I used them. And that was before Vet Rewards, nowadays I wouldn't use such a build without Sands of Mu and Nemesis Staff. (And I've also replaced Irradiate with Electron Haze, at the time I didn't realize it was a better attack in the long run)

As for Controllers, I had a Controller back in Issue 1 and I soloed him, too. Bosses were hard, but I could actually take on Minions and Lts just fine. My secret was I was a Kin (so a damage boost right from level 2) and I took Pool attacks. Lots of Pool attacks. Containment basically let the average Controller solo, but it was possible before that, if hard.

There is still no option to let the general Defender solo. It's just luck that the soloable Defender choices outnumber the less soloable ones. Which really says nothing about Scrappers.

[Ultimo_]

Against three yellow minions, at range (I was using Hover, which keeps me out of melee range, and provides a little defense), I would not last long in a straight fight. As I say, using hover, I moved around to find cover, forcing the foes to chase me around. However, with low ceilings and smallish rooms, to say nothing of other nearby spawns, my freedom to move around was somewhat restricted. Nevertheless, I'm not a fool, and I've played the game for a while, so I know how to use my surroundings to my advantage. Of course, I won't mention that the Scrapper never needs to...

The character has Force Bolt, Power Bolts and Energy Torrent. He also has Air Superiority (taken in case something DOES get to melee range, plus it's just too darn useful) and Sands of Mu (Vet power). The melee powers don't often get used. Sands has dismal accuracy, and so is used only when not critical. Air Superiority does the same damage as Power Bolts, but puts me in greater jeopardy due to higher melee damage. Thus, I try not to need to use it.

The AI wouldn't have been confused by me moving around, they were shooting at me. Force Bolt isn't an attack. It's purpose isn't to do damage. It's a defense. In that sense, it's no different that using a toggle defense. It's just one I have to click periodically.

Using Energy Torrent was pointless, it does the same damage as Power Bolts and uses more endurance. Granted, I could have hit two targets with it (if they were close enough together), but neither would have been defeated before the endurance was used up. I mean, it was used up using Power Bolts.

I would have more health than one minion, but not more than three. Good lord, Forstfire's Jack Frost PET has almost as much health as my Defender. These guys were doing 23 damage per attack. With three of them, that's 69 damage per "round." Four attacks, and I'm dead. The only defense I have is the vain hope that Hover will make them miss, or to use Force Bolt to keep one of them busy. It's the only defense available at that level.


In any case, it's just an example for the sake of illustration. Using two powers, an offense (and the weakest one at that) and a defense, left the Defender drained of all endurance in order to defeat one minion. The Scrapper used barely a tenth of that. Even my MA/Shield Scrapper with two toggles running only used about an eighth of his endurance to defeat similar foes.

I stand by my position. It should take just as much endurance for a Defender to defeat a foe as for a Scrapper to do so. That means either more damage, to match the endurance being used, or less endurance to match the damage output. I'm speaking of the average character here. Obviously, not every character will be identical, but the difference should be minimal if a standard rate is established.

To reiterate:

All characters in the game are expected to overcome the same challenges, to reach the same ends. The endurance used to achieve the same ends should be comparable, regardless of AT or power set. That's balanced. Standing around unable to act is not fun, whether it be because of stuns or holds, or because of excessive endurance costs.

[Bill Z Bubba]

[ QUOTE ]
All characters in the game are expected to overcome the same challenges, to reach the same ends. The endurance used to achieve the same ends should be comparable, regardless of AT or power set. That's balanced. Standing around unable to act is not fun, whether it be because of stuns or holds, or because of excessive endurance costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

And those that choose to solo should build their characters for soloing and use tactics that work for soloing.

You've chosen to fail at both of those with your defender.

But I wish to help.

Hover is a waste or AirSup is a waste. Chose one.

If you choose hover:

<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>| Copy &amp; Paste this data into Mids' Hero Designer to view the build |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|MxDz;810;364;728;HEX;|
|78DAAD90CB4EC2401885A7172CA5156C4C8C1A5EC04DD75E1 626082424600831AED|
|4A694A14C6C0A698B919D0FE02BF81A2AF1E1EA9CCE80B7B8 D249FAFDD373CEFCF3|
|677AF74D9B908753A254CF223F4DBD261DD378449352CF0F5 9400C42C8DE4AF31AF|
|3F1D86D4F93807A6D46A3517DED0CFC38A423B715D3245C78 0DDE2A733AF1842634|
|CEDCD5C6EA4FA791DB8E5838C96AC5BE4B7D7E3A9DB0992D3 C96C5344D9DE2A713D|
|FB1940D59C4B285D39AB1C06DFAC9ADD7E3BD69B2D8E5931D F08FAA44AE9C14E3EA|
|2A79FED0C48E6BAAF4361C515FB8A3C88CF24BE695673491D 13599D18DAFB52CB3B|
|626AAC9F5929CA7640A8DA96234AE2986EC5396E797DC3385 A799D2AB48AFF2ADB7|
|C3754BF6B68A8C46F27F5E75FDD37B4220DD1F4A5F5FBF1D5 10AE51C9942FADBED4|
|B7B759739A8705E007DE012B802AE811BC007864000E46FEB D3B5430C74041C0327|
|C02342061ED0026C6013A80235600BD80676807DE009C8DF0 1CD37F66E|
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|</pre><hr />

Then Hover. And blast. Detention field one enemy, kill the second, get to work on the third.

If you go air sup instead, detention field 1, airsup 2 and blast 3.

If you wish to solo, don't build like a team player.

[HelinCarnate]

[ QUOTE ]
All characters in the game are expected to overcome the same challenges, to reach the same ends. The endurance used to achieve the same ends should be comparable, regardless of AT or power set. That's balanced. Standing around unable to act is not fun, whether it be because of stuns or holds, or because of excessive endurance costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can close your beedy little eyes and stop flapping your head. The game already has a decent balance of endurance usage for comparable powers but you refuse to see it.

If you are constantly running out of endurance it is due to the choices you make, perhaps not slotting enough endurance redux, or maybe using aoe attacks to kill single targets, or mabye using your heavy attack to finish off a mob with only a few HP instead of waiting for a lower damage, lower end attack to come up.

I have an Ice/sonic corruptor that is almost always out of endurance because I chose to take several endruance heavy toggles. I do not complain about this because I decided I would rather have those powers on a team and attack less in order to benifit the team as a whole.

You know the rules of the game. You make the choice of what AT and powers to pick. If you run out of endurance it is your choice.

[Ultimo_]

Considering I didn't take anything that helps my team (well, Dispersion Bubble, which I only use on teams because the end cost is currently prohibitive, and the defense provided is negigible), I don't consider this a character designed for teaming.

That aside, I could have taken Detention Field (though not as early as Force Bolt), but teams hate it and its recharge is terribly long, making it of limited use. One Range enhancement, and most mobs, even ranged ones, have a difficult time reaching me past the Force Bolt.

You say "Hover. And blast. Detention field one enemy, kill the second, get to work on the third." Detention Field will have worn off by the time I defeat one foe, during which time the second would be shooting at me, forcing a retreat, just as if I'd used Force Bolt. There's no real benefit or difference.


[ QUOTE ]
You can close your beedy little eyes and stop flapping your head. The game already has a decent balance of endurance usage for comparable powers but you refuse to see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

My "beedy little eyes" ( I think you meant beady - if you're going to insult me, at least spell it correctly)?You couldn't have said that without being rude? I mean, seriously.

OBVIOUSLY, the point is that I don't think there IS a decent balance. Simply saying there is doesn't make it so. That's why I've provided examples.

I have not slotted at all for End Redx. There are only two slots in each attack, they're both accuracy. That could be an issue, but Training Enhancements make very little difference either way. As I said, I've played for quite a while. I know how to play, and I know enough not to use a heavy attack to finish a foe with 1 hit point, nevermind that I don't HAVE a heavy attack (aside from the AOE Torrent, which I already SAID I don't use often).

All of that is beside the point.


The point is that we are constantly running out of endurance. Even after Stamina, it's a serious problem for many Tankers and Defenders (as well as some other classes and sets). The fact that there have been innumerable threads about this is evidence that I'm not alone in this perception.

The simple fact is that it is not fun constantly running out of endurance to do even the most basic of things. My L41 Tanker, running only the Invulnerability toggles, runs out of endurance spamming only KO Blow. That's ONE attack, and he has triple slotted Stamina. this Defender runs out of endurance using one very minimal toggle (the result would be the same if I turned it off), and spammed two 1st tier attacks, and ran out of endurance defeating ONE minion. Both of these characters have then no choice but to retreat and rest or stand there and soak it up. The Tanker can, and by virtue of PFF, so can the Defender. The problem is that they HAVE to.

Other charcters don't face the same problem. Claws showed me just how much more fun it is when you're not stopping to rest every couple of minutes. ALL characters should be that much fun. That's all I'm trying to achieve. Fun for all.

[Siolfir]

So, you only have 2 slots in your two attacks, both accuracy, but your level 12 has trouble dealing damage? And yet you didn't make "a team build"?

What the heck did you do, 6-slot sprint?

[NeoSporin]

[ QUOTE ]
That's all I'm trying to achieve. Fun for all.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can't.
Some people find different things fun. That's why WoW still has its player base and they didnt all abandone it to come here. Its why my sister left this game to play WoW, and my brother left this game to play Guild Wars. I'm still here. (We all are adults, we all tried all three of these games) We all have different tastes in fun. You can't define it to suit everyone.
No one can.

I had a great deal of fun leveling up my first Emp Defender who was all primary for the first 30 something levels. (Way way back in Issue two?)
I had a great deal of fun leveling up my first Invul/SS tank way back in i3. I could go on, but I have 21 level 50s which played out mostly content, very little PL, and plenty of fun.

Some I teamed, some I soloed. (or did both)
Yet I had fun with almost all of them.
(I really didnt like the Warshade, but not that there is anything inherently wrong with them, they just don't suit my needs in stimulating the "fun" centers of my brain. I got one to 50 mostly through spite!)

The point is... you can decide what is fun for YOU. You CAN'T decide what is fun for all others.
"There is none so blind as he who will not see!"

[Master_Armantus]

*resumes playing the game.... slotting endurance reductions and enhancing damage in each power where necessary, realizing the power is still in my hands and I'm still in control of my build's outcome*


...:D

[Dersk]

[ QUOTE ]
My L41 Tanker, running only the Invulnerability toggles, runs out of endurance spamming only KO Blow. That's ONE attack, and he has triple slotted Stamina

[/ QUOTE ]

People might believe you if you stopping providing examples that are impossible without being attacked by a sapper.

When you make statements like that, there are two options. You're seriously mistaken, or you're lying. The rude dismissive comments you encounter are beause people choose not to accuse you of lying. However, your examples so strongly contradict what I, and others, have seen ingame, and can show with real numbers, that taking such claims as simple mistakes becomes increasingly difficult.

I absolutely hate the state of defender endurance efficiency. Yet, even I find it hard to read statements like "this Defender runs out of endurance using one very minimal toggle (the result would be the same if I turned it off), and spammed two 1st tier attacks, and ran out of endurance defeating ONE minion".

If you run out of endurance defeating one minion that isn't a sapper, the problem doesn't exist within the archetype, which makes your crusade somewhat ridiculous.

[Talen Lee]

[ QUOTE ]
you're lying

[/ QUOTE ]Ultimo lying to reinforce his point is pretty much the only way he operates.

Then he threatens to attack people who dare to notice this.

[Siolfir]

In the spirit of Billz' "trying to help", here's a level 1-12 build for a FF/Energy Defender. I won't even make you use Mid's, so people can pick it apart in the thread!

Level 1 - Personal Force Field, Power Bolt
Level 2 - Power Blast
Level 3 - +1 slot to Power Bolt, +1 slot to Power Blast
Level 4 - Energy Torrent
Level 5 - +1 slot to Energy Torrent, +1 slot to Power Bolt
Level 6 - Swift/Hurdle
Level 7 - +1 slot to Energy Torrent, +1 slot to Power Blast
Level 8 - Hover/Combat Jumping
Level 9 - +1 slot to Power Bolt, +1 slot to Power Blast
Level 10 - Power Burst
Level 11 - +2 slots to Power Burst
Level 12 - Dispersion Bubble

So now it looks like this, assuming DO slotting since you're level 12:

Personal Force Field (1 - Def)
Power Bolt (1 - Acc) (3 - Acc) (5 - Dam) (9 - Dam)
Power Blast (2 - Acc) (3 - Acc) (7 - Dam) (9 - Dam)
Energy Torrent (4 - Acc) (5 - Acc) (7 - Dam)
Swift/Hurdle (6 - Run/Jump)
Hover/Combat Jumping (8 - Def)
Power Burst (10 - Acc) (11 - Acc) (11 - Dam)
Dispersion Bubble (12 - EndRed)

This leaves you with plenty of attacks to deal with a solo spawn, plus you're still set up for a travel power at 14 if you want it and can still get Stamina at 20 and one of your teammate shields at either 16 or 18.

Generic tactics:<ul type="square"> Energy Torrent is used against multiple minions to keep them off their feet and performs better than Force Bolt as it's an AoE and does nearly 5x the damage for only slightly over twice the endurance. Personal Force Field is the "I'm getting hit too much" toggle for if you need a break The 3 single-target attacks are slotted to hit, and slotted for higher damage so it that there is less time to defeat each mob to reduce incoming attacks. Swift + Hover can be used to keep out of melee range entirely, my personal preference is Hurdle + Combat Jumping for the fast maneuverability. Allowing mobs that have guns for their ranged attack to enter melee range makes for prime kiting, because they'll run to follow you after they put the gun away instead of pulling it back out to shoot (AI is dumb). Dispersion Bubble is mostly a waste of endurance at this point unless facing mobs that mez; it's included for mez protection. The single target attack chance for knockback/down can be used while cycling targets to reduce incoming attacks, especially in combination with Energy Torrent.[/list]

If you still have trouble soloing at level 12 with this... uhm, I'm just not going to finish that. I can't see how, especially if you follow the little "tactic" tips.

Yes it'd be nice if Negligence applied to your own hit points as well, but you really shouldn't need it to complete a solo mission in under 30 minutes.

[Schismatrix]

[ QUOTE ]
Considering I didn't take anything that helps my team (well, Dispersion Bubble, which I only use on teams because the end cost is currently prohibitive, and the defense provided is negigible), I don't consider this a character designed for teaming.

[/ QUOTE ]

...Dispersion Bubble's endurance cost is prohibitive? Wot?
Then again, at 50, still mostly slotted with SO's and without more than a couple minor set bonuses, my FF/Rad runs Dispersion Bubble, 3 Leadership toggles, Hover, buffs a full team and occasionally uses Force Bubble while firing off AoE blasts.

At 20 my FF/Rad would be running Dispersion because at that point it's not uncommon to be fighting mezzers and every bit of defense helps anyway. i just don't understand how you can run dry using nothing but 2 attacks and Hover. Are the attacks unslotted? Where the hell did you put all the slots if you don't run Dispersion and it's not a teaming build?
:confused: :o :(

While not a fan of FF/Energy, i have to try this now and see for myself.
i will have results in a couple days if i remember to spend a bit every time i log on working on this alt. 20 should be fairly quick that way. Then i'll try smacking down Mooks.

[Ultimo_]

I put significant slots into my "defenses," that is, PFF is triple slotted, Hover is triple slotted (for manueverablity).

I'll rebuild as suggested and see if it makes a difference, but I'm not optimistic.

Tomorrow, though. My eyes feel like pebbles, darn allergies...

[Siolfir]

[ QUOTE ]
I put significant slots into my "defenses," that is, PFF is triple slotted, Hover is triple slotted (for manueverablity).

I'll rebuild as suggested and see if it makes a difference, but I'm not optimistic.

Tomorrow, though. My eyes feel like pebbles, darn allergies...

[/ QUOTE ]
Ew... no need to add slots to PFF for defense, it's above the soft-cap without any enhancements.

As for maneuverability... that's why I like Combat Jumping. It's faster and has immobilize protection with the same defense. ;)

[HelinCarnate]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My L41 Tanker, running only the Invulnerability toggles, runs out of endurance spamming only KO Blow. That's ONE attack, and he has triple slotted Stamina

[/ QUOTE ]

People might believe you if you stopping providing examples that are impossible without being attacked by a sapper.

When you make statements like that, there are two options. You're seriously mistaken, or you're lying. The rude dismissive comments you encounter are beause people choose not to accuse you of lying. However, your examples so strongly contradict what I, and others, have seen ingame, and can show with real numbers, that taking such claims as simple mistakes becomes increasingly difficult.

I absolutely hate the state of defender endurance efficiency. Yet, even I find it hard to read statements like "this Defender runs out of endurance using one very minimal toggle (the result would be the same if I turned it off), and spammed two 1st tier attacks, and ran out of endurance defeating ONE minion".

If you run out of endurance defeating one minion that isn't a sapper, the problem doesn't exist within the archetype, which makes your crusade somewhat ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Outright lie. Even if you were stupid enough to have 0 end redux in all your toggles and 0 in KO blow you still would do better than break even with recovery. Welcome to the ignore list.

[JupiterMoon]

[ QUOTE ]
My L41 Tanker, running only the Invulnerability toggles, runs out of endurance spamming only KO Blow. That's ONE attack, and he has triple slotted Stamina.

[/ QUOTE ]

rofl

was this a serious post? do i REALLY need to get into any amount of detail about how this scenario simply doesnt play out?

[Umbral]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My L41 Tanker, running only the Invulnerability toggles, runs out of endurance spamming only KO Blow. That's ONE attack, and he has triple slotted Stamina

[/ QUOTE ]

Outright lie. Even if you were stupid enough to have 0 end redux in all your toggles and 0 in KO blow you still would do better than break even with recovery. Welcome to the ignore list.

[/ QUOTE ]

And look! There are even maths!

Running all Invuln toggles with 42% end redux (1 lvl 50 common IO, though, you're much more likely to have 2 SO or 2 30-40 common IOs, which put out bigger numbers anyway) costs .51 end/sec.

Spamming KoB (and nothing else), assuming 2 even level recharge SOs and no end redux, means that you'll be able to use it once every 17.376 seconds (2.376 animation + 15 recharge) for 18.5 endurance. That's a cost of 1.08 end/sec.

Base recovery is 1.67 end/sec. Total end/sec costs are 1.59 end/sec. So, even without Stamina, you're still good on endurance.

[Schismatrix]

[ QUOTE ]
I put significant slots into my "defenses," that is, PFF is triple slotted, Hover is triple slotted (for manueverablity).

I'll rebuild as suggested and see if it makes a difference, but I'm not optimistic.

Tomorrow, though. My eyes feel like pebbles, darn allergies...

[/ QUOTE ]

i have a few questions since Nomad Zero (FF/EB) on Justice will be hitting 12 fairly soon:
When you first posted about fighting mooks on a FF/EB you talked about them capping at 20, but your FF/EB is actually 12? Are you using other enemies to force the character and Mooks to be set to 20, or are they actually at your level of 12?

i need to know before i go past 12. Note that i will not be using your slotting. PFF at 50 is usually left at 1 slot on my alts. However, i have no high level alts on Justice and am just soloing as i level. When i hit 12 i may skip using DO's, but i have no idea why anyone with any intelligence would do that. Still, for purposes of testing i will clear out my inspiration tray before fighting the mooks. i'm interested to see how this goes.

Also, i will not be claiming any veteran rewards to make this fair.

Edit: Took a quick look at the ranged defense for Nomad Zero at level 5 with PFF unslotted: 78%. Soft cap is 45% against even cons. Whyinahell would you add more slots to that?!

[Ultimo_]

You may have a point regarding the Tanker and KO Blow. It was a while ago, and I hadn't considered who he had been fighting. The more I think on it, the more I think it was Freakshow, so sapping was probably an issue. It's not, however, a lie. It did happen.

Mooks are L5-20, so they spawned at L12 for my L12 Defender.
I don't ususally play Defense oriented sets, so I wasn't aware that there was no need to slot PFF. I was doing so because I was frequently getting killed right through it. If there's no benefit to slotting it, obviously, I won't do it.

I made several characters together, intended to be a group together (boy I wish there was a way to invite and promote your own characters to your own Supergroup). A Tanker, a Scrapper, a Defender and another Scrapper (he's the one with Claws, so we won't consider him since he's considered an unfair comparison). I'll run all three through a test mission and report back.

[_Laxx_]

[ QUOTE ]
You may have a point regarding the Tanker and KO Blow. It was a while ago, and I hadn't considered who he had been fighting. The more I think on it, the more I think it was Freakshow, so sapping was probably an issue. It's not, however, a lie. It did happen.

Mooks are L5-20, so they spawned at L12 for my L12 Defender.
I don't ususally play Defense oriented sets, so I wasn't aware that there was no need to slot PFF. I was doing so because I was frequently getting killed right through it. If there's no benefit to slotting it, obviously, I won't do it.

I made several characters together, intended to be a group together (boy I wish there was a way to invite and promote your own characters to your own Supergroup). A Tanker, a Scrapper, a Defender and another Scrapper (he's the one with Claws, so we won't consider him since he's considered an unfair comparison). I'll run all three through a test mission and report back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again. "You *may* have a point". You just can't accept the fact that you're mistaken, can you? You use examples that aren't possible outside of certain specific situations, then you remove the situation, and use the example to try to prove a point that it doesn't prove. This is why no one can take your claims seriously -- you insist on supporting your arguments with lies of omission, or just outright lying period.

You only "ran out of end" because of infrequent sapping from Juicer/Stunner mobs against Freaks? Why am I still skeptical of this? Oh, probably because you would have taken them out fast enough (they're only LT class at best) if you did more than just use KO Blow every 18 seconds. Not to mention that not every spawn has one in it, and you're twisting your data again because you just can't be wrong. You frequently choose tactics that are SELF-DEFEATING. This is not a problem with the game. Rather, it's a problem with your ability.

On the note of your Defender: you had three targets to hit with ET? You realize that three targets is the "magic number" for most AoEs for them to come out ahead when compared to a single target? ET does more damage for less endurance to three targets than Power Bolt will, so again, you chose the wrong tactic. Knocking all of them back instead of just one would have also helped, but then, you'd have to move your character instead of leaving it stuck in a single place to get them all in ET range, and I don't see you wanting to do that.

Not realizing that PFF soft-caps yourself is just ignorance on your part. You can pull up the power info at any point in the game now. I also love how you claimed that you feel you built your character to "solo" and then tell us how you slotted your character defensively, and in a manner that does nothing to help you solo. You don't need faster Hover to solo with, slotting PFF for PvE is laughable, and about the only thing you did "right" was make sure your attacks could land. In short, you wasted slots in places that don't help you solo at all, but claimed it was slotted for solo-ing purposes.

Please, Ultimo. For the sake of your arguments, learn how to play the game you're trying to change.

[_Laxx_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I put significant slots into my "defenses," that is, PFF is triple slotted, Hover is triple slotted (for manueverablity).

I'll rebuild as suggested and see if it makes a difference, but I'm not optimistic.

Tomorrow, though. My eyes feel like pebbles, darn allergies...

[/ QUOTE ]

i have a few questions since Nomad Zero (FF/EB) on Justice will be hitting 12 fairly soon:
When you first posted about fighting mooks on a FF/EB you talked about them capping at 20, but your FF/EB is actually 12? Are you using other enemies to force the character and Mooks to be set to 20, or are they actually at your level of 12?

i need to know before i go past 12. Note that i will not be using your slotting. PFF at 50 is usually left at 1 slot on my alts. However, i have no high level alts on Justice and am just soloing as i level. When i hit 12 i may skip using DO's, but i have no idea why anyone with any intelligence would do that. Still, for purposes of testing i will clear out my inspiration tray before fighting the mooks. i'm interested to see how this goes.

Also, i will not be claiming any veteran rewards to make this fair.

Edit: Took a quick look at the ranged defense for Nomad Zero at level 5 with PFF unslotted: 78%. Soft cap is 45% against even cons. Whyinahell would you add more slots to that?!

[/ QUOTE ]

Just going to comment on one thing here, regarding slotting: I frequently forgo any type of slotting until around 17 for level 20 IOs, and usually just for Accuracy/Endurance slotting. I used to not slot anything until 27 or 32 (depending on character) but that became too big of a chore after about level 22 because of mob scaling. It's not impossible, but I really don't recommend this for anyone. I'm stingy with my influence for whatever reason.

[Ultimo_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You may have a point regarding the Tanker and KO Blow. It was a while ago, and I hadn't considered who he had been fighting. The more I think on it, the more I think it was Freakshow, so sapping was probably an issue. It's not, however, a lie. It did happen.

Mooks are L5-20, so they spawned at L12 for my L12 Defender.
I don't ususally play Defense oriented sets, so I wasn't aware that there was no need to slot PFF. I was doing so because I was frequently getting killed right through it. If there's no benefit to slotting it, obviously, I won't do it.

I made several characters together, intended to be a group together (boy I wish there was a way to invite and promote your own characters to your own Supergroup). A Tanker, a Scrapper, a Defender and another Scrapper (he's the one with Claws, so we won't consider him since he's considered an unfair comparison). I'll run all three through a test mission and report back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again. "You *may* have a point". You just can't accept the fact that you're mistaken, can you? You use examples that aren't possible outside of certain specific situations, then you remove the situation, and use the example to try to prove a point that it doesn't prove. This is why no one can take your claims seriously -- you insist on supporting your arguments with lies of omission, or just outright lying period.

You only "ran out of end" because of infrequent sapping from Juicer/Stunner mobs against Freaks? Why am I still skeptical of this? Oh, probably because you would have taken them out fast enough (they're only LT class at best) if you did more than just use KO Blow every 18 seconds. Not to mention that not every spawn has one in it, and you're twisting your data again because you just can't be wrong. You frequently choose tactics that are SELF-DEFEATING. This is not a problem with the game. Rather, it's a problem with your ability.

On the note of your Defender: you had three targets to hit with ET? You realize that three targets is the "magic number" for most AoEs for them to come out ahead when compared to a single target? ET does more damage for less endurance to three targets than Power Bolt will, so again, you chose the wrong tactic. Knocking all of them back instead of just one would have also helped, but then, you'd have to move your character instead of leaving it stuck in a single place to get them all in ET range, and I don't see you wanting to do that.

Not realizing that PFF soft-caps yourself is just ignorance on your part. You can pull up the power info at any point in the game now. I also love how you claimed that you feel you built your character to "solo" and then tell us how you slotted your character defensively, and in a manner that does nothing to help you solo. You don't need faster Hover to solo with, slotting PFF for PvE is laughable, and about the only thing you did "right" was make sure your attacks could land. In short, you wasted slots in places that don't help you solo at all, but claimed it was slotted for solo-ing purposes.

Please, Ultimo. For the sake of your arguments, learn how to play the game you're trying to change.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't know why the case of colic. I mean really. I said the events I described DID happen. I am not lying, and I resent the implication. I admitted that I had neglected to consider the foes I was fighting. Freakshow have sappers, and as I recall, those were the foes I was fighting. Again, it was a while ago, so I could be wrong.

Either way, the fact remains that I was burning through all my endurance using just one attack and my defensive toggles. As noted, this isn't something that happens under usual circumstances, so the circumstances must have been unusual. I say they "may" have a point, because of those unusual conditions. I think it was the Freakshow. I could be wrong.

I was specifically avoiding using the Torrent because of the greater endurance use. At the suggestion of others in the thread, I tried using it more, to mixed results. I found it tended to miss a lot more, but that's after only a short test period. I also found I was out of endurance a lot more, but that might be due to the extra misses. A also found they tended not to get knocked back. Once in a while. Force Bolt is far more reliable.

I also said I haven't played Defense sets extensively. How I would be expected to know about a "soft cap" I'd never been required to consider before is beyond me.

I built him to solo. Not having much offense, I built around the only defense I have, knockback. I do tend toward a more defensive style. That may be why I dislike Blasters so much.

[Ultimo_]

I rebuilt and reslotted to test the characters against an arc I built. It's #189400 "Techwar" if you want to test against it yourselves.

I haven't had a chance to test the Tanker yet. The Scrapper is a L14 Martial Arts/Shield. The Defender is a L13 Force Field/Energy.

Note that the Scrapper in each case is running only the melee toggle, since he's meleeing everyone. It has one endredx in it.

In an early mission, they both encoutnered a group of three trolls, white conn minions. The Defender defeated all three, was at about half health and used about 90% of his endurance to do it. The Scrapper had appalling accuracy, and went through all his endurance, detoggled and was whittled down to about 2/3 health before defeating the final minion.

In a second encounter, they met a boss called Grond and two troll gunners (Yellow, and two whites). Note that Grond had nearly the same health as the Defender, and did about a quarter of his health with every thrown boulder. Melee was out of the question, as the Trolls would have easily crushed the Defender. Using tactics suggested here, I was at about 10% health and had to use PFF and escape, by the time I got the two gunners to half health. I retreated, recovered and tried again using my former tactics (Force Bolt Grond, and pick off the minions). Doing this, I was left with no endurance, and about 1/3 health in defeating the three. Note that they were slightly damaged in this second attempt. The Scrapper fought exactly the same group and was forced to use a green inspiration to survive. He ran out of endurance and detoggled, but did defeat all three foes. I used similar tactics, Cobra Strike Grond, and defeat the minions.

My assessment is that both performed in a comparable fashion. That is, they both had severe endurance issues. It was still no fun waiting around to get endurance back so I could keep playing.

I'll assess the Tanker tomorrow, but having played several Tankers I don't expect it to be any better.

[_Laxx_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You may have a point regarding the Tanker and KO Blow. It was a while ago, and I hadn't considered who he had been fighting. The more I think on it, the more I think it was Freakshow, so sapping was probably an issue. It's not, however, a lie. It did happen.

Mooks are L5-20, so they spawned at L12 for my L12 Defender.
I don't ususally play Defense oriented sets, so I wasn't aware that there was no need to slot PFF. I was doing so because I was frequently getting killed right through it. If there's no benefit to slotting it, obviously, I won't do it.

I made several characters together, intended to be a group together (boy I wish there was a way to invite and promote your own characters to your own Supergroup). A Tanker, a Scrapper, a Defender and another Scrapper (he's the one with Claws, so we won't consider him since he's considered an unfair comparison). I'll run all three through a test mission and report back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again. "You *may* have a point". You just can't accept the fact that you're mistaken, can you? You use examples that aren't possible outside of certain specific situations, then you remove the situation, and use the example to try to prove a point that it doesn't prove. This is why no one can take your claims seriously -- you insist on supporting your arguments with lies of omission, or just outright lying period.

You only "ran out of end" because of infrequent sapping from Juicer/Stunner mobs against Freaks? Why am I still skeptical of this? Oh, probably because you would have taken them out fast enough (they're only LT class at best) if you did more than just use KO Blow every 18 seconds. Not to mention that not every spawn has one in it, and you're twisting your data again because you just can't be wrong. You frequently choose tactics that are SELF-DEFEATING. This is not a problem with the game. Rather, it's a problem with your ability.

On the note of your Defender: you had three targets to hit with ET? You realize that three targets is the "magic number" for most AoEs for them to come out ahead when compared to a single target? ET does more damage for less endurance to three targets than Power Bolt will, so again, you chose the wrong tactic. Knocking all of them back instead of just one would have also helped, but then, you'd have to move your character instead of leaving it stuck in a single place to get them all in ET range, and I don't see you wanting to do that.

Not realizing that PFF soft-caps yourself is just ignorance on your part. You can pull up the power info at any point in the game now. I also love how you claimed that you feel you built your character to "solo" and then tell us how you slotted your character defensively, and in a manner that does nothing to help you solo. You don't need faster Hover to solo with, slotting PFF for PvE is laughable, and about the only thing you did "right" was make sure your attacks could land. In short, you wasted slots in places that don't help you solo at all, but claimed it was slotted for solo-ing purposes.

Please, Ultimo. For the sake of your arguments, learn how to play the game you're trying to change.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't know why the case of colic. I mean really. I said the events I described DID happen. I am not lying, and I resent the implication. I admitted that I had neglected to consider the foes I was fighting. Freakshow have sappers, and as I recall, those were the foes I was fighting. Again, it was a while ago, so I could be wrong.

Either way, the fact remains that I was burning through all my endurance using just one attack and my defensive toggles. As noted, this isn't something that happens under usual circumstances, so the circumstances must have been unusual. I say they "may" have a point, because of those unusual conditions. I think it was the Freakshow. I could be wrong.

I was specifically avoiding using the Torrent because of the greater endurance use. At the suggestion of others in the thread, I tried using it more, to mixed results. I found it tended to miss a lot more, but that's after only a short test period. I also found I was out of endurance a lot more, but that might be due to the extra misses. A also found they tended not to get knocked back. Once in a while. Force Bolt is far more reliable.

I also said I haven't played Defense sets extensively. How I would be expected to know about a "soft cap" I'd never been required to consider before is beyond me.

I built him to solo. Not having much offense, I built around the only defense I have, knockback. I do tend toward a more defensive style. That may be why I dislike Blasters so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "events" were missing key parts and they were skewed because of your consistently bad tactics and choice of power usage. A lie of omission is still a lie, and frankly, I'm not convinced your little "tests" or in your tanker's case, "evidence" is proof of anything other than your lack of ability. The fact remains, you burned your endurance because you didn't play your character in a manner that would have limited your endurance usage. If you're facing Electric Blast users, why in the world would you insist on taking your sweet time to take them out if you know that they can drain your end with every shot? The answer is because you don't want to do anything else, and doing so only gives you more "ammo" in your arguments. The problem is that that you're firing off your suggestions with an ammo clip full of blanks.

It doesn't matter if "force bolt is more reliable" when you can kill the spawn with less endurance used if you just attacked them instead of spending more endurance keeping one knocked down. Force Bolt costs just as much endurance to use as Power Bolt does, and does significantly less damage (so little damage as to be useless for damage purposes). Using that one power three times is STILL more endurance used than using ET only a single time, and it's doing nothing to help you clear a spawn quicker.

In regards to your "how should I know about the soft-cap" I just have to ask... how long have you been playing? Your reg date suggest since '06, so in three years you have not once heard anything about "No matter how much accuracy you have, there is always a 5% chance to miss" or "No matter how much defense you have, there is always a 5% chance to get hit"?

Really?

Even level foes have a 50% chance to hit you, barring debuffs/buffs on them. 5% taken out of that 50% means that with 45% defense, you've reached the "soft-cap" since any more defense doesn't help you (again, unless they're buffed or you're defense is debuffed). In three years, you have heard nothing even related to this? Do you play in a vacuum? If you do, that would explain how so many of your suggestion changes seem to be based on the idea that only you are ever playing the game.

And no, you didn't build your Defender to solo. At all. The very suggestion that you believe you did is precisely what I'm talking about. You don't understand the game you're playing.

[Ultimo_]

A defender that has no powers that helps his team is built for teaming? If he's not, then what IS he built for?

Yes, I've played for years. I level slowly, and I've played mainly Tankers and Blasters. I've never played any character with Defense to any appreciable level. I know that they have a 5% chance to hit and miss, but I have no idea how Defense works, because I've never needed to.

As I said, I've tried "just attacking" my foes, and my Defender is quickly overwhelmed by the incoming damage. I'm forced to mitigate it somehow. Force Bolt has been the best choice so far.

There should be no single way to play any character or power set. You seem to suggest that unless I do it this one way, I'm guaranteed to fail. That in itself suggests a problem.

None of this addresses the core concern, which is that characters are running out of endurance far too quickly, and standing around waiting for Rest to recharge, or endurance to come back. Standing around is not fun. The point of playing, and the supposed mantra of the devs is to have fun. Thus, I see a disconnect.

Again, I'm suggesting an improvement in endurance usage for EVERYONE. This isn't (or wasn't) intended to be about Defenders or Tankers specifically, they just happen to suffer more than some others.


I'm frankly not going to address the suggestion that I would lie about my experiences in the game. Think what you will, I really don't care anymore.

[_Laxx_]

[ QUOTE ]
A defender that has no powers that helps his team is built for teaming? If he's not, then what IS he built for?

Yes, I've played for years. I level slowly, and I've played mainly Tankers and Blasters. I've never played any character with Defense to any appreciable level. I know that they have a 5% chance to hit and miss, but I have no idea how Defense works, because I've never needed to.

As I said, I've tried "just attacking" my foes, and my Defender is quickly overwhelmed by the incoming damage. I'm forced to mitigate it somehow. Force Bolt has been the best choice so far.

There should be no single way to play any character or power set. You seem to suggest that unless I do it this one way, I'm guaranteed to fail. That in itself suggests a problem.

None of this addresses the core concern, which is that characters are running out of endurance far too quickly, and standing around waiting for Rest to recharge, or endurance to come back. Standing around is not fun. The point of playing, and the supposed mantra of the devs is to have fun. Thus, I see a disconnect.

Again, I'm suggesting an improvement in endurance usage for EVERYONE. This isn't (or wasn't) intended to be about Defenders or Tankers specifically, they just happen to suffer more than some others.


I'm frankly not going to address the suggestion that I would lie about my experiences in the game. Think what you will, I really don't care anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say you were built for teaming. Reading comprehension can be fun. I said you weren't built to solo, but you don't get it. I don't care what powers you took unless these powers specifically get in the way of soloing (ie: ally-only powers). Your reported slotting isn't sitting well with your claim of a "solo build". I mean really, slotted PFF? Slotted Hover? These are not the things to slot if you're trying to slot for solo play at an early level. Hell, I go without slots at those levels and I don't have NEAR the issues you claim to have, and by extension of your own flawed reasoning, are claiming all Defenders or Tankers to have.

I'll repeat: you seem to be the only person having any difficulty at all playing these characters, but the GAME is the problem? You seriously can't see the flaw in this argument, even after it's been pointed out to you so many times? I so wish I could sit at your computer and play your character in front of you to show you how to fail less. Of course, if that were possible, and I did so, you'd likely point out everything I "shouldn't have to do". There isn't "one way to play", but "your way" clearly isn't working, so you need to find a new way.

Unfortunately, Ultimo, your attempts to "get me back on track" aren't going to work specifically because your concern about endurance usage is based ENTIRELY on your ability, or in this case lack thereof, to play your characters. This is the crux of your issue as I see it: you can't play effectively, so rather than try to fix your problems with the tools you have, you instead point at the game and call it flawed. This is why I'm not even addressing your "concerns" -- your premise is horribly flawed and requires fixing first.

Fun is subjective. If fun for you is to stampede without endurance issues, then a game that's played by multiple people across the country simultaneously, where these people can interact together, isn't the type of game for you. These games demand a type of balance across all playable characters simply because people enjoy different types of things. These balances keep everyone from feeling useless compared to the next guy, for the most part. The game, right now, is fairly balanced IMO. There are a few outliers, but this issue that you (and apparently Starsman) seem to think exists is not an issue. You might have more luck in a single-player game, where you can jump right on whoever happens to be the broken character.

You don't have to address that you were lying, because it was plain to everyone that you were. You frequently leave out key circumstances just so you can have an example to bring to the class. If you want to prove something, bring irrefutable evidence to do it. Stop relying on your poor memory and anecdotes that are so horribly skewed as to actually detract from your points. I don't care if it "really happened", it didn't happen as you explained it did, and after it was discovered you were fighting electric blast users, the very tactics that you used defeated yourself.

In short, you don't know how to play. I hate using that, but it's so apt right now and sums up what I want to say perfectly.

EDIT: better introduction

[HelinCarnate]

Just for fun I made a Invun/SS tank and PLed it up to 41. I slotted 1 lvl 40 end redux in each toggle and 1 in KO blow. I then made a map of just freakshow and hearded up the aggro cap. I put KO blow on auto.

I did not run out of endurance mainly because I was hardly ever getting hit.

Then I changed the map to just Juicers and same result. I hearded them around a corner so they woulld feed into invinc to add def and still did not run out of endurance using just KO blow. Which was slotted btw with 1 acc, 1 end redux, 1 recharge and 3 damage.

My conclusion would have to be that you are either lying or stupid. Which one is it?

[Schismatrix]

Still working on getting Nomad Zero to 13. i only had time to play him a couple hours yesterday. Now, to keep it within some notion of average, or at least what i think should be close to Ultimo's Defender, i'm selling all my drops until i can buy DO's to the stores instead of selling them at WW like i usually do. If i went the normal WW route i'd probably have something near a million inf to outfit myself just by spending a couple minutes each hour putting common salvage on the market. i've also done nothing but solo regular contacts and content, but at 12 i will start using AE and playing a little more like a veteran. i am still not claiming any veteran powers at all, and will be posting my build once i hit 13 and try out the arc Ultimo___ posted. (#189400 "Techwar")

Like Ultimo's it's a "soloing build" that skips the team buffs and takes Hover. Otherwise it's what i would consider a good soloing build.

Edit: Hit 12, will post build and start running tests after i help Smurphy with an experiment of his.

[Ultimo_]

Ok, so I'm "not built for soloing," and I'm "not built for teaming," just what AM I built for? Saying "nothing" will only lead me to point out the failings in THAT concept.

I've already admitted that my slotting might not be optimal, and that I've been reslotting as suggested. However, even at that, I should not be required to build my character in a particular way to be successful.

I'm not the only person having problems with endurance. This is an issue that comes up over and over, and has done for many years now. Again, my play style may not be optimal, but I should not be required to play one particular way.

Fun is subjective, you're correct. Are you telling me you find it fun to stand around for several minutes at a time doing nothing? Many people do not, I'm just one of them. That there have been so many threads on this subject is evidence of that. I've also said that Endurance management should be a challenge. It simply should not be THE challenge. I want to fight the bad guys, not my own powers!

I provided another example, a test in which I ran a Defender and a Scrapper (not Claws) through the same chain of missions. I reported that both performed to about the same level, and that both suffered severe endurance issues. I provided the arc so others could attempt the same test. I did this because I recognized the unreliablity of the former examples. If I were trying to decieve, I would not have done this. You fixate on one admittedly poor example, and ignore everything else.

Being in error is not lying. Lying involves deliberate deception. I have not attempted to deceive, although my example of the Tanker and KO Blow was obviously incomplete and insufficient.

Again, I'll have to postpone the Tanker test, it's my cousin's 50th B-Day, so I have places to be!

[_Laxx_]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so I'm "not built for soloing," and I'm "not built for teaming," just what AM I built for? Saying "nothing" will only lead me to point out the failings in THAT concept.

I've already admitted that my slotting might not be optimal, and that I've been reslotting as suggested. However, even at that, I should not be required to build my character in a particular way to be successful.

I'm not the only person having problems with endurance. This is an issue that comes up over and over, and has done for many years now. Again, my play style may not be optimal, but I should not be required to play one particular way.

Fun is subjective, you're correct. Are you telling me you find it fun to stand around for several minutes at a time doing nothing? Many people do not, I'm just one of them. That there have been so many threads on this subject is evidence of that. I've also said that Endurance management should be a challenge. It simply should not be THE challenge. I want to fight the bad guys, not my own powers!

I provided another example, a test in which I ran a Defender and a Scrapper (not Claws) through the same chain of missions. I reported that both performed to about the same level, and that both suffered severe endurance issues. I provided the arc so others could attempt the same test. I did this because I recognized the unreliablity of the former examples. If I were trying to decieve, I would not have done this. You fixate on one admittedly poor example, and ignore everything else.

Being in error is not lying. Lying involves deliberate deception. I have not attempted to deceive, although my example of the Tanker and KO Blow was obviously incomplete and insufficient.

Again, I'll have to postpone the Tanker test, it's my cousin's 50th B-Day, so I have places to be!

[/ QUOTE ]

And I already told you that I take every one of my characters above and beyond that level without putting a single enhancement in and I do just fine. Clearly you're doing something wrong, and I'm going to bet it's your in-battle tactics. Your slotting and power choices are pretty atrocious, but it's your inability to play like an intelligent person that's really holding you back.

The thing is, Ultimo, is that you lied without realizing it. You deliberately inflated your claim to prove a point, and you were caught. You even tried to dismiss it by claiming that they only "may" have a point, which means you refuse to accept that you were wrong or that your flawed evidence isn't proof of something. Someone already posted in here about using your exact tactic at level 41 or so to fight Freaks, and they didn't bottom-out of endurance doing so and managed to kill the spawn. Again, I point to your lack of tactical thinking/forethought.

Apparently, your Defender is clearly built for nothing, or it's built for something and you aren't doing that "something" with it. Picking all the right powers doesn't help you if you can't USE them right.

[Ultimo_]

I've already conceded repeatedly that my example was flawed, and that I can't remember the exact circumstances that led to it. I assume it was the Freaks, but I could be wrong. That is why they "may" have a point.

One cannot lie without realizing it. A lie is a deliberate act. An inadvertant omission would be an ERROR, not a lie. I inflated nothing. What I described happened. The reasons why are evidently unclear, but it did happen. I did not inflate anything. However, because of the inconsistency in this situation, it is a fatally flawed example.
Of course, I've already said this.

The notion of "the right powers" is laughable. If some powers are somehow "wrong" then there's a problem with the design. Not that I've never claimed this. All I have said is that there are problems with the endurance system. It is inconsistent and is not fair to all ATs and power sets.

For your amusement (and suggestions, as I am always open to ideas), I post my Defender. This is the planned build to L50. By that point he'll actually have some serious defenses (71% resistance to smashing and Lethal, and over 30% defense to most everything). It's the journey to that point that remains to be seen. Note that the slotting is not placed by level.

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

[u]Click this DataLink to open the build! (http://www.cohplanner.com/mids/download.php?uc=1411&amp;c=602&amp;a=1204&amp;f=HEX&amp;dc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u]

Warpath: Level 50 Technology Defender
Primary Power Set: Force Field
Secondary Power Set: Energy Blast
Power Pool: Flight
Power Pool: Fitness
Power Pool: Fighting
Power Pool: Leadership
Ancillary Pool: Power Mastery

Hero Profile:
Level 1: Personal Force Field -- DefBuff-I(A), DefBuff-I(3), DefBuff-I(3)
Level 1: Power Bolt -- Acc-I(A), Acc-I(5), Dmg-I(5), Dmg-I(7), Dmg-I(7)
Level 2: Force Bolt -- Acc-I(A), Acc-I(9)
Level 4: Energy Torrent -- Acc-I(A), Acc-I(9), Dmg-I(11), Dmg-I(11), Dmg-I(13)
Level 6: Hover -- Flight-I(A), Flight-I(13), Flight-I(15)
Level 8: Air Superiority -- Acc-I(A), Acc-I(15), Dmg-I(17), Dmg-I(17), Dmg-I(19)
Level 10: Hurdle -- Jump-I(A), Jump-I(46)
Level 12: Dispersion Bubble -- EndRdx-I(A), DefBuff-I(19), DefBuff-I(21), DefBuff-I(21)
Level 14: Fly -- Flight-I(A), Flight-I(23), Flight-I(23)
Level 16: Boxing -- Acc-I(A), Acc-I(25), Dmg-I(25), Dmg-I(27), Dmg-I(27)
Level 18: Health -- Heal-I(A), Heal-I(29), Heal-I(29)
Level 20: Stamina -- EndMod-I(A), EndMod-I(31), EndMod-I(31)
Level 22: Tough -- EndRdx-I(A), ResDam-I(31), ResDam-I(33), ResDam-I(33)
Level 24: Weave -- EndRdx-I(A), DefBuff-I(33), DefBuff-I(34), DefBuff-I(34)
Level 26: Power Burst -- RechRdx-I(A), Acc-I(34), Acc-I(36), Dmg-I(36), Dmg-I(36), Dmg-I(50)
Level 28: Repulsion Field -- EndRdx-I(A)
Level 30: Repulsion Bomb -- Acc-I(A), Acc-I(37), Dsrnt-I(37), Dsrnt-I(37), Dsrnt-I(39)
Level 32: Maneuvers -- EndRdx-I(A), DefBuff-I(39), DefBuff-I(39), DefBuff-I(40)
Level 35: Explosive Blast -- Acc-I(A), Acc-I(40), Dmg-I(40), Dmg-I(42), Dmg-I(42)
Level 38: Nova -- RechRdx-I(A), Acc-I(42), Acc-I(43), Dmg-I(43), Dmg-I(43), Dmg-I(50)
Level 41: Conserve Power -- RechRdx-I(A), RechRdx-I(45), RechRdx-I(45)
Level 44: Temp Invulnerability -- EndRdx-I(A), ResDam-I(45), ResDam-I(46), ResDam-I(46)
Level 47: Total Focus -- Acc-I(A), Acc-I(48), Dmg-I(48), Dmg-I(48), Dmg-I(50)
Level 49: Assault -- EndRdx-I(A)
------------
Level 1: Brawl -- Acc-I(A)
Level 1: Sprint -- Jump-I(A)
Level 2: Rest -- RechRdx-I(A)
Level 1: Vigilance


I've been considering some swapping of powers around in the 20s, to take the Medicine pool in place of Leadership, or some such. I'd also been thinking about swapping the Repulsion Field for Force Bubble since I'm not sure what the difference is.

One other thing I should mention. This is something of a concept build. It's my latest attempt to make a character based on Iron Man. That said, it still has to be functional. In all honesty, with the exception of the endurance issues, it's been pretty close to what I've been after.

(actually, if you look at the old Tales of Suspense and Avengers comics, Iron Man was always retreating to recharge... Kind of ironic, eh?)

[Grumble]

Please stop posting suggestion or criticism threads until you read some (many) guides. Feel free to ask many questions.

Or just learn to accept that you are wrong.

[Schismatrix]

Righto, not using Mids' to set him up right now, but this is Nomad Zero on Justice:

Right now all enhancers are 15 DO's, basically minimal slotting.
Power, # of slots, enhance
PFF, 1, nothing
Force Bolt, 2, 1 acc
Dispersion Bubble, 1, 1 end

Power Bolt, 4, 1 acc, 1 end
Power Blast, 5, 1 acc, 1 end
Power Burst, 3, 1 acc, 1 end

Swift, 1, 1 flight
Hover, 1, 1 flight

Now starting "Techwar".
(Incidentally, very well written text so far.)

Edit 1: Took down 6 mooks while running Dispersion Bubble before i needed to rest.
Edit 2: Took down remaining 3 in a bit under 2 minutes, exited mission.

Edit 3: Onto the caves. So far taken down 3 Gardvords, 2 Buckshots and 1 gunner. All yellow or orange. Would be going faster, but chatter in globals distracting me. :eek:

Edit 4: Stupid Gardvords keep rabbiting after finding they can't close to melee. Tired of chasing them all over the caves. Dropped Dispersion Bubble so i can spam Force Bolt to slow them down. :mad:

Edit 5: Down to Supatroll Grond (doesn't look much like the Champions Grond) and his two Gunners. Everything else dropped like Paris Hilton's undies. Going back to finish them off. (Urge to pop insp hard to resist even with tray hidden.)

Edit 6: Grond of course ran like a little girl after getting knocked around a bit. Had to chase him all over to finish. Overall finding FF/EB a lot more fun than i expected.

Edit 7: Used the 110 tickets from running the arc so far to add 1 damage to each attack. So far enjoying the arc itself quite a bit. Things are moving at a good pace. i'd be going much faster if i hadn't crippled my funds by selling all drops to the stores. After this starting a new post. (Should be 13 by then.)

[Ultimo_]

First, don't tell me what to post. As I said before, I'll post what I like.

Second, the thread wasn't originally about Defenders or Tankers, or indeed, any specific AT. It just kind of went that way.

Third, it should not be required to read a guide to be able to have success in the game.

[Grumble]

[ QUOTE ]
First, don't tell me what to post. As I said before, I'll post what I like.

Second, the thread wasn't originally about Defenders or Tankers, or indeed, any specific AT. It just kind of went that way.

Third, it should not be required to read a guide to be able to have success in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you should be knowlegeable if you are going to make some of the claims that you do. Many people ask questions when they have trouble with the game. Some people say that things should be changed because of their perceptions. The main difference is that most of those people are able to accept when their perceptions are the problem and not the game.

Are there things in this that could be improved? Sure. In this instance, the problem is not really the game. You are unwilling to accept what seems to be the more likely problem, and you have said as much several times.

I did not "tell" you what to post. The word "please" is usually used when making a request.

Edit to add: Also, other people see posts like these and think there is a real problem with the game when, at least in this instance, the problem is the player. That is the main reason why I suggest you read some guides. I would say that, then, people might take you seriously, but, apparently, too many people have already given you too much credence.

[Schismatrix]

So, cleared out Moss by flying over the EB's and taking out his group. Took out any enemies on the way to Moss, a mixed bag of factions.

Then on to the Russkies. Not much of a problem, but skipped most of them and went after objectives. (With DB, PFF and Hover i have 87.5% defense. First mission i went AFK to post and came back to see that some Mooks had been pounding away for a while without any effect. :D)

Now turning in tickets and inf to add a few more enhancers to Nomad Zero at 13.

So far so good, but for the final boss i think i'll use inspirations, because i think they'll be needed to solo an EB with a minimally slotted level 13 FF/EB.

Final edit: Skipped inspirations and brought Technaught along instead. After finally finding the big bad he dropped like stock in Chrysler. No inspirations needed. Overall a rather enjoyable romp.

Conclusion: Ultimo_'s arc was fairly quick and easy to run with a 12-13 FF/EB slotted only with a handful of DO's and no veteran powers or attacks. Other than having to pause 4 times to rest it was just a matter of moving ahead. Playing a FF/EB was more fun than i expected. i've played FF to 50 before, but never really used EB.

i'll continue playing Nomad Zero now and again, but will not claim the veteran attacks. However, i will start selling drops intelligently and using inspirations for AE missions.

[b]Anyway, the point is that at levels 12 to 13 i had no difficulty soloing Ultimo_'s AE arc on a FF/EB without running out of endurance more than once or twice a mission even with Dispersion Bubble running most of the time and using minimal slotting. Of course i dropped an accuracy, damage and endurance reducer in every attack and an endurance reducer in DB, but that's only common sense for soloing. If i'd made minimal use of the market to fund a full set of DO enhancements or used inspirations i probably wouldn't have needed to rest at all...

[Dersk]

[ QUOTE ]
it should not be required to read a guide to be able to have success in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't. You just appear to be a special case.

[Ultimo_]

Glad you enjoyed the arc. If you have any suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them (I've been considering replacing the Russian troops with something a little less culturally specific, say Arachnos, partly to avoid offending anyone, partly to get away from the datedness of them, and partly because custom critters tend to chew up PCs with excessive ease). I used the same tactic of avoiding them where possible. My Scrapper didn't have that luxury, heh.

Your experience was fairly similar to my own, it seems. I ran out of endurance a bit more often, from the sound of it, but that might easily be accounted for by differences in accuracy (ie luck). Heck, I got nailed by Lord Dire with Cinders as I was trying to fly past him with PFF and DB running (incidentally, I was under the impression that defensive toggles don't drop when held, but as soon as Dire held me, I got hit by EVERYTHING - though the powers didn't detoggle, the effects were lost). I think he had about a 6% chance to hit me and he pulled it off!


To Grumble, my apologies, I may have responded with a bit more bite than intended. In my defense, I've been told to stop posting so often that it gets under my skin rather quickly now.

However, I stand by my assertion that endurance issues are present. If you don't credit my examples, there's still the numerous threads discussing the issue that have appeared over the years. If there was no problem, there wouldn't be so many threads.

[Ultimo_]

Oh, I thought I'd mention, I did solo the final boss (who is actually an AV that scales down) with the Defender, without use of inspirations. It took a while, but by using my old tactic of Force Bolt and Power Bolts, I eventually whittled him down.

I suspect if he actually USED his FLIGHT, it might have been different.

Has anyone else noticed that NPCs with Fly refuse to fly (and usually run away instead)?

[Dersk]

[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone else noticed that NPCs with Fly refuse to fly (and usually run away instead?

[/ QUOTE ]

Custom critters have a tendancy to lose flight or their secondary depending on their level.

[Grumble]

[ QUOTE ]

To Grumble, my apologies, I may have responded with a bit more bite than intended. In my defense, I've been told to stop posting so often that it gets under my skin rather quickly now.

However, I stand by my assertion that endurance issues are present. If you don't credit my examples, there's still the numerous threads discussing the issue that have appeared over the years. If there was no problem, there wouldn't be so many threads.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many people have also posted that they play the game just fine without using Stamina so that should be sufficient counter to your support if that's the way you want to look at it. I find them hard to believe, myself, but that is only my perspective. I actually think there are problems with the way Endurance works in the game, but that is not the implications of your posts.

It's seems obvious that you have a very limited knowledge of at least this aspect of the game, which is why I strongly suggest that, if you want to have any useful discussions, you should read some guides. Just about every post of yours in this thread points to that.

But you indicate it is not your responsibility to become knowledgeable about a subject that you want to discuss so there's no reason to continue this.

[Ultimo_]

Ah, that makes sense! L14 for flight, and the characters aren't L14 yet! Hadn't thought of that.

Grumble:
I have played the game for years, and I've played every AT to at least L20. I've not played all the power sets, but I have a pretty broad experience of the game. I have a good sense of how endurance works in the game, and the failings therin.

The people that say Stamina is not necessary are almost always saying this in response to threads like this one, that suggest there's a problem, and it's usually the same small group of people (as opposed to the people complaining, which is far more diverse). You're putting the cart before the horse.

(btw, it would have been polite to acknowledge that I made an apology)

[Schismatrix]

[ QUOTE ]
Glad you enjoyed the arc. If you have any suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them (I've been considering replacing the Russian troops with something a little less culturally specific, say Arachnos, partly to avoid offending anyone, partly to get away from the datedness of them, and partly because custom critters tend to chew up PCs with excessive ease). I used the same tactic of avoiding them where possible. My Scrapper didn't have that luxury, heh.

[/ QUOTE ]
i rather liked the Russian troops. Considering how antagonistic and aggressive the Russian government has been lately they're not illogical.

[ QUOTE ]
Your experience was fairly similar to my own, it seems. I ran out of endurance a bit more often, from the sound of it, but that might easily be accounted for by differences in accuracy (ie luck).

[/ QUOTE ] Quite possibly, but i thought earlier in the thread you'd posted:[ QUOTE ]
I made a mission on the MA (it's the first of what will be an arc). This mission pits the character against Mooks. They're a group that falls below L20. The mission objective is to defeat a boss. All aspects of the mission are set to minimum difficulty. The character is playing on Heroic.

It took my Defender (FF/EB) 3 and a half hours to do this mission. It took my Scrapper (Claws/Regen) 15 minutes.

The reason? The typical spawn was three minions (all yellow - for some reason the MA insists on never using white conn foes). The Defender would go in, constantly blast one with Force Bolt to keep him from attacking, then power bolt one of the others while soaking up the attacks of the third. The only toggle running was Hover. I could have run Dispersion Field, but I would run out of endurance in 3 or four attacks.

[/ QUOTE ] So, which is it? i can tell you for a fact that it took more than 3 attacks on average to defeat each enemy, and i went through 3 minion and 3 lt. before pausing a minute or two to rest before taking down the last 3 minions. Active mission time was probably less than 15 minutes. My fights against the trolls, who were almost all +1 to me, went about the same in terms of each enemy taking around a couple minutes to defeat. (Would've been less if they hadn't kept running from me.)



[ QUOTE ]
Heck, I got nailed by Lord Dire with Cinders as I was trying to fly past him with PFF and DB running (incidentally, I was under the impression that defensive toggles don't drop when held, but as soon as Dire held me, I got hit by EVERYTHING - though the powers didn't detoggle, the effects were lost). I think he had about a 6% chance to hit me and he pulled it off!

[/ QUOTE ]
i thought that most holds were too low in mag to get through DB in one application unless custom EB holds are much higher mag than normal. Sleep, however, is not stopped by DB. Also, when mezzed all benefits from defensive toggles are lost except mez resistance and mez protection, so they give no +def or +res until the mez ends.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I stand by my assertion that endurance issues are present. If you don't credit my examples, there's still the numerous threads discussing the issue that have appeared over the years. If there was no problem, there wouldn't be so many threads.

[/ QUOTE ] In an early post you insisted that your FF/EB Defender couldn't take out 3 minions without flatlining your endurance. That it took 3 hours just to fiinish that one mission. Then in your last post you said that you took out 6 minions and 3 lt. in about the same time frame that i did, which wasn't much more than 15 minutes. (Mind you it might've been closer to 20 since i was posting part of the time while several minions flailed at me ineffectually in the entrance.) Sorry, but it can't simultaneously take 15-ish minutes and 3 1/2 hours to solo a single mission. i could delete all my enhancements, but use inspirations, and it would still take me about 15 minutes. Adding just a few endurance reducers in my attacks made endurance a minor limitation, not the crippling problem you claim.

Still, good arc, well written.

[HelinCarnate]

Lol going with the JB claim of other people have complained about it so it must be valid.

Well people complain about tanker damage so it must need improving too. Oh and they complain about how brutes do more damage than scrappers with also having more HP so that must be valid too.

People complaining about something does not make it a valid complaint.

Man I really think money is hard to come by in the lower levels. I have read other threads on this same subject so we should get 10 mil handed to us when we start.

[_Laxx_]

Necross's post hits the nail on the head regarding all of your suggestions, Ultimo. First you claim that it takes you forever to do something that some other character of yours does effortlessly, but then you back-track and start claiming that how they did/how fast they did something was similar to your experiences even when their tactics allowed them to power through the mission in a fraction of the time you claimed to be taking.

In short, you insist on contradicting yourself and leaving out key pieces of information, which causes most everyone to not take a single thing you say on face value.

The main reason I suggested at all that you were blatantly lying is because you frequently refuse to accept that you were mistaken, instead relying on your faulty memory to provide faultless evidence. I don't care if you "unintentionally lied" mostly because, when it's pointed out that your scenario is impossible, you dismiss it with a "Oh, well, you -might- be right there." You'd rather believe that your poor tactics and shoddy memory are a more reliable source than numbers combined with everyone else's experiences.

Your claims of being experienced with the game run directly counter to how you play the game, which is why I suggest you learn to play the game before you try suggesting improvements to it. You insist on demanding the game be changed to suit your style when your style is apparently "Suck and Die". Case in point: the Defender build you posted. While nothing is inherently wrong with it for solo play at an early level, you chose to slot those early slots sticking 100% to the plan, which means you're burning endurance when you don't have to. What I mean here is, you're going to be replacing those lowlevel enhancements anyway, so why adhere to the slot plan at that level? 1 accuracy is enough, so use Endurance on that other slot. Of course, this ignores the fact that I can go all the way to 27 without slotting any enhancements at all, so I'm not convinced that your slotting was the issue to begin with.

And that just circles us right back around to the crux of your issue: you don't play the game very well. Your tactics are failing, yet rather than change tactics you instead insist the game is the one that should be changed. There is no "you must play one way", but there similarly is no "you can do anything you want and succeed". You have to do *something* that lets you kill mobs without sucking wind, but you insist on thinking your way is the right way when it clearly isn't.

So unless you want to admit that your way to play the game is inherently flawed, I'm not going to bother responding further to your posts in this thread. There is a mountain of evidence to back up the claim that you just plain suck at the game, and practically no evidence to suggest the opposite. Since your desire to change the game is based on your inability to play intelligently, I can't support any change you may propose.

[Ultimo_]

Sigh

I'm not backtracking when I run further tests in an effort to reproduce results. If I say something happened, then IT HAPPENED. My interpretaion of the reasons for the occurrence may not be correct, however, and I'm quite prepared to adopt alternative explanations when appropriate. I think I've shown that here and elsewhere.

The three hour run was obviously an aberration. I've said that already. I ran a further test and couldn't reproduce that result. I've said that too. His results were similar to those I achieved in my second test (a more valid test since it was one we could both run identically). I'm sure if we ran it a few more times (and I will because I enjoy the arc), I'm sure we'll continue to get similar results. We'll also continue to get very different results.

Last night I ran the mission against the Mooks in the casino and had to PFF fighting one yellow Hitman because I kept missing him (it was for health, rather than endurance, concerns that I PFFed). Again, outliers like this are not unusual.

I cannot be mistaken about things that happen. It DID take over three hours to do the mission I mentioned. I DO frequently find my characters gasping for breath. My Tanker DID run out of endurance using only KO Blow. These are simple reports of events, there's no way for me to be mistaken about their happening. However, as I indicated, it's entirely possible I've misinterpreted the reasons for these ocurrences. In the case of the Tanker, the problem is compunded by the passage of time and the inability to remember the details of the moment. None of this is deception, but I probably shouldn't have referenced an example when I couldn't recall the details. I simply didn't think we would be stuck discussing the examples rather than the subject.

Further, if I say someone "might" be right, then I mean that. They might be right. Then again, I might be right too. I say I run out of endurance a lot, then it might be my playstyle, or it might be a problem with the game.

I've never claimed to be inexperienced with the game, quite the contrary. I'm inexperienced with specific power sets, but that's not the same thing. I've been playing for a long time. I KNOW how to play. In fact, I take it as a point of pride that someone posted a video of my Tanker tanking as part of a guide on how to tank well (I wish I could find it, I've never actually seen it myself - someone told me about it). Of course, that I play largely Tankers may have an impact on my playstyle on other characters.

That a lot of people say the same thing supports my claim that it's a problem with the game. This is valid when it's a lot of different other people. If 10000 people say there's a problem with the game, and 3 people say there isn't, 10000 times, it's more likely than not that there's a problem (though not certain - see "might" have a point, above). Now, I should clarify, I'm not saying these are accurate numbers, I'm just illustrating the principle. I've seen many different people complain about the endurance issues, and I've seen a handful of people replying to the complaints. That leads me to the conclusion that there is a problem with the game of some kind, and my own experiences support this to some degree. If it were just my own experiences leading me to this conclusion, I would have thought it was something about me or my play. This is not, the case, however.

[JupiterMoon]

i got real money that says ultimo plays petless masterminds

[Ultimo_]

Nope, never done that. I've sometimes wondered how it would play, though...

[Umbral]

[ QUOTE ]
Nope, never done that. I've sometimes wondered how it would play, though...

[/ QUOTE ]

And you'll probably complain that MM damage is to low if you ever do play it.

[Ultimo_]

I suspect you know from other threads that I've already said MM damage (personal damage, not overall or pet damage) is too low, and you're baiting me. That would be trolling, so don't do that.

(Actually, I know you know it, since you posted in the thread I made that ended up discussing it)

[_Laxx_]

[ QUOTE ]
Nope, never done that. I've sometimes wondered how it would play, though...

[/ QUOTE ]

I play one. Sorta. Secondary is FF so that I'm more useful on a team than most.

It's slow, but I knew that from the start.

[Schismatrix]

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect you know from other threads that I've already said MM damage (personal damage, not overall or pet damage) is too low, and you're baiting me. That would be trolling, so don't do that.

(Actually, I know you know it, since you posted in the thread I made that ended up discussing it)

[/ QUOTE ]
That's kind of like complaining that Cobra Strike damage is too low. Not exactly like it, but close. Masterminds get their damage from their pets, it's the core of that AT's design. i suspect their personal attack damage is so low because the attacks were intended to give MM's a way to supplement their pet's damage and something to do when everything is going smoothly. And to look cool. Perhaps mostly the latter. Masterminds would be excessively overpowered if their personal attacks came near to what their pets already do.

[Ultimo_]

As I say, there was a whole thread that went into this, and I'd rather not open that can of worms again.

[Umbral]

[ QUOTE ]
(Actually, I know you know it, since you posted in the thread I made that ended up discussing it)

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure about that because I don't recall making any kind of post involving that in a thread started by you. Maybe you've got me confused with someone else like you have confused situations with completely different ones throughout these last few pages.

[Ultimo_]

I checked. It was the thread in which I was trying to get suggestions for building a character based on Dr. Doom. Somehow, it transformed into a discussion about Mastermind attacks. You definitely posted, but I didn't look to see how often, it might have just been once.

Not relevant to this thread though.

[Prof_Backfire]

Is it too late to say that the OP is the best at what he does?

[Talen Lee]

My eyes are fully open to my awful situation,
I shall go at once to Roderic and make him an oration.
I shall tell him I've recovered my forgotten moral senses,
And I don't care twopence-halfpenny for any consequences.
Now I do not want to perish by the sword or by the dagger,
But a martyr may indulge a little pardonable swagger,
And a word or two of compliment my vanity would flatter,
But I've got to die tomorrow, so it really doesn't matter!

... okay, I got that off my chest. It's all that sprang to mind seeing the thread title, and feels so very germaine. Look, Ultimo, You should consider changing your general 'mode' on these forums. If you approach problems as 'Hey, guys, is this what you experience too?' rather than 'This is what I experience, and therefore things need to change based on that,' you might find information is more forthcoming.

[HelinCarnate]

[ QUOTE ]
Look, Ultimo, You should consider changing your general 'mode' on these forums. If you approach problems as 'Hey, guys, is this what you experience too?' rather than 'This is what I experience, and therefore things need to change based on that,' you might find information is more forthcoming.

[/ QUOTE ]

This^^^

[Twisted Toon]

When did the thread title get changed? I need to get in the habit of checking those every time I read the boards...

[Ultimo_]

That would have been Necross, on a previous page... Page 4 for me, of 5 pages...

[Jade_Dragon]

[ QUOTE ]
I checked. It was the thread in which I was trying to get suggestions for building a character based on Dr. Doom. Somehow, it transformed into a discussion about Mastermind attacks. You definitely posted, but I didn't look to see how often, it might have just been once.

Not relevant to this thread though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't repeat everything I (likely) said in that thread, but to my mind, when you get 75% of your damage for free, you don't need more than 25% damage. It would be like a Tanker whose damage aura did 75% of his overall damage. The low damage is annoying when your concept is that you do more, but you just simply can't do any more, it's all you have room for. Of course the converse to that is that it's all you NEED to do.

As you said, though, not relevant to the thread, except in general terms. As in, each AT has its own feel, and sometimes that means not plowing through a spawn the way a Scrapper can. :)

[Schismatrix]

[ QUOTE ]
That would have been Necross, on a previous page... Page 4 for me, of 5 pages...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it was my fault. i tend to do stuff like that on a whim. Anyway, i'm pretty much done with this thread, so i haven't read it the last couple days.

Here's a summary of my impressions before i go: Ultimo made several assertions that didn't sound accurate to me as justifications for major changes to game balance.

Several people posted responses using calculations based on the game's numbers as to why they found Ultimo's anecdotes implausible.

i decided to test one of Ultimo's claims in game while handicapping myself to give the benefit of the doubt.

i posted the results of the test and my experiences did not come close to matching Ultimo's results.

Ultimo then posted that his experiences nearly matched mine in direct contradiction of what he'd earlier presented as proof of why the game needed to be changed. i then quoted both assertions side by side.

Ultimo waffled and equivocated, i had a headdesk moment and decided that, after one last reply to a rather silly statement by Ultimo, there was no point left to posting in this thread.

And that's how i saved the world, got the girl, accused a small chunk of granite of disloyalty to the crown, arm wrestled a porpoise and then moved on to sillier pastures.

:eek:

[Ultimo_]

I don't agree with your assessment (yes, I know you're shocked).

My assertion has been that endurance costs are too high, and that characters are constantly running out, often in dealing with minor threats. It seemed to me, considering how Claws performed, that Defenders suffered inordinately in this regard. My extensive experience with Tankers led me to conclude that they also suffered disproportionately. I described an experience with my Defender to support this. It turned out that the example I described was an outlier, and not a good example.

Thus I initiated a test roughly concurrent to your own. I found that my Defender and Scrapper both ran out of endurance frequently, supporting my original assertion, but neither seemed to suffer more than the other.

You described your characters having some endurance-related stoppages as well, though perhaps not as frequently as mine did. As I said, the difference was on the small side, from the sound of it, and considering the small sample of data, not very telling. Simple luck would be enough to account for the difference.

In other words, my original assertion stands, that endurance is too costly. As for the rest, well, lacking more definitive data, I can't say more.

I neither waffled nor equivocated. I simply carried on in search of truth.

[Siolfir]

[ QUOTE ]
Thus I initiated a test roughly concurrent to your own. I found that my Defender and Scrapper both ran out of endurance frequently, supporting my original assertion, but neither seemed to suffer more than the other.

[/ QUOTE ]
And thus balance is achieved.

If the game was designed such that nobody ever needed to worry about endurance or build towards maximizing the effectiveness of the limited pool you have, then why have it in the first place?

The suggestion that nobody should ever have to worry about endurance while constantly firing powers seems to fly in the face of the whole purpose of keeping track of it. Maybe that's why people don't like the idea.

[Umbral]

[ QUOTE ]
It seemed to me, considering how Claws performed, that Defenders suffered inordinately in this regard.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is where you need to learn the game. The secondary effect of Claws is a reduced endurance cost. Thank you for using completely inappropriate comparisons.

[Peacemoon]

the subject of these replies is getting pretty bad.

From the main index I started reading "My legs are.." in the latest post section while clicking on archtypes and powers forum, only to finish the sentence with the title of the original post "..opened!" Needless to say, I was worried what kind of forum I had clicked on!

[Twisted Toon]

Nice summery. It goes along with what I had noticed in the thread as well. Much ado about nothing.

[Ultimo_]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seemed to me, considering how Claws performed, that Defenders suffered inordinately in this regard.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is where you need to learn the game. The secondary effect of Claws is a reduced endurance cost. Thank you for using completely inappropriate comparisons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, good lord, go back and read the thread, I already SAID that this wasn't a fair comparison, and was the reason why I used my Shield Scrapper instead.