Bill Z Bubba

20% chance every 10 seconds for 10 end works out to .2 EPS on average, I believe.

Base recovery appears to be 1.67 EPS

Stamina appears to bump that to 2.09 and states that it increases recovery by 25%. 1.67/4 = .4175 + 1.67 = 2.0875 or 2.09 so that seems to work out.

A level 40 IO appears to buff 38.6
A second brings that to 76.48 with a tiny amount sliced off due to ED
A third brings that to 97.37

So...

Stamina with 1 slot is a 34.65% rec buff 2.25 EPS
Stam w/ 2 is 44.12 rec buff 2.41 EPS
Stam w/ 2 enhs and PerfShift is 2.61 EPS
Stam w/ 3 enhs is 49.34 buff 2.49 EPS

If my math is correct, 2 lvl 40 basic IOs or better plus the perf shifter is better than 3 straight lvl 40 basic IOs.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As you continue to ignore that the difficulty will remain the same (minimum 7 team members means all spawns stay set for 7 members even if you're solo) you will continue to lack any punch with the statement "the task will be degraded."

[/ QUOTE ]
um, are you aware that they do NOT work this way now?
If you start a task force with a minimum of 7, and then 5 quit the TF, it will spawn for two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Covered later on. The fact that TF/SFs degrade themselves now pretty much shot the whole case of "allowing them to be started by a soloist would degrade the worth of the TF/SF" out of the water.

Allowing the soloist to start the TF/SF but only if his VTDS was set at or above the minimum team size called for means that the TF/SF would retain its intended content difficulty, thus improving on the current implementation. Especially if you were incapable of lowering the VTDS while in TF mode.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that PB should have a break free effect to compensate for its lowered value compared to non-dropping toggles.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it did have that?

I might be thinking of Domination though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dom yes, PB no.

[ QUOTE ]
You're comparing optimal DPS charts. Since players are not natively flowing into these states

[/ QUOTE ]

I call BS on this, but whatever.

Spellcheck is your friend.

I don't disagree with either of you. For overall game balance, what someone can accomplish with a fully tweaked up billion inf build should for the most part be ignored unless it's actually breaking the game.

But this thread wasn't about that. The OP used basic IOs that anyone can easily acquire to compare single target damage output for the attack primaries that exist now and may exist shortly.

He's also ignoring that you can take any build using any powerset combo and make it solo friendly. You might be skipping powers to do so, but it can be done. It might be slow as hell before SOs and you may be stuck on the first diff, but thems the breaks.

Choosing a team based archetype and choosing to play it like a solo based archetype has disadvantages. Ignoring that fact is as stupid as driving nails into your own foot.

[ QUOTE ]
The Proposed Hardcap Reduction

An 80% resistance cap will devastate electric brutes. I say this having played two electric armor brutes to 50, so that is pre-powersurge, pre-IO, SO builds. Trust me, when powerset proliferation hits, you won't be soloing AV's on anything but perhaps a kat/elec scrapper, and even then, you'll need aid self. For resistance sets, brutes do need that 90% cap at times. Dark/Elec might be cool, but is nowhere near Dark/SR.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tonality, I believe this is more a problem with Elec itself than with lowering the cap.

We'll find out when it does get ported, of course, but FA is also painfully weak on its own, and a lot of scrappers seem to be enjoying it regardless of that fact.

Claws is not hurting in the damage arena regardless of scrap or brute claws.

From this thread you can find a spreadsheet discussing single target damage with all brute/scrapper primaries propagated to both sides. This chart is based off of basic IO slotting.

Brute claws is only slightly lower than scrap claws and both are in the top 8 sets out of 28 sets.

Then you can consider that claws has three aoes, a huge cone, a small high damage cone and a pbaoe.

Claws rocks. A lot.

[ QUOTE ]
The change to how Phase works in PvP (phased can attack/be attacked by other phased)

[/ QUOTE ]

They actually added that? Sweet.

We need a total overhaul of storage. Account wide banking for inf/enhancements. Recipe bins in bases.

It is my hope that with GR and side switching, the devs will realize that cross faction transfers will be available and use this as reason to allow for global account storage.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The click protections also use less EPS, don't they?

[/ QUOTE ]

WP IW: .208 EPS
SR PB: .087 EPS

yup.

[/ QUOTE ]

This actually makes sense when you consider that Practiced Brawler has an additional cost that a toggle never has to consider: animation time. In most aspects of the game, this isn't really addressed simply because animation time was never actually considered to have anything to do with game mechanics way back when, but, hopefully, soon the devs will have a mechanism to actually check.

[/ QUOTE ]I wouldnt say animation time is an issue because the animations for these powers can be easily cancelled if you are in motion.

[/ QUOTE ]

While true, you are still unable to attack during the power's cast time regardless of whether the animation fires off. An issue that toggle players only have to deal with once a play session upon logging in.

Put lvl 21 slots in QR. Took health instead of DC at 22 and loaded up with SOs. Hit 23 shortly thereafter.

5th diff is already a cakewalk but my old rule of "all my melee characters need tough/weave" seems to be holding true here.

[ QUOTE ]
Many Defenders played and built by me can't do this adequately.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed that for you.

/insomnia sucks.

[ QUOTE ]
Say what you like, my Force Field Defender is FAR weaker than any other character I've ever played. I have no personal defenses to speak of (in part due to my build, I don't use the standard "defenses" of Force Bolt and Detention Bubble), and almost no offense to speak of.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't you start a thread talking about how weak your defender was and the end outcome of that thread was that you built it poorly? Yup. I remember that.

EDIT: Ooops, should have read more. Your issues were your fault. I'm not saying FF is a great set. I think FF does have issues. So FF should be fixed. That has absolutely nothing to do with archetype balance.

I back such warnings 100%. Also, I believe that there is at least one TF with a mission containing simultaneous click glowies, yes?

Those would need a warning flatly stating "This taskforce can not be completed with less than X number of players."

For new players, I would think that the percentage that messes around with their difficulty slider for the first time before starting a TF in Steel Canyon would be small enough to be considered negligible.

For specific builds being built for soloing task forces, that already takes place, but I would hope that the devs would always be on the lookout for such things. Just today someone was requesting build advice which other posters recognized would be used specifically for farming specific enemies in the AE.

Lastly, Neuronia, thank you for coming in with solid possible objections to opening up the TF/SFs to soloists. You raise good points and they do need to be considered before such a change is implemented.

[ QUOTE ]
Would you find it a good comprimise to make all TFs and SFs only require 3 people ???

I think that is a reasonable half way point on the TF/SF/Trial matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. Nor do I think the rewards should be lessened. If you can accomplish something solo that others need a team for, you should get the same rewards as the team.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
great people that were more than happy to help me get started

[/ QUOTE ]

So you admit that people don't find it a hassle to help you solo TFs... You solo TFs with no problem and people don't seem to complain about helping you out.

So remind me what your point is again and why the devs need to spend time changing TFs?

[/ QUOTE ]

This must be the difference between you and I:

I dislike asking for help, especially when I find being forced to ask for that assistance so distasteful. I prefer to be completely self-sufficient when I am able.

When I do run into a task and I meet repeated failure, THEN I will ask for assistance, but only after I ascertain that I am flatly incapable of handling the situation alone.

I'm not like those that run home to momma the first time things get a little rough.

In other words, unlike some people, I Don't Like Bothering Other People, even when they're happy to provide assistance and don't see it as a bother.

So not that I expect you'll grasp the point any more now than you have so far, I'll state it again:

The tech is already being added to the game with issue 16 that will allow us to set a virtual team size. The point of allowing this tech to function with TF/SF minimum team sizes is so that people like me aren't forced to ask others for assistance in starting content that we don't need assistance completing.

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't have enough friends to help you start a TF, and I'm going to say this as politely as I can, maybe you need to spend less time demanding that the devs cater to your playstyle and more time making friends.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh how cute. Can't come up with anything rational or useful to say so you attack my supposed lack of in game friends.

Here's a little story to make you feel bad about your ignorance:

One day I decided to run all the main hero side TFs solo. I knew that I would need one character to remain on my team but logged out to do so. My brother covered that.

Posi: Need 1 more to start "hey Pinnacle badge channel, here's my plan... so throughout the day, if yall can help me get these things started, I'll greatly appreciate it." Player shows up, I start, player quits, brother logs off, I solo without issue.

Synapse: "Ok, folks, ready for round 2! This time I'll need 2." Less than 5 minutes later I'm off on my own.

Sister Psyche: "Round 3, need 3!" 3 show up, 3 leave. I solo TF.

Citadel: "round 4, need 4!" Done.

Manticore: "Round 5, need 5!" This one took a whole 10 minutes to start.

Numina: "Last one, only need 2" Up and started in less than 5.

Total success rate on soloing TFs? 6 for 6.

The only downside to the day? The fact that I had to keep bugging these great people that were more than happy to help me get started and provide chatter and support as I spent I can't remember how long plowing through this *supposed* team content.

In other words, your opinion on my supposed lack of in game friends has about as much worth as your opinion on the topic at hand. Which would be none.

Dude... c'mon... the Wife's Figurine Collection would be WAY freaking overpowered.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Part of the reason they're not considered casual is because you have to have several like-minded people who are committed to completing them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Proven false by those that have soloed them. Not even a second player is needed to be present at completion. They only need to be part of the TF and logged off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because some people have solo'd them doesn't mean they should be turned into content that is intentionally soloable.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is truth. Just because certain players can solo it does not mean the devs should make it easier to solo. It's designed for teams - if you've put enough effort into your character to be able to solo a TF, you should have no problem forming a temporary team to get you started.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because hassling other players is good!

Soloing a TF without having to hassle other players so that you can solo it is BAAAAAAAAAD.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And now...back to trying to figure out how to get Formula X to incorporate Variable Y without breaking in hideous, horrible, awful ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me you're doing something about bringing animation times into the damage formula. Please. Pretty please...

[/ QUOTE ]

Before any rumors start swirling -- It's an analysis formula, not anything directly impacting gameplay. Sorry!

[/ QUOTE ]

/shakes tiny fist of rage

[/ QUOTE ]

Just remember Bill... Analysis leads to direct changes to gameplay.

[/ QUOTE ]

/strokes goatee and nods sagely

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And now...back to trying to figure out how to get Formula X to incorporate Variable Y without breaking in hideous, horrible, awful ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me you're doing something about bringing animation times into the damage formula. Please. Pretty please...

[/ QUOTE ]

Before any rumors start swirling -- It's an analysis formula, not anything directly impacting gameplay. Sorry!

[/ QUOTE ]

/shakes tiny fist of rage

I do have one inquiry about the current TF/SF mechanism:

I know that a while back the devs went in and mucked around, but I don't recall if this change is currently in place;

When a team does drop below the minimum required, do the spawns continue to spawn for the rest of the TF/SF at the minimum required level, or the actual level of the number of teammates on the team, logged on or not?

I recall being all happy about the spawns remaining at the minimum required level, but don't believe I experienced that when I soloed the hero side main TFs.

I ask this because IF the spawns do not remain at the minimum required team size level, then TF/SFs degrade *by design.*

My suggestion removes any difficulty degradation and would actually improve the value of the TF/SFs over their current configuration. Granted, it would also make it more difficult for teams that lose players by no choice of their own, but I don't personally see a problem with that.

[ QUOTE ]

Interesting as in 'completely wrong' or 'I never thought of it that way'?

[/ QUOTE ]

I hadn't thought of it in that way.

[ QUOTE ]
People are inherently self-centered, even if they are altruistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I most assuredly approve of the cut of your jib.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure it causes the same amount of -Defense between the two ATs because it provides the same amount of +ToHit and +Damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tank Rage: ToHit +20% for 120s DMG(All Types) +80% for 120s [Ignores Enhancements & Buffs]

Brute Rage: ToHit +20% for 120s DMG(All Types) +80% for 120s [Ignores Enhancements & Buffs]

You win.

But they shouldn't be the same, should they? Don't tanks and brutes have different base damage modifiers? Scrapper BU is +20TH and +100DAM where brute/tank is +20TH and +80DAM.

Why ARE brute/tank buffs the same?

Or is there a completely separate damage buff table?

Ahhh, now it makes sense:
http://coh.nofuture.org.uk/data/modi...Melee_Buff_Dmg