Bosstone

IIRC, the shivan mission isn't actually a mission. It's just kind of a special zone event.

Word. It took a few weeks, but between A-merits, reward merits, and a few lucky breaks on the market, my WP scrapper has a full 5 sets of Kinetic Combat (well, 4 pieces of each, at least) and didn't pay more than 100 mil for the lot, including salvage. Throw in a Steadfast, Weave and Tough, and squishy he is not. His build isn't quite finished yet, but even at level 41 he's already capable of fighting 0/x6 spawns safely with ~30% S/L defense and 46% S/L resist and ~25% defense to everything else.

+4 with Focused Accuracy, unslotted: 96% Accuracy
+4 with Focused Accuracy, slotted to ~8%: 83% Accuracy
+3 with Focused Accuracy, unslotted: 60% Accuracy
+3 with Focused Accuracy, slotted to ~8%:50% Accuracy

That's actually interesting. I hadn't calculated the numbers for Focused Accuracy before. I knew it provided more overall bonus than Tactics, but not by how much. Tactics still has a use, though; it costs significantly less in end/sec than FA, and it allows you to take an APP other than Body Mastery.

Anyway, for how to calculate:
Go to the Attack Mechanics page on the wiki. At the bottom is a list of to-hit chances based on the level of the enemy relative to the level of the player. For example, you have a base 39% chance to hit a +4 enemy and 48% for a +3 enemy.

Final to-hit is calculated by the sum of all your to-hit mods multiplied by the sum of all your accuracy mods. You can find out how much accuracy you need by totaling up your to-hit mods, adding it to the base, then dividing 95 (the target to-hit number) by that number.
Example: Base for +4 is 39%. You have Tactics which adds 7% for a total of 46, so 95/46 = 2.0652. There's an extra 1.0 built into that number, so you can subtract that to get 1.0652, or 1.07 rounded up, or 107% accuracy needed.

Focused Accuracy has both a to-hit and an accuracy component, so there's an extra step. FA gives 5% to-hit, so 39 + 5 = 44, and 95/44 = 2.159, or 1.16 or 116% Accuracy needed. But since FA is already giving you 20% global accuracy, 116 - 20 = 96% more Accuracy needed.

If you have an attack that has a base accuracy that's higher or lower than 1.0, you'd need to divide the number you get after dividing 95 by to-hit by whatever the base attack accuracy is. You technically always should do that step, but since you're usually dividing by 1.0 it's meaningless.
Example: Broadsword attacks have a 1.05 base accuracy. We've already figured that for +4s with FA, you get 2.159 accuracy. If you divide by 1.05, you get 2.056, or 106% Accuracy needed, or 86% after figuring in FA's contribution.
(I may have made a misstep in math in this paragraph. Pretty sure I didn't, but I hadn't looked at different base accuracy before now.)

I think if they were at the point where such numbers were nailed down, I20 wouldn't still be under lock and key. It's easy to adjust numbers; concepts and framework need to be established first. It sounds like they've got that far, at least.

Some Accuracy numbers to complement the Defense numbers further up the page:

To hit 95% against:
+4s with no extra buffs: 144% Accuracy
+4s with Scrapper Tactics, unslotted: 107% Accuracy
+4s with Scrapper Tactics, slotted to ~11%: 90% Accuracy
+3s with no extra buffs: 98% Accuracy
+3s with Scrapper Tactics, unslotted: 72% Accuracy
+3s with Scrapper Tactics, slotted to ~11%: 61% Accuracy

Those percentages include both per-power enhancements and global bonuses (and the Nerve Alpha if you go that route). You can hit 144% Accuracy with set IOs, but Tactics makes life a lot easier. The +3 numbers are important if you go for the level-shifted Alpha; at that point you're likely not to face anything that counts as +4 to you.

True enough, which is why they're not completely and horribly unbalancing. They have to work hard to even approach scrapper-level defenses, but they do still have far more defense than the typical ranged AT and can survive a ridiculous amount.

VEATs do show it can be done without being too overpowered, and I wouldn't mind seeing some exploration that way myself, but real tankmages can be problematic for balance.

Hindsight is beautiful, isn't it?

Yes, I can admit that. I'm thrilled to admit that. You definitely have comported yourself with far more composure than BigFish or even me.

Unfortunately it's not vitriol that's the problem so much as one's connection to reality and the tenuousness thereof.

Because summarizing conversations worked so well for BigFish earlier.

How so? Level shifts do not do some things normal levels do, and they also do some things normal levels do not do. There is one point of commonality.

I wonder how much of this argument would be happening had the devs called them "power boosts" from the start instead of "level shifts".

When you're fighting battles on three different fronts, it's best not to get them confused.

It does not make you level 51. It gives you some properties of a new level, but not all of them, and content can still be overcome without it.

"It's a new level" and "it's just set bonuses" are redefinitions designed to paint each side in the best possible light. It's something new, set in a different context from merely leveling up.

Done it twice.

Certainly not!

At present it appears to be just you.

I'm just going to let this stand on its own. It is a beautiful punchline in its own right. I leave it to the reader to decide what the joke is.

Perfect. Now try thinking as well. I know it can be hard to do simultaneously.

Post #441. Your opinion -- that is, what you think about what Arcanaville said -- is not backed by the facts -- that is, what Arcanaville actually wrote. Your opinion has no grounding upon which to stand. It was dead on arrival. It shuffled off this mortal coil as soon as it arrived. It has joined the choir invisible. It is, in fact, an ex-opinion.

Already did. Heck, you even replied to the post where I did.

You're entitled to your own opinion. You're not entitled to your own facts.

Somehow, he got the impression that this, which just explains why it's not a simple task, is actually arguing that the devs will not implement a solo option due to the difficulty.

Naturally it says absolutely nothing of the sort.

Of course, Paragon may still choose not to implement a solo option, and it may indeed be because of the difficulty of the task, but more specifically because they may decide that the effort is not worth the potential return. "More trouble than it's worth" springs to mind. I personally hope this isn't the case, but there is certainly a rational reason to avoid doing something difficult other than that they are chicken and want to spit on JFK's grave.

...Okay, let's try it in simpler terms.

See Johnny play.
See Johnny play MMO.
Play, Johnny, play.
See Johnny want the best stuff.
Team, Johnny, team.
Johnny spits on teamers.
See Johnny solo.
Solo, Johnny, solo.
Johnny can only get second-best stuff.
See Johnny post.
Flame, Johnny, flame.

Violently.

Violently...attacked.

If you're going to call responses to your opinions violent attacks, Mr. Melodrama, then it's only fair to point out that you strike first and what follows is mere self defense.

...Yeah, actually, they have. Endgame in most of the popular MMOs is either PVP or large-scale teaming.