Combat

I'm saying that if both are hit with a resistance debuff of that magnitude, they will have the following:

70% resistance, 0% defense
-200% resistance, 45% defense

In contrast, if they are hit with a debuff that is 20% BEFORE resistances, they would have:

88% resistance, 0% defense
-20% resistance, 45% defense.

Functionally, the damage is increased by the same percentage regardless of the size of the resistance debuff. Which means that resistance based sets are NOT weaker to resistance debuffs.

If resistance is reduced to 70% on the resist capped character, the defense character would be reduced to -200%. Resists resist resistance debuffs.

I already have VEATs (A hover Fortunate with a NW alt build, and a Crab Spider). However, this is more of an idea along the lines of a petless MM. How far could you stress a build with a concept that is a severe handicap?

However, I think a ranged scrapper could be surprisingly effective. At least, slightly tougher than a VEAT (maybe not a Crab Spider), with significantly worse damage. Defender level?

A lot of the stuff is overslotted because of new bonuses in I24. Hard to predict the total impact, but each 5-slot of LotG will give 3.75 S/L resistance. This build will have 2 or 3, giving up to an additional 11.25% to smashing and lethal. Between the scrapper set, PvP proc, and reactive defenses, smashing and lethal resistances would be about 45%, which would allow this scrapper to have capped resistances at low life. Fire and cold would also be pretty high, at around 40%.

Quills isn't bad, but it is a PBAoE toggle. I thought that in the past it eliminated redraw by keeping the Spines, wonder that changed.


I forgot about that, but that same argument could be used with Kinetic's Repulsing Torrent (slightly faster recharge and higher damage, but much longer animation). Of course, Focused Burst isn't on the same level as Focus, but Kinetic Melee have would a build up option. I need to do the calculations, but I think that the knockdown proc in Ragnarok may become effective enough to overcome some of the difference between Spines and Claws. But you are totally right; from a raw numbers standpoint claws is the leader.

1.584. The DPS is a little behind Clobber, to use an example. It would be the highest DPA attack in some sets.

They can, with a base of 5 guys in melee range. If Tactics and Invincibility are both slotted out for ToHit, it takes only 2 guys.

However, Bio has it easier because it merely requires you to use offensive mode. It requires no extra slotting of Tactics, and can be used in the absence of enemies. Which allows the snipe to be used as actual long-ranged attack as well, and opens the door to using it against single tough enemies like AVs.

It is absolutely possible to build a similar build cheaply. The main reason I advocate for so many expensive sets is because of the nature of TW, because it really benefits a lot from being able to use multiple Follow-Throughs per Momentum. However, the drop in effectiveness should not be incredible.

On another note, I have built and played an alternate build, focusing on S/L. I probably will not update it for I24 because the new pool powers don't interest me and I don't feel like chasing resist bonuses on top of everything else.

This build has:

45% to smashing/lethal
CB in place of Gloom (chain of RA>FT>AoD>CB>FT)
3 -resistance procs

Most importantly, it lets me use Ageless, which allows it to be basically end sufficient. Note the large difference between endurance recovered and drained (3.37), before Ageless or the 3 performance shifters. No energy drain, doesn't need it (Whirling Smash knockdown works as a better soft-control in my experience).

As should be obvious, I use this build primarily against S/L enemies, saving the other build for more annoying threats. It does more damage and is more efficient, but is more prone to rapid failure when facing mixed energy types.

Here's the build:

Villain Plan by Mids' Villain Designer 1.96
http://www.cohplanner.com/

Click this DataLink to open the build!

Crushing Blow Twelly: Level 50 Magic Brute
Primary Power Set: Titan Weapons
Secondary Power Set: Electric Armor
Power Pool: Fighting
Power Pool: Leaping
Power Pool: Leadership
Power Pool: Speed
Ancillary Pool: Energy Mastery

Villain Profile:
Level 1: Crushing Blow -- Hectmb-Dmg(A), Hectmb-Dmg/EndRdx(3), Hectmb-Acc/Rchg(5), Hectmb-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(5), Hectmb-Dmg/Rchg(7), Achilles-ResDeb%(7)
Level 1: Charged Armor -- ImpArm-ResDam(A), ImpArm-ResDam/EndRdx(15), ImpArm-ResDam/Rchg(15), ImpArm-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg(17)
Level 2: Lightning Field -- SBrutesF-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(A), SBrutesF-Acc/EndRdx/Rchg(19), SBrutesF-Acc/Dmg(19), Sciroc-Dmg/EndRdx(21)
Level 4: Defensive Sweep -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A), Mocking-Taunt/Rchg(23), Mocking-Taunt/Rchg/Rng(25), Mocking-Acc/Rchg(25), Mocking-Taunt(36)
Level 6: Build Momentum -- Rec'dRet-ToHit/Rchg(A), Rec'dRet-Pcptn(11)
Level 8: Follow Through -- SBrutesF-Rech/Fury(A), SBrutesF-Dmg/Rchg(9), SBrutesF-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(9), Hectmb-Dam%(11), C'ngImp-Dmg/EndRdx(13), C'ngImp-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(13)
Level 10: Conductive Shield -- ImpArm-ResDam(A), ImpArm-ResDam/EndRdx(17), ImpArm-ResDam/Rchg(42), ImpArm-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg(43)
Level 12: Static Shield -- ImpArm-ResDam(A), ImpArm-ResDam/EndRdx(39), ImpArm-ResDam/Rchg(42), ImpArm-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg(43)
Level 14: Boxing -- KntkC'bat-Acc/Dmg(A), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx(40), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(45), KntkC'bat-Dmg/Rchg(48)
Level 16: Tough -- RctvArm-ResDam(A), RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx(40), RctvArm-ResDam/Rchg(43), RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg(45)
Level 18: Rend Armor -- KntkC'bat-Acc/Dmg(A), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx(21), KntkC'bat-Dmg/Rchg(23), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(31), Mako-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(34), Achilles-ResDeb%(36)
Level 20: Weave -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A), LkGmblr-Def(37)
Level 22: Combat Jumping -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A), Ksmt-ToHit+(50), SW-ResDam/Re TP(50)
Level 24: Maneuvers -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A), LkGmblr-Def(36)
Level 26: Whirling Smash -- Armgdn-Dmg/EndRdx(A), Armgdn-Acc/Rchg(27), Armgdn-Dam%(27), Armgdn-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(29), Armgdn-Dmg/Rchg(29), FrcFbk-Rechg%(31)
Level 28: Energize -- Panac-Heal(A), Panac-Heal/EndRedux/Rchg(37), Panac-Heal/Rchg(37), Panac-EndRdx/Rchg(39), Panac-Heal/EndRedux(39)
Level 30: Hasten -- RechRdx-I(A), RechRdx-I(31)
Level 32: Arc of Destruction -- Oblit-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(A), Oblit-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(33), Oblit-Dmg/Rchg(33), Oblit-Acc/Rchg(33), Oblit-Dmg(34), FotG-ResDeb%(34)
Level 35: Superior Conditioning -- P'Shift-End%(A)
Level 38: Grounded -- S'fstPrt-ResDam/Def+(A)
Level 41: Lightning Reflexes -- Run-I(A)
Level 44: Laser Beam Eyes -- Apoc-Dam%(A), Apoc-Dmg/EndRdx(46), Apoc-Acc/Rchg(46), Apoc-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(48), Apoc-Dmg/Rchg(48)
Level 47: Physical Perfection -- P'Shift-End%(A)
Level 49: Power Surge -- GA-3defTpProc(A)
Level 2: Swift -- Run-I(A)
Level 2: Health -- Numna-Regen/Rcvry+(A), Mrcl-Rcvry+(3)
Level 2: Hurdle -- Jump-I(A)
Level 2: Stamina -- P'Shift-End%(A), P'Shift-EndMod(46), EndMod-I(50)
Level 1: Momentum
Level 1: Brawl -- KntkC'bat-Acc/Dmg(A), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx(40), KntkC'bat-Dmg/Rchg(42), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(45)
Level 1: Prestige Power Dash -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Prestige Power Slide -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Prestige Power Quick -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Prestige Power Rush -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Prestige Power Surge -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Fury
Level 1: Sprint -- Run-I(A)
Level 2: Rest -- Empty(A)
Level 4: Ninja Run
Level 0: Born In Battle
Level 0: High Pain Threshold
Level 0: Invader
Level 0: Marshal
Level 50: Agility Core Paragon
------------

However, you ignore the fact that I am playing essentially a completely different version of Staff. In my experience, as a stalker, it does narrow down to a few high health targets. That has been my experience with most of my previous characters as well, especially when teaming. It is possibly that Stalkers get by far the worst deal out of all the staff characters, considering how much stock everyone else is putting in the other forms and having all the AoEs (and early).

And impressions can be of numbers as well as of game-play. In this sense, I used impression as "well, I having tried to make a formula yet to be numerically sure, but it seems a little weak at first glance." And it still does... in single target, which I admit I spend too much time focusing on. In my first post, most of my calculations actually were quite positive, but were based on a single specific build and playstyle. My other 'calculations' were just comparisons of DPAs and pretty basic single target comparisons.

Also, pressing 'enter' will send you to chat.

It sounds really simple, but up until a year or two ago I always moved my mouse to the chatbox and physically clicked it when I wanted to talk.

I'm glad you gained some humor from this thread, but I don't think you need to insult me to get a point across.

But let me get this clear:

I NEVER believed I had a perfect understanding of this sort of stuff. It's why I didn't start of this thread with a ton of bad calculations, because I wanted it to mostly be the general feeling I got from the set, which would be fine if I were in favor of it but apparently is horrible when I disapprove of it.

In fact, most of my flailing at the AoE stuff earlier was to try and gain an understanding of how to make an effective process to compare that part of the game. I didn't do it because I thought I knew everything about everything in this game, but because I wanted to know more.

I'm guessing you are attacking my use of the linked logical fallacies when you say that I am reminiscent of probably the worse melee attack in the game.

However, in a way that is disconnected from the reality of this specific argument, most of what I'm saying is true, regardless of whether or not Staff is underpowered.

An argument that basically exists as "What he is saying is ridiculous" without other evidence isn't a valid argument. This is also true of arguments whose form is basically just derisive attacks at the opposition.

Technically even the argument "Combat doesn't know what he is talking about, therefore he is wrong" isn't logically true. That argument is actually the classic form of the Ad Hominem attack.

All of what I said about anecdotal evidence is also pretty much true, regardless of the validity of my data or methods. Anecdotal evidence by itself isn't convincing, because there is no way to guarantee that a person will experience the same thing. Personally, I found my TW character to be very easy to level and the momentum mechanic to be not at all frustrating, but I don't use that as evidence for TW because I can't guarantee my experience to everyone that played it. However, I can guarantee that Barb Swipe will do less damage than Headsplitter, because it will remain constant regardless of the situation or the person that use's those respective sets.

I have not, for the very same reason this thread continues to bog down the general discussions board. Premium members can't send PMs.

Even in this quote, you continue to mainly argue by using the absurdity argument. In this case, "how absurd is it that he has to link things to prove his point? After all, the internet lies all the time."

An argument that consists primarily of calling the opposing argument ridiculous and anecdotal evidence is not a good argument.

And while you may disagree with my "invalid assumptions," let me try and show some of those assumptions:

1. Melee powersets are sets that primarily exist to do damage in melee
2. A set that does more damage is superior to one with inferior damage without the consideration of other factors
3. Survivability and endurance are secondary to damage in a damage powerset
4. Balance metrics should take into account the damage a powerset CAN do, ie the maximum damage a powerset can dish out when focused on damage

Those aren't ridiculous assumptions. They are the basic assumptions of quite a few players that care about this type of thing. Just because you don't care doesn't mean that those people are wrong, it means you have a difference of opinion.

Alright, shut down the scrapper/brute forums. They seem to take quite a bit of stock in the idea of equivalent rotations, to the point literally thousands of posts around the topic. You might not care about it, but many people do believe that the time it takes to defeat something is important.

In most of my comparisons, I have deliberately tried NOT to do that. Trust me, I'd look like a much bigger @$$ if I tried to compare Staff using a lower damage chain for defensive purposes to DM, TW, etc. using their highest damage chain.

At this point, you are basically saying that I am wrong for massaging the numbers, and then pressuring me to massage much more blatantly.

You don't care about balance considerations, but that doesn't mean they aren't important. You can't use the nebulous reasoning of "people don't use the best DPA attack..." simply because some people do things for concept or to exploit different sides of the game, because it ignores damage disparities for completely non-scientific criteria. The way a person plays a set shouldn't impact the set's actual abilities. I could play a fire blaster without ever using blaze, but that doesn't mean the developers should ignore blaze or that players should ignore it when it comes to DPS.

And brutes also have a higher resistance cap, allowing to take advantage of the +resistance of FoB. And while they don't do more damage in single target using FoB, arguably the AoE advantage remains the same because of the -resistance from Eye.

Obviously what you say is true about the relative benefit of FoB's +damage, but that doesn't mean FoB isn't more useful for its other benefits, and it doesn't mean that it isn't more useful for other ATs. You can't change the argument from "FoM is more useful than FoB," to "FoB isn't very good for brutes" because one is a specific argument and one is a general argument. In general, FoB >FoM. Specifically for brutes in single target situations FoM ~> FoB.

And what do people focus on, Sherlock? Surviving? Looking cool?

Face it, the goal of the game is to defeat mobs. It is very simple, and people want to do so as fast as possible. We want to solo fast, go through missions fast, speed-run TFs and Trials, be on fast teams, etc.

Even if people want to look cool, they don't deliberately want to do less damage. Instead, they simply look to do as much damage with their restrictions. Same for survivability/end concerns, because people still want to do as much damage as possible.

You completely failed the reading comprehension check on that quote. I was making the point that you fail because you assume you know more than me and that your opinion = fact. Regardless of what I feel about my game knowledge, I recognize that my opinion is only opinion, and so I try to find out the facts. You continue to assume that your opinion is worth more because of a belief that I have less knowledge, creating a circular logic chain of opinion verification that proves no points.

I first related my personal experience in post #2 of this thread. I was first attacked for my suggestions in post #7. By the point, I had done none of this math, and mostly was just giving my impressions. Didn't seem to help convince the people that already believed their opinion was right.


When you claim that the numbers I've posted are numerically wrong, you cannot validate that claim with anecdotal evidence. Just saying "Staff is fine IMHO" requires no proof, but you've gone beyond that to the point of trying refute numbers with feelings.



Appeal to Ridicule .

BTW, the US has a Republican system of government, not a democracy, specifically because the will of the masses is not necessarily the best for the country. And regardless, the logical fallacy of the appeal to popularity specifically doesn't apply to certain matters of politics, because democratic politics is specifically about electing the most popular politicians, rather than trying to elect the best. Regardless of whether that is the correct way to govern or not, it doesn't violate the appeal to popularity because it IS only a popularity contest.

If this form of argumentation annoys you, I'm just going to say that it annoys me as well. But I personally hate watching politics because 99% of the time they use a few illogical arguments to win elections. The Appeal to Ridicule is by far the worst, and it works like this:

1. Politician A: How could anyone even think of supporting Politician B? His positions are ridiculous!
   
2. Repeat 9000+ times, sprinkle in Ad-Hominem attacks (whether true or not), a few complete lies, etc....
   
3. People who have little knowledge of political matters become afraid to support politician B because of the pressure of being ridiculed in connection, so they support politician A.
   
4. Politician A begins to use Appeal to Popularity "Everyone thinks this is the right choice, so it has to be right!" and the bandwagon fallacy in order to sway voters.
   
5. Politician A wins the election.

In the US, this has been the primary form of political attack for years, and has been used successfully by both parties (especially against Bush and Obama).

That sort of argument is completely unethical, and I hate seeing it used against me or in everyday affairs. Simply put, arguments that consist of "your position is ridiculous!" and "we all think X, therefore Y is false" are simply illogical and false.

Thanks for being civil.

I can't make comparisons between my TW/Elec Brute and Staff/Dark Stalker because of the level disparity and investment disparity. No character of mine has had the sheer damage of my TW/Elec, including the Stalker, but that is largely due to the extreme nature of TW at high levels of recharge than some deficiency with Staff. I can say that staff was pretty easy to level, though I never experienced the problems many had with my TW characters (to be fair, staff is probably worst at leveling on stalkers).

While Staff has decent mitigation in its single target, it isn't unique in its abilities. Energy and War Mace both have a fair amount of stuns, and most single target T9 abilities have some measure of control (KO Blow's Hold, CU's Stun).

You can make the claim that Staff's AoE control is better than other sets because of the versatile nature of Eye and IS. My experience has been that attacks like FS and Whirling Smash were great at keeping enemies on their backs, but I could see the advantages of having an immobilize in the set for keeping guys in range for more AoEs.

However, I've found that I tend to abandon the AoE defense attacks at higher levels on my TW characters, and I felt I would probably do that if my staff stalker got to 50. At first, I thought such attacks would be overpowered, but I've since felt that they were pretty perfectly balanced, in that sets couldn't easily slip them into a single target rotation without a DPS drop but could use them in regular combat as an effective attack in most cases.

My /Electric brute has 32.5% to positionals on one build (45% smashing/lethal on the other), and I've found that I rarely need to use lucks to reach the softcap. Combining end drain, with decent resists, with defense, with heals, with soft control from TW meant I was very survivable. I'd expect Staff to be at least as survivable. However, I'm not sure that the survivability I experienced was horribly greater than other sets.

Personally, my main problem with Staff (numbers aside), is that seems designed to be the anti-Titan Weapons. TW was a set with ridiculous damage potential, locked behind an annoying mechanic and horrible endurance problems. Staff is a set that focuses on being as easy to play as possible.

To me, every set should be designed with ease of use in mind. I think TW and Staff are wrong because they try to balance power and annoyance, and I don't think those things should be related. It just promotes bad lines of thinking, leading to even more annoying mechanics with OP sets and a greater tolerance for low damage sets with QoL features.

BU would add between 50% and 100% +damage at a max of every 18 seconds. Therefore, it would equate to a total benefit of 5.56% damage buff, assuming scrappers at the recharge cap using it whenever it came up. That translates to a net improvement of 2.5% after enhancements, and would be less than that at anything less the recharge cap, or on other ATs, or with powersets that use a reduced version of BU. In game-play, the burst damage would be more useful than that, but for sustained DPS it isn't as useful, and could be argued that to be insignificant, or that it may actually not be worth the animation under some circumstances.


I would be dishonest if I tried to evaluate sets that way. I would be comparing two unlike objects, and the only assumption anyone would make is that I would be deliberately trying to massage the numbers to prove my point.

Also, stop insulting me. I've played the game since a month after release, and I'd dare say I know how to play just about every AT that I've spent significant time on (Defenders, WSs, MMs, Scrappers, VEATS, Brutes, Tankers, Stalkers). I've done pretty impressive things, like solo a MoITF in under an hour without any purples in my build, so I know how to squeeze performance out of a set.

Of course, these numbers are less accurate for tankers and stalkers, because of their unique mechanics. But that wouldn't necessarily help Staff, because Mercurial Blow is not one of the best DPA Tier 1 attacks (it is tied for 9 out of 15 before damage buffs, 10-11 after damage buffs).

I know the relative values of the forms. In order for FoM to be useful, it would have to either increase survivability by a factor equal to 7.5% regeneration/75% regeneration or increase damage enough to overcome the benefits of FoB/FoS. It is possible to argue that it could be worth more to recharge powers not related to either of those, but killing and surviving are the two basic tasks of the game.

Arguably, that isn't true. Sure, it doesn't use powers like Stun or DA/parry, but some single target chains have large amounts of survivability caked in. Some have a ton of knockdown, some have stuns/holds, and some have heals. But all focus primarily on doing the most damage possible. If you try and ignore that and deliberately do not try to do as much damage as possible, the analysis will be flawed.

[quote]
Exactly. And an analysis that doesn't include those things is meaningless drivel.
[/quote]
I'm ignoring this because it is silly

Stop politicizing. You are using the Appeal to Ridicule, and it isn't a valid argument. Secondly, your argument could simply be read as "I am better than you," and "You haven't played Staff at all, so your opinion doesn't matter."

In no place have I said "I know more about the game than you do." I'd reckon that I know as much, or more, about the game than you, having played it for longer and arguably done 'more', but that's just a personal opinion, not a fact. Finally, you assume that I haven't played Staff, which is completely false (or that your experience with Staff is more valid than mine, which is also false).

Same Site as above. Ad Hominem and Personal Attack.

Now, to address your arguments. First, you claim that being forced to take extra AoEs is a horrible thing. This simply isn't true, and I would 100 times out of 100 take advantage of 'high opportunity costs' if the actual result was greater than could be found in a powerset. For instance, imagine a powerset called "Rage Mastery." All it has is Rage. SS tanks could say that other powersets are at a high opportunity cost, being forced to take one pool to take advantage of Rage while SS has Rage in the powerset, but if Rage Mastery made other sets better than SS the high opportunity cost wouldn't matter.

Secondly, you misunderstand the statement about AoE chains. The point is that AoE chains aren't needed because very little content requires constant AoE output, as most minions will die too quickly to use a second or third chain, and lts not much more. This would be more apparent in teaming. The only content with constantly pouring enemies and continually saturated target caps is farming, and that is not relevant to most gameplay.

Also, you confuse single target chains with "only single target attacks". Many sets use AoE attacks in their single target chain, including Spines (3 with Quills), Electric (2), and numerous sets with at least one good cone. But in order to be more efficient than the attacks in the single target chain, AoE attacks have to do more damage per activation. Usually this takes 2-3 targets, but that is balanced by the increased recharge on PBAoEs and small area of most cones.

That form of analysis, however, completely ignores the fact that combat tends to narrow down the number of targets very quickly, leaving one or two high HP targets per spawn. Most of the time I don't even get to use multiple AoE chains before combat is down to bosses, and those bosses aren't always close enough to hit with cones. Single target chains reduce the time it takes to defeat those last few spawns in a way AoE damage generally cannot.

Here's a few reasons to use single target attacks (and BTW, I love the continued assumption that I have a SS/FA/Mu, which I can only assume is being used as an attack because I have stated numerous times that I've never played that combo):

Every single AV or EB in the game, generally at least one per mission in team content and every few missions in solo content.
Defeating one or two bosses too widely spaced for AoEs
Defeating one target quickly to stop them from using dangerous abilities (eg, Tarantula Mistresses, Sappers, Nullifiers, DE Eminators and Spawners, Vanguard Wizards, Carnie Mistresses, etc.)
Defeating a single target in order to reduce damage taken
And more

And while SS/FA/Mu is fun to pick on because it has no cones, most sets tend to have at least one 5 target cone. The sets that don't are primarily tanker legacy sets like Ice, Energy, and Stone, along with MA. So your 'advantage' isn't unique to staff in the slightest.[/quote]

Again, Appeal to Ridicule.

You haven't shown ANY measured performance. You've given anecdotal evidence. That literally means nothing because it requires nothing to prove and cannot be compared to other sets. In order to show 'measured performance', you would have to do timed trials of every set at various difficulties and levels showing that staff validates your anecdotal beliefs.

And while I appreciate the attention (no press is bad press), you are simply using grade-school level tactics to prove me wrong, including name-calling, tons of appeals to ridicule, and anecdotal evidence in place of statistical proof.

The 'Combat Model' isn't about ignoring game play experiences, but about valuing the accuracy of simple models in comparisons, especially over opinion statements like "Well, I can solo at +4/x8, so its fine."

The scientific method very rarely uses the type of 'observations' you have claimed in this thread. "I feel ..." simply does not work in science. Indeed, the only 'scientific' observations we've seen would be the Pylon times from the other thread, as those could both be reproduced and statistically compared to the expected result. In that case, the Pylon times are fairly close to what we would expect from Staff. And while Pylon times aren't representative of all gameplay, they are more 'scientific' than anecdotal statements about the sets performance, and will be the best thing available until someone does time trials of missions at various difficulty settings and levels for all the powersets to show the actual speed of the various sets.

The other argument everyone has used is Appeal to Popularity and it is also wrong. It doesn't matter if all of you hold a different opinion than I do, and it doesn't mean you belief is correct or that mine is incorrect. You know that is a logical fallacy, so using it is at best ignorance and at worst a deliberate attempt to use illogical statements to win an argument.

Perhaps "relying on" isn't the right way to express what I meant. I feel those sets benefit particularly from IO sets, and if I were making an SO-only character I would avoid sets that have remarkable gains from IOs.

I have far more experience with Warshades than PBs, so I mostly meant WSs when I said Kheldians. I'd say that they are fairly powerful for an SO-only build because of Stygian Circle and Gravitic Emanation. In my experience, SO-only builds benefit the most from endurance tools and good control powers. By combining a decent stun/damage power with a ridiculous endurance power (and heal), I'd say that Warshades are on a pretty good footing.

But both ATs gain a lot from their forms, which is why I specified tri-form. While IOed builds will lose the benefits of the forms with Perma-Eclipse/LF and softcapped defenses, SO-only builds gain pretty good survivability (and SD X2) with Dwarf and great offense with Nova. So I specified that SO-only builds would benefit from Tri-Forms largely because IOs tend to make the forms less useful (or at least, will until the instant shapeshift patch happens).