Arcanaville

1. The progress you're "supposed to be making" is to unlock slots and slot powers. Virtually all of those powers and effects, except for two raid-specific buffs work outside of the trials. Even Alpha's shift works outside of trials and its a reward-breaking buff that lets you attack lower content without reward penalty.

2. The instant you exemp lower than 50, you lose your Incarnate powers, as well as any other powers more than three levels higher than the exemplar level. Exemplar always takes away abilities to moderately normalize your strength against the content for balance purposes.

3. Most MMOs don't let you exemplar at all. It took years for WoW to add the feature long after City of Heroes did, and when they did it was *still* a novelty. So most MMOs don't have the problem you specify because most MMOs don't allow you the option to even see the situation where the problem could occur.

4. In effect, the trials are a replacement for higher combat level content. If they had just added ten more levels, we wouldn't be having this conversation because no one would be asking to keep level 55 when doing level 50 content. They would have just outleveled it and had to either exemp down to it, or never do it again, period. The Incarnate system is *superior* to that, because almost all of its benefits can still be used in level 50 content. Even that is potentially game-breaking levels of power they are allowing us to have. But people should not be focused on the two tiny things we don't get to keep outside of Incarnate content, they should be thanking the devs for the 99% of the benefits we *do* get to keep. Because its never been true in this game that you were allowed to keep higher level powers in lower level content. That's new. I do not get to keep Nova and use it in Synapse. I do get to keep Ion Judgment and use it in ITF. The fact that I don't get to keep Lore shift in ITF is so minor of a situation relatively speaking its actually bordering on looking a gift horse in the mouth.


Also, I'm now 5 and 2 on BAF, 4 and 1 on Lambda. No more losses since day one. Either the players are a lot smarter and adaptable than the doomsayers were predicting, the trials are a lot easier than some were asserting, or Triumph is the most awesome server in the galaxy. Or possibly all three.

Incidentally, at one point there were two simultaneous trial leagues running in Pocket D, plus two ITFs gearing up, plus a Sutter being organized, all at the same time. On Triumph. That would be like finding out Union just spawned Rikti War Zone number twelve. I honestly would have never guessed the activity level would have been this high on I20 release. The people guessing that almost no one would want to run these trials seems to have guessed incorrectly. The trials are becoming clockwork for those that have been on at least one successful run and have seen how its supposed to go down. Incredibly, in only a couple days I'm seeing a shift in attitude that whereas I thought the feeling was that BAF was harder and Lambda was easier, now I'm getting the vibe that the thinking is that both are easy, but BAF is faster.

All that worrying about being able to take down the AVs within a ten second window, because ten seconds is so short? Completely immaterial. The hospital door sync? I have yet to hear anyone complain in league chat yet. The only thing people complain about are other players that don't seem to follow directions to the detriment of the league, and even that is extremely rare. When an attempt fails, the leaders explain what went wrong, tell the league what to do different, and usually most people want to go again.

I'm sure someone out there is having disasterous experiences: I've been hearing about them. But I think they happen when everyone doesn't know what to do, or are being led by leaders that don't lead crisply. The leaders I've seen all knew what they were doing, and even if they got it wrong once or twice they adapted and eventually led their leagues to wins. As this knowledge propagates outward, I think this moreso than the actual Incarnate power will inexorably improve the success rates for the trials across the entire playerbase.


However, I will make this observation. Right now, the turnstile isn't working as a good way to throw people into these trials, for this reason. Leagues organized outside of the turnstile try to fill for maximum. So when they enter, they enter complete, with no fill room. Turnstile people are therefore likely to be all completely random. Which means also that the members and leaders will be completely random. Which increases the chances for poor organization. I think that more than anything else can lead to failure. If a turnstile league took a minute after zoning in to elect effective leaders and follow them, even if they fail they should reassemble and redo with the same people to increase their chances of success. But I doubt that is happening as often as it probably should.

So now I do have a recommendation for players. If you're having multiple strings of failures, my best recommendation is find out where your server is forming leagues - its mostly Pocket D on Triumph - and go there, and advertise for an invite, and wait. Jump into one of those static repeating leagues, and your chances of success probably go from whatever they were, to almost 100%.

Good question. I'll have to take a look more carefully. I have a couple of things with Burn I can test with. Unfortunately, it might not be until tomorrow or Friday when I get the chance to test, as I'll be traveling and I'm also trying to get some Lambda and BAF time in there to unlock some slots and someone has asked me to do a write up on some game mechanics for them. I'll try to squeeze in some quality testing time this week though.

That's funny, because just today I did I20 content involving Sky Raiders and warships and an advanced element of the Praetorian invasion, and it didn't even require being an Incarnate much less require running Incarnate trials. In fact, it exemplared me below level 50.

Also, I find it interesting that neither Lambda nor BAF have, as a prerequisite for running them, having previously succeeded at Lambda or BAF, and yet they are being held as clear examples of how future Incarnate content will be gated behind them. Honestly, I'm not even sure this is an argument I want to have anymore: now that I20 is reality and not theory, I find arguments about what it might or might not do increasingly uninteresting.


Incidentally, between yesterday and today, my current record on the trials stands at 3 and 1 on Lambda, 2 and 2 on BAF. So 75% success rate on Lambda and 50% on BAF. Interestingly, in both cases the successes on BAF came after failures with basically the same team. Observationally, it seems to me that the teams that succeed at both trials have players willing to listen, and players willing to teach, simultaneously. When that happenstance occurs, you can usually adjust and beat Lambda on the first try with any hodge-podge team. You can usually adjust and beat BAF on the second try after a failure tells you where you failed - and it always fails on the escaping prisoners, so its just a question of adjusting tactics to deal with them based on the team.

Honestly, I think it was an order of magnitude harder for us to figure out the I1 Hamidon back in 2004 than it is to figure out these trials. The only difficult part really - which was the exact same hurdle with Hamidon - is just getting everyone on the same page functioning as a team. When that happens, the trials go down fast. I honestly believe - specifically because you can bring 24 players to bear on it - that BAF, the harder of the two, is easier than the LRSF was before ultrastrong invention builds and Incarnate powers arrived.

They are also far more entertaining than Hamidon ever was. I'd run these trials even if they didn't have Incarnate rewards. I also like the fact that Sutter (haven't run the other yet) gives lower level players a taste of the kinds of combat mechanics the end game eventually throws at you. It creates a nice learning curve. Hopefully, future players won't run into the advanced mechanics face-first like us old timers do, because it will be old hat to them.


What's my advice to players? Honestly: I don't have any. If you're enjoying the new content, I have nothing to say that would improve that situation. If you're not enjoying it, my tactical advice for improving your odds of succeeding in the trials would be irrelevant. I firmly believe that the Incarnate content will eventually be like Hamidon, or the LRSF, or the ITF. Complaints about something being too difficult for our playerbase to enjoy have always vanished over time. The playerbase overall will adjust to the Incarnate content as well. Any argument over that fact will itself be irrelevant over time. We've already seen that with Apex and Tin Mage: the level of difficulty claimed for those two has dropped dramatically. And these two new trials are something I'm getting better than 50% success rates at twenty four hours after launch.

If you just don't enjoy it, I can't help you: no one can. Not everyone will like all content added to the game, and its unfortunate if you're one of those that doesn't like the new content. But if you think they are too hard for this game, you're wrong. But I don't have to convince anyone of that, just like I don't have to make arguments today that the LRSF and the STF are too hard for all but a vanishing minority of players. Time is on my side.

Everything except Incarnate Shift works everywhere, inside or outside of the trials. Incarnate Shift is not a "theoretical level." The progress in the Incarnate system is not defined by combat level shifting. They even changed the name to signal that. What do they have to do at this point, change the mechanics so it doesn't use the combat modifier tables at all and replaces it with a complex numerical buff that takes an extra month to make and ends up doing the same thing?

The Incarnate "levels" are the slots. Every "incarnate level" works everywhere. The special combat modifier buff in the slots besides Alpha only work in the trials, so that the devs can make the trials have very high difficulty levels *but* unlike the LRSF before the players can work to earn power to overcome that difficulty. The numbers involved are simply too stupidly high to allow just that one tiny mechanic to work outside the trials.

You're correct there's a psychological effect going on here, but its not the one you're thinking of.

That's the funky part I mentioned earlier. If the power wasn't autohit, if the very first burst of damage failed to hit anything, the pseudo-pet wouldn't spawn. - the power didn't affect anything. So Burn is coded to autohit (both you and its targets), to guarantee the pseudopet forms. However, the actual damage from the power has a special check built into it that in effect rolls a tohit roll separately to see if it hits each of its targets (and to make sure it doesn't actually damage you - it was at one time bugged to hit yourself). That extra bit of gyration is something Real Numbers isn't coded to understand so it probably drops out saying anything about the initial damage, and only shows the pet damage.

Real Numbers probably hasn't caught up with the new definition of Burn yet, which is a little bit funky. Burn does 1.44 scale damage up front from the scrapper and then casts a pseudo pet that deals scale 0.06 damage every 0.8 seconds for 10 seconds - 13 total ticks.

That is 90.09 damage up front and 13 ticks of 3.34 damage.

Not sure about accuracy, will have to check on that. The burn pet might be bugged to not accept accuracy buffs from the caster.

The precise way that happens - because it is potentially changing player characters' visible character names - is not common sense. It is, in fact, the singular aspect of universal naming that is likely to be the most difficult to achieve any sort of consensus on. You have a contingent of players that have said elsewhere and in the past that they would rather accept rejecting any game addition that required name changes rather than accept *any* name change. That is a priori proof of the difficulty surrounding this problem.

I should point out this thread is my fault: Snow Globe was responding to a post I made in another thread where I specifically stated my uncompromisable objection to Global@Local. I would accept it if I was forced, but I would go down swinging at everything that moved until then. In fact, and this is no exaggeration, Global@Local is a small but significant part of why I do not post on the Champions Online boards anymore, and why I never did on the ST:O boards. That is the degree of objection I have to that convention.

Nothing was done. Base regen and recovery were not changed, and what's more its basically impossible for a respec to change those. *Nothing* can change those for a player because they are hard coded into the archetype definition: once you pick an archetype, those numbers are the same for every character of that archetype. This is not a guess.

More information about how specifically you got those numbers would help explain the discrepancy. But base regen and recovery were not changed, and cannot change under a respec.

Hidden in the snark is one of the legitimate reasons for choosing scrappers over brutes: their powersets don't completely overlap. Scrappers get Broadsword and Katana, while Brutes do not. This means Scrappers get Parry/DA, and Brutes don't. Brutes get Superstrength, Scrappers don't. This means Brutes get Rage, and Scrappers don't.

So: if you want to play Broadsword, Katana, Spines, Martial Arts, or Regeneration, you have to roll a Scrapper. If you want to play Energy Melee, Super Strength, Battle Ax, Stone Melee, War Mace, Energy Aura, or Stone Armor, you have to roll a Brute (if you're choosing between a Scrapper and a Brute).

I tend to pick powersets first then archetype, so often choice of powerset decides the archetype.

Nope and nope and nope. Knockback and Knockup are two different effects.

Knockdown is not a separate effect: its a variation of knockback where knockback magnitude is less than 0.75: knockdown has a throw distance of zero, but still causes knock. But Knockback and Knockup are two completely different effects.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of anything that has or offers protection to KB and not KU or vice versa, so in practice protection to one is tantamount to protection from the other. But they are not the same effect.

Actually, he specifically made the knockback animation while hovering take less time than it normally takes if you are on the ground. I'm pretty sure I tested this to be true back then, although I never tried to figure out the precise numbers both ways.

My philosophy on scrappers is scrappers are designed to be balanced. My definition of balanced is, in very rough terms, have enough defense to survive what you have enough offense to kill. Having enough offense to kill a pylon in three minutes is meaningless if it can kill you in one. That's obviously a very hazy target, and not something you can really easily put into numbers. But its what I strive for intuitively regardless.

Well, people do things for all sorts of reasons and I'm not the one to tell people how to play, but if it means anything to you its worth pointing out that while there is such a thing as a level 50 SO, there's no such thing as a level 50 IO in the same sense. An SO has an intrinsic level, such that if you are more than three levels higher it stops working. IOs have a minimum level, but they work at all levels. Since nothing about the KB enhancements scale up or down with level a level 10 KB IO is indistinguishable from a level 10 KB IO when you are level 50, so it is in effect identical to it. It only acts differently at lower levels, which you say you'll never be again.

On the subject of what has what level of knock, just to review:

All knockdown is 0.75 or lower; that's what makes it knockdown in the first place. A -4 therefore blocks all knockdown.

Most critter knockback for minions to bosses are between mag 0.3 and mag 3. One KB IO will stop those as well.

Some critter KB exceeds mag 4, but its unusual. Archvillains can exceed mag 4 with a variety of powers. Any boss or higher critter with power push can also exceed mag 4.

Some KB is intrinsicly lower than mag 4 but players can experience higher mag due to the purple patch. Statesman in the LRSF has a lot of mag 4 KB, but its only mag four if you happen to be the same level as Statesman. Its otherwise somewhat higher. KB in +2 missions only has to be mag 3.3 to convert to at least knockdown. Against +4 critters its only 2.8.

Force bolt is the usual culprit for high mag outside of AVs. Its intrinsicly mag 9 on bosses, enough to overcome to -4 KB protection IOs. It can also overcome three such IOs if you face the boss at +4.

A few critters just have mega KB. Statesman has an intrinsic mag 6 knockup in KO Blow and mag 6 knockback in Hurl, but two IOs can block him. BackAlleyBrawler and Reichsman both have some wicked knock, from mag 6 all the way up to mag 22 (both have at least one mag 22 knockback power). But this is usually very special circumstance.

And by the way, as far as I remember all KB IOs are also KU IOs with the same mag.

Two KB powers that land at the same time will combine magnitudes, a fact which is more important for tankers (and anything else that tries to tank like one) than most other things. The definition of "at the same time" is a little vague, but I think its probably something like within the same combat clock or thereabouts, which means the KB has to land within one eighth and one quarter of a second apart. Two Nemesis Fakes landing simultaneous force bolts will almost certainly knock almost anything off its feet that does not have KB resistance - which all melee powerset powers with KB protection have as well.

And since this has come up before, 100% KB resistance means no KB. It reduces all incoming KB mag to zero, and zero means no KB - unless the knockback is unresistable.

On the subject of unresistable knockback: UXB detonations have unresistable knockback, and its mag 300. That's why they will toss even melee away from them: its almost impossible to have enough KB protection to stop that.

The devs made a whole set of critter types with exactly that base tohit: the "Praetorian" variants of various critters. That is just what they are called: they aren't necessarily restricted to only Praetorians (the DE in tip missions have that base tohit, but its unclear that they specifically have any connection to Praetoria).

Unless the critter gets specific powers to boost tohit (i.e. Rularuu eyeballs) there's three different base tohits in the game: 75% (players, pets, turrets), 50% (just about everything else) and 64% (special Praetorian classes).

The only place we currently see the 64% specials is in Incarnate content and (still weirdly) DE tip missions. I doubt we'll be seeing them in standard content any time soon. But I suspect we'll be seeing them increasingly in end game advanced content.

Whether that's enough to build around is a separate matter. But I will say that the difference between 45% defense and 59% defense is a factor of almost four for a critter like Tin Mage Bobcat. That would be significant to someone wanting to tank her, or even stand anywhere next to her.

Of course, in virtually all of the content these guys show up in except for DE tip missions, you're likely to be on a team and a significant percentage of the time (but not always) you'll have defensive buffs. So building to 59% may be the land of diminishing returns for almost everyone. For a few things, like SR, Ice, and Energy (and certainly Force Fields) it might be a not-insane exercise. I'd consider it for Katana/* scrappers and NB/* stalkers, and anything/Invuln with invincibility, because those too are not too unreachable.

I've started leveling a new brute, and every brute has been the same for me as well: the early levels are immensely easier than for scrappers. Its never been hard to generate a lot of fury, and the current incarnation of Fury means it lingers even longer between spawns than it used to. I've actually Rested after a spawn and left rest with a lingering 40% damage buff, which is bordering on ludicrous. And at lower levels, the break even point between Scrappers and Brutes when neither are doing much in the way of damage slotting is just about 60% damage. About 30% fury. That is trivial to generate and average. Not only does this mean you kill faster, it also means you burn less endurance per kill which is important before you slot up Stamina or start slotting attacks with significant endurance reduction. Averaging +100% damage (50% fury) - which I'm finding to be a very conservative estimate even solo - a low level Brute is dealing about 20% more dps and is about 20% more endurance efficient than a comparable Scrapper. It evens out a bit at the high levels when the break even point jumps to about +130% damage buff (+65% fury), but at low levels Fury is much more decisive.

I've seen unslotted brute KO Blow deal 140 damage at level ten while playing solo with no external buffs. For reference, unslotted blaster Total focus does 198 damage at level fifty. And that is a power brutes get at level eight competing with a power blasters get at level thirty eight. Defiance will increase the blaster number by some amount, but its still a remarkable comparison.

Influence has been in-game currency for as long as the game has existed. I don't think anyone has really argued against that.

However, its not money. What's the difference? The difference is that calling it money carries connotations that aren't true in the game, for example the notion that anything purchasable with any currency should be purchasable with influence. In more technical terms, money is universal currency. If someone thinks its money and they think it functions as money, no problem. If someone thinks its money because its treated as money in the game, but they have an issue with all the times its not treated as money in the game, they have a problem. A humorous problem, but not one the game can correct for them.

I think it would say more about the game than the powersets, or rather it would give a reference point for the numbers. When someone says a tanker can survive a thousand points of damage per second, is that a lot? What about 500 dps? What does that mean?

If I said a tanker can tank a spawn of three bosses, six LTs, and eight minions, that means something more to most players (I believe) than "500 dps" (*which* bosses, Lts, and minions is of course the $64000 question). And we have some actual interesting targets worth mentioning, which I'm not sure everyone is intimately familiar with. For example, long ago the devs said that the target for tanking performance with SOs was being able to tank for a team of four without significant team assistance. Lower performance than that was cause for concern. So that's a balance target, if not an especially interesting high performance target. But we also have the aggro cap, which makes the case of a full spawn up to seventeen, and seventeen bosses, also interesting targets. And then we have special case tanking: what does it take to tank Lord Recluse when buffed with all the towers? What does it take to tank Romulus? The entire Freedom Phalanx? We all know what those targets are, but I doubt anyone (including at the moment me) knows what those targets translates to numerically.

Does it say more than the current numbers if you can meet those specific targets numerically? Maybe not. But it does tell you what the current calculations mean by "X dps."


If nothing else, its a frame of reference. Here's an example of a frame of reference. Pre-I4, it was possible for a Regen scrapper, and *only* a regen scrapper, to solo tank Hami (the nucleus only). What did it actually take to do that back then? Although I know this one, its possible to calculate backwards. It took just about 200 dps regen to tank the nucleus. A perma-DP Regen had about 1870 health back then (without accolades). At +2000% regen with instant healing a regen could get about 164 h/s regen. Realistically, the most I think a regen could get is about 2400% total regen, which is 187 h/s. With DP's heal, that would get you about 194 h/s. As a practical matter, then, a regen needed perma-DP, maxed out regen, *and* reconstruction. With all of that, a regen scrapper could get to about 225 h/s. It actually took about 260 h/s to tank a yellow mito, so even the best Regen scrapper couldn't do that, and in fact I'm unaware of any regen scrapper of the time being able to do that. You could get close, but eventually the yellow would out-pace you. Many tried though.

A quick and dirty mental calculation suggests that berserk Bobcat in Tin Mage can probably dish out 6000 dps in melee range. That doesn't sound high because the spreadsheet shows smash/lethal numbers above 10,000. But that assumes 50% base tohit and soft-capped defenses bringing that down to 5%. If you had *50%* defense against her in TM *and* were level shifted she'd still be hitting you about 27% of the time or more: about 5.5 times more often. In other words, an apples to apples comparison would weight Bobcat as generating about 33,000 dps. And that's why even Granite tankers have issues there.

Knowing that Bobcat is kinda sorta a class-33000 critter is helpful in broad terms to give the spreadsheet's numbers some context. 10,000 dps sustainable is a lot. Few things - or even groups of things - hit harder than that. But some do.

I believe it is a safe assumption that the vast overwhelming majority of players will care somewhat more than that.

Actually, it doesn't. It still means "all it takes to buy that game is a five pound note." The extra clause only adds the following additional: "for some unspecified reason neither a one pound note nor a ten pound note is sufficient."

"I can buy that game only with a £5 note; not a £1 note or a £10 note."

- The only thing capable of buying that game is a five pound note: for clarity I'm reminding you that neither a one pound note nor a ten pound note will work. No other option will work, whether I mentioned them or not.

"I can buy that game with only a £5 note; not a £1 note or a £10 note."

- All it takes to buy that game is a five pound note. Its still possible a twenty pound note will work, or five one pound notes work. For some reason, neither a single one pound note nor a ten pound note will work. Other options I haven't mentioned may still work.

Basically, the difference between "only with" and "with only" is the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient." You can argue that people colloquially interchange the meaning of those two phrases, but its not ambiguous what their correct syntactical meaning is. If I used both in an instruction, I would expect (as in demand, not anticipate) that instruction to be followed correctly every single time.

The advantage of simple calculations are that they are simple. Other people can read them, learn them, and adapt them. Lots of people have over the years, or reinvented them, but at the time I first wrote the basic versions of the survivability equations, I had that same choice: maximum fidelity or maximum clarity. I chose to use simple average equations because they would be most useful at the time. I still think most players at best can run those equations, or use a spreadsheet and get some numbers and try to extrapolate. They are still useful, if imprecise. Virtually all more complex approaches ever conceived of have been lost to time, because no one can sustain them.

The irony is that the more complex you get, the less interesting the numbers can get because beyond a certain point, people can't understand precisely what you're doing and have to take your numbers on faith. And if they do, your numbers have to have very little room for misinterpretation.

I think the threshold idea would be a good supplement to the simpler calculations, but I don't see them replacing those calculations.

Actually, global namespace is a legitimate point of discussion. You're approaching this from the perspective of the amount of work involved. All of the technical challenges to making cross-server teaming are just that, technical challenges. The programming team could go away and come back with a solution, and for the most part neither you nor I would have any reason to need to know what they did, or have any real say in how they did what they did. There's no political dimension to the problem.

Global namespace is different, because while almost all solutions are technically straight forward, and probably less work than the actual act of creating cross-server instances, the question of how specifically to do it is subjective. Its not a technical challenge, and as a result its actually beyond the limits of the programmers to solve with just code. That makes it a potentially far more critical challenge. Its entirely possible the devs could kick around ideas for how to do this for a longer period of time than it would take the programming team to solve every other problem.

Code can sometimes be difficult and sometimes be easy to change, but its almost always straight forward. What to code often takes longer to decide, and creates more controversy. You need only look to the current EU/NA server space merge to see how the most straight-forward and practical implementation can cause lots of people to decide the devs failed to choose the "best" possibility, for at least six different definitions of "best" all mutually exclusive.

The good news is that with XP rationing, it will only take 7,500 XP to level to 50 in Issue 21. The bad news is that the Kronos Titan will only be giving 6.

Making a judgment on how often you should be expected to face the different critters is one hazy area of guestimation. Are we considering players who play all the content, or focus on just some content? Are we looking for the best tanker for specific situations like high end task forces or all content?

Another thing that requires judgment is the concept of thresholding. For example, certain critters can only generate so much threat due to the aggro cap. Should they count and under what circumstances.

For example, imagine a mission with lots of minions and Lts that all do smash/lethal damage that ends in an AV that does negative damage. The s/l damage is all in minions and LTs, and the most damage you could possibly face from them is seventeen times the output of one LT. That might end up being far lower than the damage output of the AV. The s/l damage might be 90% of the total damage you might face, but 0% of the total damage from damage sources capable of killing you.

So weighting isn't just about the pure damage ratios, but also their peak levels. Put simply, if you have a mission in which 99% of the time you're facing 500 dps of s/l damage, and 1% of the time you're facing 1000 dps of energy damage, energy protection might be far more important than its damage ratio would imply. Energy protection is only 2% of the total, but does that underweight energy protection? Something with 99% mitigation to s/l and no protection to energy might look better on paper than something with 75% s/l and 99% energy using unweighted ratios, but the latter might perform better.

When we start looking at specific critters and damage mixes, its starts to become interesting to ask if we can abandon averages altogether and come up with a set of damage targets to survive. In other words, suppose we make a list likie this:

1. Tank average 0x8 critter spawn (of each type of high level critter).
2. Tank all Praetorian AVs (singly)
3. Tank Lord Recluse in STF
4. Tank all AVs in LRSF (combined)
5. Tank buffed Bobcat in Tin Mage

etc. Instead of asking how strong a tanker is, we could ask whether a tank build could theoretically reach these specific targets which would have both damage levels and damage mixes intrinsic to them. A tank build would then hit some of them, and only reach a percentage of the rest. That would be a real-world-anchored way to compare tanker builds. Picking the targets for comparison would then be the area of debate.