Chaos_String

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you feel that players who rate your story less than five stars owe you some sort of explanation for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep saying that like you think it will magically turn out to be true. Anyhow, I'm tired of you trying to justify your cowardice. Feel free to keep talking but I don't see any reason to listen.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, although it isn't true that you feel entitled to an explanation for ratings lower than 5, the practice of not giving you one is "cowardice" that can't be "justified."

I see.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First of all, I didn't accuse the OP of not being able to take constructive criticism; nor did I conflate ratings without comments with constructive criticism.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
But if an author says "I don't mind a three-star rating, as long as you explain it," then he clearly doesn't see feedback as helpful, constructive criticism at all, but as appeasement, justification, or an explanation that he's owed by someone rating his arc less than five stars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make up your mind. You're either accusing or not, here you're trying to do both at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm pointing out that you're owed no explanation whatsoever for a three-star rating; and that if you get one, you should be thankful for it. But if you don't, you should lose the attitude that you've been wronged somehow. It's disgraceful.

[ QUOTE ]
A rating without any comment at all is not constructive criticism in the slightest.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you're not owed any, either.

[ QUOTE ]
In a way it can be considered griefing as you're not doing anything but causing grief for the author.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absurd. Every single rating offers the rest of the playerbase one player's impression of the arc's overall merit. Some will be better than others. That's not griefing you in the slightest.

Neither the ratings nor the listings revolve around you and your arc. If I choose to help you with feedback, that's my choice. If I don't trust you to take it well or feel that you'll make good use of it, I won't offer any; that's also my choice. But if I rate your arc three stars, it's because in my opinion it merits no more. That's not griefing you. It's a frank evaluation of your work. It's my sounding board with the playerbase, not yours.

[ QUOTE ]
They don't know what you didn't like, therefore they cannot fix the issue, therefore it is not fixed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor do they konw my global; therefore they cannot grief my arc for vindictive reasons; nor can they harass me in tells; nor can they lampoon my comments in the forums if there aren't any to lampoon.

Fixing your arc isn't my responsibility. Saving myself undue hassle and debate is my responsibility.

[ QUOTE ]
The most aggravating thing about the feedback system is that when somebody likes your arc, they more often than not tell you and tell you why they liked it. But most often when they don't like it they won't tell you anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

And again, there's a reason for that. If more authors realized that even the most unflattering, stark evaluation of the failings in their stories are still a service rendered for free, then more people would be inclined to offer difficult feedback.

Instead, you feel entitled to an explanation for any rating lower than five stars; you're clearly in the mood to defend your work, and other authors who have expressed the same attitides have openly attacked and griefed players for offering such feedback, whenever they didn't feel that the feedback sufficiently "justified" or "explained" the low rating.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And I don't comment on why I rated an arc the way I did unless I feel like it. That's the player's prerogative. If an author isn't "thankful" or happy with a three-star rating I give him without comment, that's too bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

And as far as I'm concerned, a low-rating with no comment whatsoever is less useful than the wings on a kiwi.

[/ QUOTE ]

Less useful to you, perhaps. Much more valuable to the rest of the playerbase. I've seen arcs with a five-star average after a couple dozen plays, which are so poorly conceived or implemented in one way or another that I've rated with three stars or less. Am I supposed to say, (for example), "Your poor English writing skills are extremely off-putting and distracting to me; neither your spelling, nor grammar, nor punctuation are vaguely correct, and it undermines immersion in and believability of your text"? Or maybe, "Ill-conceived, self-indulgent origin stories like this don't interest me; in fact I view them as a waste of my time"?

A two or three-star rating is useful in cases like this, with or without comment. Whether or not they offer the author pointers to fix problems which might or might not be possible to fix, they offer the playerbase my assessment of the overall merit of a story arc. And my personal assessment is neither less nor more valid than any one of those that gave you five stars.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if I were to give those less-than-flattering (yet non-insulting, non-abusive) comments as constructive criticism, precisely how is it that I'm partly to blame if the author then griefs my arc, harasses me in tells, or takes my comments out of context and lampoons them here?

[/ QUOTE ]

In my case, why would I want to destroy my reputation as a reviewer? Does it look like I can't take constructive criticism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I'm not aware of your reputation, I can't comment on that. But it looks to me that whether you can deal appropriately with constructive criticism or not, you feel that players who rate your story less than five stars owe you some sort of explanation for it. And they don't.

Oh, ok. Yeah, I knew that. I misunderstood and thought that two enhancements in your build aren't presently functioning properly.

[ QUOTE ]
I am simply saying that any rating that does not come with commentary cannot meaningfully be called "constructive criticism". It's just an opinion, and is fine as far as that goes. If you're going to accuse someone, as you did, of not being able to take constructive criticism, it's better to not re-define "constructive criticism" to include random unsupported opinion that does nothing to help the author improve.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I didn't accuse the OP of not being able to take constructive criticism; nor did I conflate ratings without comments with constructive criticism.

I merely pointed out that any comments given to accompany a rating, so long as they aren't deliberately insulting or abusive, are constructive criticism, and as such, a service to the author. They don't exist to justify a rating or explain why the rating was less than perfect. The player has no need to justify or explain the rating, and therefore ratings of three stars without comments are perfectly valid.

But if an author says "I don't mind a three-star rating, [/b]as long as you explain it,"[/b] then he clearly doesn't see feedback as helpful, constructive criticism at all, but as appeasement, justification, or an explanation that he's owed by someone rating his arc less than five stars.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not disagreeing with you that quite a few authors have been extremely immature in their response to constructive criticism, either. You clearly know what it is, which causes me further confusion as to why you seemed to conflate it with raw ratings above. Am I just misunderstanding you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidently. Again, my point: comments aren't something that you deserve. They aren't needed to explain a rating. If they exist at all, they're merely constructive criticism, provided they're not deliberately insulting or abusive.

[ QUOTE ]
If there is no feedback other than the raw stars, however, what's there to be thankful for?

[/ QUOTE ]

And here's my point again. To be thankful for something, you must realize that it wasn't your due, that you didn't necessarily deserve it, that you recieved something which you rightly might not have recieved. But the OP's statement, "I don't mind being three-starred as long as you explain it," implies that he doesn't see a comment as something to be thankful for, but as something that he deserves as justification for a rating lower than five stars.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And if you don't get any feedback, it's probably because attitudes like those of the OP make giving feedback more hassle than it's typically worth.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or it might be that your style of giving feedback elicits attitudes like those of the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've given precious little feedback on arcs, mostly limiting myself to positive comments, or to very minor points I felt I could address without a lot of debate, precisely because I don't want to get into the sorts of argument that I've witnessed others wasting their time with in this forum.

So your shot in the dark misses its mark, since I've never personally had a problem with [/i]my own feedback[/i] being attacked, ridiculed, or lampooned in the forums. But that's partly because of self-censorship on my part, and that's precisely why I'll often decline to comment on a mediocre rating.

Besides, how is it that my style of criticism could possibly "elicit" an attitude of self-entitlement on the part of an author who feels he deserves something that he doesn't?

I rate stories according to criteria that I already gave upthread. I attempt to be consistent and objective in applying my ratings criteria. I have given several arcs five stars because I thought they deserved such a rating. Many arcs have gotten less.

And I don't comment on why I rated an arc the way I did unless I feel like it. That's the player's prerogative. If an author isn't "thankful" or happy with a three-star rating I give him without comment, that's too bad.

All the evidence I see points to the conclusion that he wouldn't be any more "thankful" or happy if I offered unflattering comments too. All I stand to gain for frank commentary on many arcs is grief, hassle, and immature or vindictive behavior on the part of the author, and that's something I can easily live without.

But if I were to give those less-than-flattering (yet non-insulting, non-abusive) comments as constructive criticism, precisely how is it that I'm partly to blame if the author then griefs my arc, harasses me in tells, or takes my comments out of context and lampoons them here?

If you really do agree with me that non-abusive feedback is something to be thankful for and taken with a grain of salt, I can't understand how you can possibly hold that such behavior on the part of authors is partly the fault of the player who gave the comments.

[ QUOTE ]
I just noticed I have a temp +25% regeneration increase from a safeguard. I consider it fair, as I'm missing two Shield Wall because of the bug,

[/ QUOTE ]

What bug?

Yes, the 3% defense counts as a set bonus; therefore it's on as long as you're not exemped more than 3 levels below the level of the enhancement.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Oh I don't mind that, as long as you explain it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if I have this right, you believe--really believe--that anyone who rates your arc with less than a perfect 5 stars owes you some sort of explanation?

And, so long as they justify themselves to your satisfaction, then you "don't mind?"

It seems you don't view constructive criticism as something you should be thankful for and accept with a grain of salt.

[/ QUOTE ]
While I can't be sure, I think that the OP would likely say that it's not "constructive criticism" if there's nothing other than a low rating. Without some sort of commentary on the weaknesses of the piece, there's nothing "constructive" about it - simply a statement that the rater's individual assessment of the meaning of [x] stars was all the experience warranted.

Some people ascribe low ratings, sans commentary, to griefing. Clearly that's not always going to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, anything short of 5 stars doesn't constitute a "low" rating. Second of all, the player is entitled to rate an arc with or without commentary. Third of all, the player owes the author no explanation as to how or why an arc was rated.

But the fact is that in many cases where players have offered constructive criticism on story arcs, they have been harassed in tells, publicly ridiculed, had their own arcs grief-rated, and have even had their comments taken out of context and posted in this very forum as a form of tar and feathering--as if those comments were anything less than a service to the author; as if they were somehow insufficient "justification" for the player giving the author fewer stars than he felt he deserved.

And clearly, the OP is in this camp: he openly states feeling that he's entitled to feedback as an "explanation" for a rating lower than five stars.

But my point is, if you receive feedback that isn't deliberately insulting or abusive, you should be thankful for it and take it with a grain of salt. It's not something that you deserve by virtue of writing the arc, and it isn't beig offered to appease you: its only purpose is to help you.

And if you don't get any feedback, it's probably because attitudes like those of the OP make giving feedback more hassle than it's typically worth.

So let me be clear on this point again: nobody owes you anything for playing your story arc: not ratings, not feedback, nothing. By publishing, you submit your work to the vagaries of public consumption and evaluation, and if you can't handle that, then don't publish.

I agree that ratings griefing is bad. Griefing sucks. Sure. But the notioin that anything short of five stars is griefing if it doesn't come with justification is obscenely arrogant. And the attitudes of entitlement and self-importance on the part of some authors in this forum are frankly disgraceful.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To the OP, I'm the sort of player who might have 3-starred your arc, and I don't apologize for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I don't mind that, as long as you explain it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if I have this right, you believe--really believe--that anyone who rates your arc with less than a perfect 5 stars owes you some sort of explanation?

And, so long as they justify themselves to your satisfaction, then you "don't mind?"

It seems you don't view constructive criticism as something you should be thankful for and accept with a grain of salt. It seems that instead, you see it as justification that you're owed by anyone who doesn't give you the five stars you feel you deserve.

And that if someone gives you 3 stars without an explanation, you beieve that it's griefing.

Bottom line: nobody owes you any services because they played your arc. They don't owe you feedback any more than they owe you five stars. Rating your arc is the prerogative of the players, and if you don't like it, then don't publish.

Griefing is griefing, and it sucks. But just because you drop from 5 to 4 stars overnight doesn't mean you were griefed.

I use a pretty stringent but straightforward rating system, and I don't care who does or doesn't like it; I stand by it. It goes something like this:

1) Learn to use the Mission Architect at least well enough to successfully publish a mission.

2) Publish a mission that does not grief or rickroll the player. If it says it isn't a farm, it had better not be a farm. If it's supposed to be a "challenge," there had better be some challenge to it, however mundane. If it's supposed to be a "story," then there had better be some vague semblance of a story: a character, a conflict, a resolution. Posess at least a vague grasp of grammar and spelling in the language you're attempting to write. (And if I'm not fluent in the language, I won't rate your arc at all, since I'm not qualified.)

3) Learn the ins and outs of the Mission Architect well enough to publish a story that isn't borked in some obvious way. Learn to tell a story in a manner that is fairly cohesive and coherent. Learn the language in which you're writing well enough to graduate middle school, and have someone proofread the text in your arc to catch any glaring mistakes you may have made.

4) Publish an arc which isn't a self-indulgent Mary Sue story, which flows well and isn't very annoying to complete, which makes sense, which contains believable characters and/or dialog, and which is at least somewhat immsersive and fun. Spelling, grammar and punctuation should be spotless, although I'm willing to overlook a typo (maybe two). Challenges should be truly challenging. Stories should begin with a character and a reasonable premise, and proceed through a series of challenges or revelations, to arrive at a conclusion that is in some way exciting or entertaining. If you have satisfied all these criteria, as well as those in the previous numbers listed above, then you are telling CoX stories at least as well as the professional game developers usually manage to do.

5) Publish a story which is truly iconic, hilarious, shocking, horrifying, or moving, leaving me a lasting impression. OR publish a story which is mechanically so different from any existing developer content that it is inherently unique, fresh, and exciting. OR publish work that leaves me wondering how the hell you came up with it. Level five is for inspired storytelling, lasting impressions, true literary value, or other groundbreaking work. The developers have published game content at this level of sophistication only rarely.

So, there's my rating system. How many of the criteria you met determines your rating. Pass all of them up to and including a number and that's your rating. I make every effort to be consistent and objective in applying my rating system.

Very few user-published story arcs rate a 5 by my rubric. (Though there have been several.) Most of the "good" or routinely well-received arcs get a 4 from me, and many more arcs, including some very highly-rated have gotten just 3 stars from me.

So, why am I so exacting in my system? Why can't I just give all the pretty good stories 5 stars and feel good about it?

Note that I actually have rated several story arcs at five stars. I want to reward inspired, creative, meticulous work, and five stars is all that I have with which to reward it.

So I'm stingy about handing out the stars to works that don't posess that sort of quality or caliber.

To the OP, I'm the sort of player who might have 3-starred your arc, and I don't apologize for it.

In the case of caltrops or burn patches, you use Shield Charge to teleport off them (probably killing or at least knocking down whatever threw them at you) and then use Aid Self.

In any case, some revisions to what you posted can vastly improve your damage output.

OK, well first of all, you absolutely don't need 2 interrupt reducers in Aid Self. In fact, I find that being softcapped to all positions, I do perfectly fine without any interrupt in Aid Self at all. What can't hit you, can't interrupt you.

With that said, and assuming that you're not deliberately avoiding purple and pvp IOs for expense's sake, take a look at the tweaks I made to your build.

NOTE: the empty slot in True Grit is for the Gladiator's Armor +defense IO. So add 3% to all defenses listed in Mids'. And ideally, you should replace the Achilles Heel -res proc in Headsplitter with the Fury of the Gladiator -res proc.

With this setup your attacks will do a LOT more damage and recharge a LOT faster; you will chain Hack > Headsplitter > Hack > Disembowel > (0.52sec gap), for more than 200dps vs. one target, and over 235dps with AAO saturated. This takes into account -res stacking from the two different -res procs.

Here you are, now:

Hero Plan by Mids' Hero Designer 1.401
http://www.cohplanner.com/

[u]Click this DataLink to open the build![u]

Level 50 Magic Scrapper
Primary Power Set: Broad Sword
Secondary Power Set: Shield Defense
Power Pool: Fitness
Power Pool: Speed
Power Pool: Fighting
Power Pool: Medicine
Ancillary Pool: Body Mastery

Hero Profile:
Level 1: Hack -- Hectmb-Dmg(A), Hectmb-Dmg/Rchg(3), Hectmb-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(3), Hectmb-Acc/Rchg(5), Hectmb-Dam%(5), Achilles-ResDeb%(25)
Level 1: Deflection -- RedFtn-EndRdx(A), RedFtn-Def(7), RedFtn-Def/EndRdx/Rchg(19), RedFtn-Def/EndRdx(31), RedFtn-Def/Rchg(34), RedFtn-EndRdx/Rchg(48)
Level 2: Battle Agility -- RedFtn-EndRdx(A), RedFtn-Def(7), RedFtn-Def/EndRdx/Rchg(19), RedFtn-Def/EndRdx(23), RedFtn-Def/Rchg(29), RedFtn-EndRdx/Rchg(31)
Level 4: True Grit -- Empty(A), Numna-Regen/Rcvry+(15), Numna-Heal(25), Mrcl-Rcvry+(31), Mrcl-Heal(37), S'fstPrt-ResDam/Def+(42)
Level 6: Hurdle -- Jump-I(A)
Level 8: Build Up -- GSFC-ToHit(A), GSFC-ToHit/Rchg(9), GSFC-ToHit/Rchg/EndRdx(9), GSFC-Rchg/EndRdx(11), GSFC-ToHit/EndRdx(11), GSFC-Build%(17)
Level 10: Active Defense -- HO:Membr(A)
Level 12: Hasten -- RechRdx-I(A), RechRdx-I(13), RechRdx-I(13)
Level 14: Super Speed -- Zephyr-Travel(A), Zephyr-ResKB(15), Zephyr-Travel/EndRdx(17)
Level 16: Health -- RgnTis-Regen+(A)
Level 18: Against All Odds -- EndRdx-I(A)
Level 20: Stamina -- P'Shift-End%(A), P'Shift-EndMod/Acc(21), P'Shift-EndMod(21), P'Shift-Acc/Rchg(23), P'Shift-EndMod/Rchg(29), P'Shift-EndMod/Acc/Rchg(40)
Level 22: Phalanx Fighting -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A)
Level 24: Boxing -- Empty(A)
Level 26: Disembowel -- Mako-Acc/Dmg(A), Mako-Dmg/EndRdx(27), Mako-Dmg/Rchg(27), Mako-Acc/EndRdx/Rchg(39), Mako-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(40), Mako-Dam%(40)
Level 28: Aid Other -- Empty(A)
Level 30: Tough -- Aegis-ResDam/EndRdx(A), Aegis-ResDam/Rchg(42), Aegis-EndRdx/Rchg(48), Aegis-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg(48), Aegis-ResDam(50)
Level 32: Head Splitter -- Armgdn-Dmg(A), Armgdn-Dmg/EndRdx(33), Armgdn-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(33), Armgdn-Acc/Rchg(33), Armgdn-Dam%(34), Achilles-ResDeb%(34)
Level 35: Shield Charge -- Oblit-Dmg(A), Oblit-Acc/Rchg(36), Oblit-Dmg/Rchg(36), Oblit-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(36), Oblit-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(37), Oblit-%Dam(37)
Level 38: Aid Self -- Numna-Heal/EndRdx/Rchg(A), Numna-Heal(39), Numna-Heal/Rchg(39)
Level 41: Whirling Sword -- Oblit-Dmg(A), Oblit-Acc/Rchg(42), Oblit-Dmg/Rchg(43), Oblit-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(43), Oblit-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(43), Oblit-%Dam(46)
Level 44: Slice -- Oblit-Dmg(A), Oblit-Acc/Rchg(45), Oblit-Dmg/Rchg(45), Oblit-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(45), Oblit-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(46), Oblit-%Dam(46)
Level 47: Conserve Power -- RechRdx-I(A), RechRdx-I(50)
Level 49: Weave -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A), LkGmblr-Def(50)
------------
Level 1: Brawl -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Sprint -- Empty(A)
Level 2: Rest -- RechRdx-I(A)
Level 1: Critical Hit

Hope that helps.

<qr>

First of all, Mids' doesn't calculate DDR properly for Shield Defense, so ignore what it says. It is wrong. In-game you will find that Membranes in AD do help, as does stacking AD, and running Grant Cover.

Secondly, John's build is pretty good, and a fair baseline for comparison. And since he likes to post it, it's a fine place to start.

Personally, I think Conserve Power is more valuable than OwtS for AV soloing, especially since recovery vs. attack chain endurance consumption isn't stellar in most BS/SD builds, John's being no exception. So that's one place where you could possibly make a change.

There are other places, too, but the fact that we're not all running around with identical builds is what makes us all beautiful snowflakes. It's also why I don't like to post mine.

Try to sort out what works for you.

I don't quite know where to begin, but for a whole host of reasons, this build isn't a vialble build for soloing AVs without using inspirations. With inspirations, you might do OK. And against most PvE, this build will do fine.

I'll give you some pointers, in case you want to make some improvements.

1) You do have plenty of defense, but your defense debuff resistance is very poor compared to what other BS/SD builds attain. So, 99% of the time, a LOT of your defense is going to waste, doing nothing at all for you. But if you sacrificed some of that defense, you would need to pick up Grant Cover and possibly slot Active Defense with a Membrane or 2, in order to better resist defense debuffs (which are more common than most players realize).

2) If you've softcapped all positions, you really don't need Parry, except in circumstances so unusual that it isn't worth having the power. If you plan on taking on a lot of custom critters in AE missions, it might be useful. Other than that, it's a waste of space in your build, and a drag on your damage output if you use it.

3) You haven't taken any advantage of broadsword's ability to proc -resistance. This is huge. Really huge. Achilles Heel and Fury of the Gladiator procs are the edge that BS needs to help it do good single-target DPS. If you want to fight hard targets, these procs are your best friends.

4) Not remotely enough recharge to run the really good DPS chains available to Broadsword. Sure, you can do fine against most PvE without a strong single-target DPS chain, but fighting AVs or EBs, you'll do a lot better if you have one. To achieve this end, you would need to consider taking Hasten, and/or beefing up global recharge with LotGs and other global recharge set bonuses.

5) Insufficient endurance management. Broadsword is hungry. It is hungry for your endurance, especially when you're spamming a strong DPS chain. Your build has a net endurance gain of only 2.08end/sec. Now, I haven't tried to determine your best DPS chain would be, but I strongly suspect it's going to eat up a lot more than 2.08end/sec. And you don't have Conserve Power, either. So, in a prolonged fight, you will likely run out of endurance. Numina and Miracle uniques would go a long way toward fixing this issue, but if you really want to solo AVs with no temps/inspriations, I recommend Conserve Power, too.

6) And yeah, you don't have Aid Self, which would be good if you're going to be fighting a single target for a long time. If you're just interested in normal PvE, you can do fine without it, since enemies will be dying and dropping inspirations. But even so, Aid Self would still be good to have, since there's no guarantee that enemies will drop greens or something you can use to make them.

Hope these suggestions help. GL with your sword'n'board build.

Skipped it.

Edit: can't spell.

The key re: Ghost Widow would be softcapped scrappers.

GW uses Dark Regeneration, the PBAoE self-heal which requires a to-hit check. (And she uses Life Drain, a single-target self-heal with a to-hit check.) If she can routinely hit even a couple people with DR, she is very difficult to dispose of.

But if she can't realiably hit anyone with DR (or Life Drain), she is defeated quite easily.

As for Soul Storm, without some outside buffs, any scrapper who gets hit by it is a goner. So again, an all-defense-based scrapper team would be ideal for this challenge.

I have no scrappers on Virtue however.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a build that's has 46% melee, 43% ranged, 37% AoE. Use it just as an example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although that's a very nice budget build you posted, the numbers you've given here presume 1 ally in Phalanx Fighting range. If you're solo, the numbers will be 43.2 melee, 40.6 ranged, 34.3 aoe.

Not bad at all, though. And absolutely one of the cheapest BS/SD builds I've seen. I especially like the use of Webnade and Shuriken, which are good utility powers in themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you including the defense that's given by combat jumping?

Also, in looking over the build, I'd probably go with 2 sets of Mako's, using parry to make up any gap in melee defense. That would soft cap you in melee and ranged assuming 1 use of parry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, that includes Combat Jumping.

And yes, using Parry to cap Melee might be a much better route to take.

Edit: to change Mids' so that it shows Phalanx Fighting with 0 allies in range, go to Configuration: Advanced: Database Editor. Pull up Scrapper Shield Defense > Phalanx Fighting, and set it to scale from 0 instead of 1. Repeat for Tanker SD and Brute SD, and then your copy of Mids' will show you what you need to see for solo SD builds.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a build that's has 46% melee, 43% ranged, 37% AoE. Use it just as an example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although that's a very nice budget build you posted, the numbers you've given here presume 1 ally in Phalanx Fighting range. If you're solo, the numbers will be 43.2 melee, 40.6 ranged, 34.3 aoe.

Not bad at all, though. And absolutely one of the cheapest BS/SD builds I've seen. I especially like the use of Webnade and Shuriken, which are good utility powers in themselves.

First of all, Shield Defense scrappers are not known for being cheap to softcap via IO sets. In fact, they have the opposite reputation, and for good reason.

I won't build your toon for you, especially under the stipulations you've outlined, but I will point you at the sorts of sets that might help you the most:

1) Red Fortune in particular is great for BS/SD. In addition to being cheap, it has great set bonuses including ranged defense, +recharge, and +damage. All around very solid for BS/SD. My sword'n'board build spent over 2 billion inf, including purple sets and PvP IOs, so influence was no object; yet I have Red Fortune 6-slotted in Deflection, Battle Agility and Weave.

2) Aegis is another good, inexpensive set that can be slotted into resistance powers like Tough. 5 pieces will get you 4.69% AoE defense, which is substantial. Warning: on a BS/SD, do NOT 5-slot Deflection or True Grit for resistance. Aegis is recommended only if you have Tough (or maybe OwtS if you dig that power).

3) The Steadfast Protection Res/Def unique isn't exactly cheap, but for the defense it gives you and the fact that it only uses 1 slot, it's a huge bargain at any reasonable price. It's available as a bronze roll, too, so if you have some tickets, try rolling in the 25-29 bronze pool and cross your fingers.

4) Gaussian's is another good set if you can squeeze 6 slots into Build Up. It's not very expensive for what it does: moves you a step toward all positional softcaps while giving you +HP, +Recovery, and +Damage. And the proc is hella nice when it fires.

5) If you can shoehorn 6 slots into Stamina, there's the Performance Shifter set that also has a nice proc, AoE defense, +HP, +Recovery and +Damage.

6) The cheaper 2 pieces of Blessing of the Zephyr will give you ranged defense very eloquently, but the -KB IO you'll need for the AoE bonus is fairly pricey. (Or was, the last time I checked.)

7) Mako and ToD melee damage sets aren't as expensive as they once were, and if you leave lowball bids up long enough, you can get most pieces of those for a song. You may find that getting that "last piece" you need for the defense bonus a little bit expensive, though; but try lowballing odd levels and you may score.

8) In my build I use a couple full sets of Obliteration to round out my Melee defense; but you may find this set prohibitively expensive. Multi-Strike has AoE and Melee defense, and is very cheap, but the bonuses are pretty small.

Shield Defense isn't cheap to softcap via IOs. You need good set bonuses and you need lots of them. So you will undoubtedly find that 100ish million influence isn't remotely enough to get it done, unless you score some pretty spectacular bargains.

But you can get some very good set bonuses on the cheap to make you stronger; and once you've found a good, steady source of income, you may then want to respec into something better-optimized.

Anyhow, GL, fight the good fight, and enjoy sword and board.

This thread is a good example of why keyboards should be equipped with an ignition interlock device.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, comparing Web Grenade against Tenebrous Tentacles - I prefer Web Grenade I think - you get it 6 levels earlier, it's a 50 foot circle around a target instead of a 40 foot 30 degree cone, the recharge is 8s instead of 20, it casts faster and for less End - the only thing in favor of TT is the fact that TT does damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Web Grenade is a single-target immobilize. It has a range of 50 feet, meaning you can hit a target 50 feet away, but the immob only affects that one target.

Edit: Bah, corrected already in a previous post.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Make an ill/storm extreme custom AV. That's probably the hardest combo I can think of

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen an archery/willpower av in a mission... archery was nothing to worry about.. but /willpower had enough regen that I couldn't move their green bar at all.

Superstrength is a very difficult primary for the typical scrapper build because of the +tohit from rage.

I'm not sure I've seen an illusion/storm... if someone has one, post the arc #.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, extreme fire blast/ninjutsu is just evil. They can literally 1-shot you out of hide with Aim+Blaze (or Aim+Inferno); the DoT ticks beat the 1-shot rule. And unless you have +perception you won't see it coming.

They have a spammable self-heal, too.

Just nasty.

[ QUOTE ]
I am actually doing this arc right now with my Kat\WP on Unyielding. The Rad Cans were the first mob group that actually humbled me and gave me my first defeat in 41 level .

I jumped into a spawn of 2 +3 minions and 2 +3 (purple) Lieuts and promptly got my [censored] handed to me. I think once I start seeing the AV’s I might town it down a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny how topics like this bring out the rock-scissors-paper of the game. I never had a problem with blue clocks on my scrappers, since they're defense-based with pretty solid DDR. And when I played the arc with my controllers, blasters, and warshade it felt like easy street: a lvl 40+ villain group with absolutely no mez, or mez resistances, whatsoever.

I can see how the blue clockwork might be hard on others, though, and I'm not trying to say they're weak. But they've always been the scissors to my rock, every time I've played the arc.

Willpower won't cause you to redraw your weapon durning the normal course of a fight; whereas Regen will. For this reason alone I'd prefer Willpower, but the actual survivability should be fairly consistent between the two secondaries.

See, what this thread really "proves" is that an enterprising player can make a billion infamy in just a few hours of gameplay without tying up any investment capital other than the IOs he would have slotted into his character's powers anyway--and purely as a tangent to powerleveling his own toons.

gg Smurphy.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

To state that the conclusions are "fairly obvious" is flat-out ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here is a short play to help you understand the point you're oblivious to:

An MA Tale
Starring
Smurphy, a dirty farming PL'er

Smurph (addressing the audience from the town square):

I'm going to PL a bunch of characters using MA without any of the "exploits" the devs have deplored in the past.
Devs, smite me with lightning if I am doing wrong!

Okay, here we go!
(strolls over to the MA with his crew)

Wow that was fast, we hit 50 in a couple of hours!

Now buy my product! You know you want it!

The End



[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed.