Guardien

PuGs. I'm not sure who, or what, YOU'RE teaming with or fighting against, but <10 seconds for a spawn isn't typical for me. It can, and does, happen, but not anymore frequently than the 11-30 second spawn. Certainly not enough to claim that is almost always the case. Leaving the animation times aside for a moment (I'm not a numbers guy), EVERY toon I have, has been on a team where he has cycled through his attack chain more than once on the same spawn. And I really doubt any of them have a 4 second attack chain.

I have a lot of respect for you Dechs, as such, I expected better. There will always be a top performer for any measurable criteria you can come up with, and it will will always be a non-Kheldian. This isn't new, and it's a horrible way to show how PBs could use a buff. Example: Ranged Damage. A PB built purely for ranged damage will never be as good as a Blaster (possibly ANY Blaster even), but it will probably be better than almost every powerset from most other ATs. How is that in need of a buff? Example: Damage Mitigation. A PB built for defense/resistance/heal/regen (traditional damage mitigation methods of meleers), will never be as good* as a scrapper (*higher res cap), brute, tanker, etc. It will be better than almost every powerset from most other ATs. How is that in need of a buff? Sure, most PBs are built to be a "jack of all trades", and so aren't quite so ahead of the other ATs, but still. The simple task of joining a team can sometimes make a bigger difference on PB performance than how its powers are slotted.

Do high end IO'd builds bring most other ATs (if not most powersets) closer? Probably. But at level 6, when my unslotted Nova is making every single blaster weep...kinda hard to worry. Or at level 22 when my SO'd Dwarf is looking better than most non-exemplared tanks?

So, just so we're clear, why EXACTLY do PBs need a buff? Because Warshades are more awesomer (while true ) is not the answer I am looking for. And to be clear, I really am looking for that answer, because I would love to see some love for PBs from the devs...I just can't figure out the justification for it. I need help from people with much better understanding of the game, and math skills to back it up. Someone summon Arcanaville

[edit] I see Smiling Joe has stepped up already, glad to hear it Joe.

[2nd edit] A thought just occured to me: Dechs comparing PBs to "every other AT", is actually a compliment to the PB. I can't think of any other AT that gets that treatment as regularly as Kheldians. Though, to be fair, I don't spend as much time in some AT forums as I do here, so I might've missed those threads for those ATs, whichever they might be (MMs? VEATs?)

I would be happy if people on both sides of the "they're fine" / "they're not fine" debate would start using something other than hyperbole to back up their claims, as that's probably the REAL reason the devs haven't made any significant changes to Peacebringers outside of the Kheldian buffs in i13: no proof of a problem. I have a biased memory: I only remember the devs looking at problems the players were able to point out and prove existed, or they were able to find on they're own. I don't recall them ever looking at something just because some people SAID there was a problem. Maybe in Beta...hopefully in Beta...

All I've seen in this thread, and every thread where Peacebringer performance has been brought up, has been anecdotes. If Peacebringer performance is lacking so bad, it should be measurable, and demonstrable. Where are the numbers to back up the claims? I think I know where they are...they're hiding, because any numbers showing Peacebringer performance will ALSO show Warshade performance, and NO ONE wants to nerf Warshades. Historically, that has been an option the devs have employed to affect balance as well. ((Specifically, I mean numbers like the scrapper secondary analysis, that showed how and why SR was lagging. There have been numbers posted in this thread and others, but nothing that's encompassed "performance", just some powers comparisons.))

Do Peacebringers meet the dev "standard performance level" (whatever that might happen to be)? Probably. In the hands of a competent player? Definately. In the hands of a highly skilled min/maxer, with all available resources? Beyond a resonable doubt, yes. Are they on par with X, Y, or Z? I have no idea, I'm not even sure if that's a fair comparison. There have always been powersets that players have felt underperform. There probably always will be. I have no problem with the overall performance of my Peacebringers. i13 made things a lot better, and I was fine with them before that even. IF they were buffed again, I'd be ok with that too! There are certainly some aspects that I would like the devs to change (shapeshift animation times, photon seekers, KB). Would I (or any of you) cry if Warshades got a suplementary nerf at the same time as Peacebringers got a buff, to bring the two closer to some arbitrary "standard"?

I know I know, I didn't post anything but hyperbole...what did you expect? This is a Peacebringer performance thread

You could do what I did: take Acro until you have the inf built up to buy your IOs, then respec out. Downside: Acro eats a TON of endurance, and you'll already have other endurance heavy powers. Upside: no KB, ever...until you run out of end and your toggles drop, but then KB will be the least of your worries . Upside to the -KB IOs: they fit in powers you'll already be taking, at the optional cost of putting one extra slot in those powers. Like Dechs I have 3 of them for mag12 KB protection, and I still occassionally find myself on my backside - technically I can only tell because I can't activate a power , there's usually so many effects on or near my toon that I can't see myself.

I suspect that the bigger factor in your perceived survivability discrepency is due to your primaries. Dual Blades will have a significant AoE advantage over Dark Melee. Your secondaries both thrive when surrounded by enemies, but Dark Melee isn't particularly great at dispensing with them efficiently. Shield Defense has higher defenses, and higher resistances (potentially), but allowing enemies to stick around longer gives them more chances to get lucky and two shot you. Willpower is more vulnerable to alpha deaths by comparison, where the incoming DPS is too high for their regen, and their defense and resistance isn't high enough to reduce the DPS enough to give them time to get past the alpha volley. This is essentially the old SR vs. Regen debate, just complicated more with the newer sets' layered mitigation. Is it better to rarely get hit, or just regen hit points than the incoming damage takes away? Short answer: it depends. Long answer: it depends on a lot of things . In this case, your primaries are skewing things in favour of WP. If you had DM/WP vs. BS/SD (to keep with the sword theme), I think you'd be saying the opposite of what you are now. *shrugs*

If the spawns are close enough, and the team is capable, I will often intentionally aggro that 2nd spawn with fireball and/or taunt, while sitting in the middle of the first spawn with death shroud, combustion, fire sword circle, and taunt. Works especially well if there is a controller or dominator on the team to help ensure the 1st spawn stays put. Basically constantly re-prioritizing the top 17, but effectively keeping 34 at least moderately interested in me...I know, I am such a flirt... The AoEs tend to make short work of the minions anyway, so after a couple of volleys the two spawns are really just one spawn of LTs and bosses and any minion who got lucky ;D

Like I said, I am not a math expert. I do see, now, what led to my initial conclusion. BunnyAnomoly started by looking at damage OUTPUT of a critter (100dps), and not damage received by the player (50dps after factoring critter's 50%tohit chance). Then applied defense increases.

Most calculations I have seen on the subject focus on the damage received by the player at increasing levels of defense (which BunnyAnomoly had also admitted would "reduces your received damage by a greater amount than 16%").

Interesting way of looking at it BunnyAnomoly, sorry for calling your math into question, I just didn't "get it" at first.

Right you are...ok:

Level 4 Peacebringer (Luminous Aura is essentially the same as Invulnerability for Scrappers in terms of powers to level 4)

I'm no math expert but 5dps/21dps != 16%, closer to 25%. At 5dps you are taking roughly75% less damage than you were at 21dps. Or, at 45% defense, you get hit 75% less often than you would at 29% defense. BIG difference. There are numerous guides to defense on the boards (I'd recommend those done by Arcanaville and Dechs Kaison specifically) that will illustrate this far better than I can.

21-16 = 5, but that's not the same kind of math (percentages are fractions x/y).

I did that too, en route to my perma AM + perma Hasten build.

qft

To be fair, the redside ATs (in general) seem better at soloing than blueside ATs (thinking particularly of the traditional blueside "squishies" - there is a reason they got that name). So this is in product of what the classes are capable of (especially at SO level slotting), and not necessarily player skill. A blaster might run off and solo ONE spawn, but it's pretty rare to see him/her do it non-stop (I don't think I ever have). There's also the blueside vs. redside player population discrepancy: way more players blueside = way more PuGs blueside = way more playing to the lowest common denominator: stay safe, follow the tank. 99% of PuGs will be successful blueside with that tactic (made up percentage ). I don't think I know of another tactic that is nearly so consistently successful (blueside). Granted, who/what tanks isn't always a tanker - even blueside - but the tactic remains. "Let the person capable of handling the spawn's alpha engage first."

I do look forward to discovering new tactics with my red/gold/blue side teammates though.