Maelwys

You can get better recharge + defence by leaving out the ~3 billion Inf Gladiator Proc and taking Combat Jumping. See the below build for an example, >70% S/L Resists, Softcapped to S/L Defence and >90HP/Second Regen with one foe in Melee Range, plus Fully Slotted GodMode (it's an i19 build - Use the three spare slots in "Super Jump" to Slot "Health" with Numinas - Heal, Heal/Rech, Heal/End + the Miracle Unique... or swap out the Self Rez for Physical Perfection, stick the Miracle Unique in its default slot and use the remaining spare slot in Stamina).

Note that you don't need Focussed Accuracy at all, ever. It's a negligable tohit buff, and you've already got an opportunity to slot the +Perception unique in Rage and you'll never be missing stuff with "Rage" running.

Hero Plan by Mids' Hero Designer 1.803
http://www.cohplanner.com/

Click this DataLink to open the build!

Unknown: Level 50 Magic Tanker
Primary Power Set: Willpower
Secondary Power Set: Super Strength
Power Pool: Leaping
Power Pool: Fighting
Power Pool: Flight
Ancillary Pool: Energy Mastery

Hero Profile:
Level 1: Mind Over Body -- RctvArm-ResDam(A), RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx(3), RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg(3), RctvArm-ResDam/Rchg(11)
Level 1: Jab -- KntkC'bat-Acc/Dmg(A), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx(7), KntkC'bat-Dmg/Rchg(15), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(23), C'ngImp-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(37)
Level 2: Punch -- KntkC'bat-Acc/Dmg(A), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx(7), KntkC'bat-Dmg/Rchg(15), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(17), C'ngImp-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(37)
Level 4: Haymaker -- KntkC'bat-Acc/Dmg(A), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx(5), KntkC'bat-Dmg/Rchg(5), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(17), C'ngImp-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(34)
Level 6: Indomitable Will -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx(46), Ksmt-ToHit+(50)
Level 8: Rise to the Challenge -- Numna-Heal(A), Numna-Heal/EndRdx(9), Numna-Regen/Rcvry+(9), HO:Golgi(11), Taunt-I(46), Taunt-I(46)
Level 10: Combat Jumping -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A)
Level 12: Quick Recovery -- Efficacy-EndMod(A), Efficacy-EndMod/Rchg(13), EndMod-I(13)
Level 14: Super Jump -- Jump-I(A), Empty(42), Empty(42), Empty(42)
Level 16: Taunt -- Mocking-Taunt/Rng(A)
Level 18: Heightened Senses -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx(19), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx/Rchg(19), LkGmblr-Def(50)
Level 20: Knockout Blow -- KntkC'bat-Acc/Dmg(A), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx(21), KntkC'bat-Dmg/Rchg(21), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(23), Mako-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(34), RechRdx-I(34)
Level 22: Boxing -- KntkC'bat-Acc/Dmg(A), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx(48), KntkC'bat-Dmg/Rchg(48), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(48), C'ngImp-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(50)
Level 24: Tough -- RctvArm-ResDam(A), RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx(25), RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg(25), RctvArm-EndRdx(27), S'fstPrt-ResDam/Def+(27)
Level 26: High Pain Tolerance -- Numna-Heal(A), Numna-Heal/EndRdx(37), Numna-Heal/Rchg(40), Aegis-ResDam(43), Aegis-ResDam/EndRdx(43), Aegis-ResDam/Rchg(43)
Level 28: Rage -- RechRdx-I(A), RechRdx-I(29), Rec'dRet-ToHit/Rchg(29), Rec'dRet-Pcptn(31)
Level 30: Weave -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx(31), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx/Rchg(31), LkGmblr-Def(45)
Level 32: Strength of Will -- RctvArm-ResDam(A), RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx(33), RctvArm-ResDam/Rchg(33), RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg(33)
Level 35: Fast Healing -- Numna-Heal(A), Numna-Heal/EndRdx(36), Numna-Heal/Rchg(36), RgnTis-Regen+(36)
Level 38: Foot Stomp -- Oblit-Dmg(A), Oblit-Acc/Rchg(39), Oblit-Dmg/Rchg(39), Oblit-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(39), Oblit-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(40), Oblit-%Dam(40)
Level 41: Conserve Power -- RechRdx-I(A)
Level 44: Laser Beam Eyes -- Thundr-Acc/Dmg(A), Thundr-Dmg/EndRdx(45), Thundr-Dmg/Rchg(45)
Level 47: Resurgence -- RechRdx-I(A)
Level 49: Hover -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A)
------------
Level 1: Brawl -- Acc-I(A)
Level 1: Sprint -- Jump-I(A)
Level 2: Rest -- RechRdx-I(A)
Level 1: Gauntlet
Level 4: Ninja Run

In terms of AT/powerset ability, or in terms of player skill?

Out of all my level 50 toons, none of them cannot solo an AV.
That includes the Dwarf/Human form Peacebringer and the Sonic/Elec Defender.
Most of them, in fact, can solo a Giant Monster.

Regardless of toon build, with sufficient preperation and planning I would be very surprised if any one toon could not in fact solo an Archvillain. In fact, out of curiosity I once tried on one of my Defenders to see if it was possible to solo an AV using merely Warburg Nukes, a Shivan and a Vanguard HVAS with no other interaction from myself other than the summoning of said temp powers - it was.

Now if you're talking about a "No Insps + No Pets + No Temps" solo, then that's different... however every AT has at least one build combination that can be built to solo an AV with no Temps/Insps (save for possibly Peacebringers... and even then I'm not entirely convinced that a Proc-heavy Nova Form build couldn't manage it - AV soloing has certainly been done on a Warshade, albeit with Mire fuel).

I'd be on board for that too Bill.

I find the team size limitation on TFs annoying myself, and am firmly of the opinion that if there's nothing in the content that actually requires more than one player then the team size limitation should not be a limitation but merely a recommendation.

And by "actually requires" I mean linked glowies (though I largely disagree with the existence of these in principle as well*) or other things that more than one person cannot physically do by themselves. And to me "One person can't survive X number of mobs" isn't a valid reason, and neither is "One person can't inflict enough damage to this final boss to overcome their regeneration" - these can and have been overcome by certain ATs running specific builds. Denying players with these builds the chance to test them on these tasks without pestering others to join just so they can overcome a team size limit is wrong.

My stance is that teaming should be a personal choice ("I'm bored of soloing"/"Gee I feel sociable"/"This Character is more fun to play in a team"), or a requirement driven by overbearing levels of task difficulty ("Flip I can't finish this mission, it's just too hard - I need to get help"), not an imposed requirement based upon the average number of players you'd expect to be able to handle a task ("LF 2 more to help start Synapse TF, PST!").

You should only have to team if you're trying to fight something that you physically cannot handle yourself. Example: Boss X is just too tough for you to kill on your own. You need more Damage so you can actually defeat it. Other Example: Mob Y in Mission Z keeps killing you, you need someone to help so you don't die as fast.

[*Why can't you put a time delay on a terminal, or activate it remotely? There's no good reason, other than to artificially inflate the required teamsize for that one "click" during a long TF... and don't get me started on the standard contact Triple-Linked-Glowie cave mission]

For starters, Resist Energies only provides +25% end drain/recovery protection. This isn't a huge amount (Dark Armor, for comparison, gets over +85% protection) and functions more as a means of prolonging the time it takes to become drained than a means of actually preventing it from happening.

Versus Carnies, aside from the Psi damage and hold spamming (notably versus Master Illusionists) INV is toggle heavy and the Ring Mistress "Mask of Vitiation" power basically negates endurance recovery for its duration. It's a huge debuff, and Resist Energies certainly won't prevent it from completely stopping your recovery. If you're soloing and don't encounter a lot of Bosses, Carnies are manageable (Illusionists can be annoying with all the phasing but they're no real threat, and the -endurance they all do on dying is more annoying than dangerous).

Versus Malta, Sappers have a spammable -Endurance power which is quite capable of draining /Dark dry with repeated applications, let alone an /INV. Malta Sappers are only meant to appear once per regular mob and tend to be OK if you target them early and take them out via damage or mez, but "ambush" or "rescue" mobs can add to this considerably.

I also didn't mention Rularuu. Virtually everyone has trouble with Rularuu. INV at least has its resists to fall back on when confronted with Eyeballs, but all the stacked debuffs from an aggro cap's worth of Brutes, Natterlings and Eyeballs combined with Wisps Psi damage output can overwhelm even a careful INV tanker.

My own main endgame Tanker is an IO'ed INV/SS, and whilst I don't predict a well-built INV will have overwhelming problems if they're soloing or tanking these type of mobs for small teams, when facing an 8-man-team's worth of higher-level foes they will likely start being ground down (at least without support), even with Softcapped typed defences. And even when soloing, these foe types will likely make an INV start to pay attention to what they're doing a bit more than usual.

Not exactly true.

As I understand it, exemplaring rules mean that you lose access to any POWERS that are more than 5 levels above you (with the new auto-sidekick/exemplar rules) but you lose access to any Set Bonuses from IOs that are more than 3 levels above you.

To make matters more complicated, certain IOs function as Set Bonuses which are follow these rules too, but there are other IOs that are always active regardless of the level to which you exemplar. And Set bonuses from PVP IOs and Purple IOs currently also apply regardless of your level.

In general, there is a limit on five of any one particular set bonus. So never slot more than 5 of any one bonus (Example: 4x "1.88% HP" bonuses plus 2x "1.5%HP" bonus will all stack, but 6x "1.88% HP" bonuses won't as they'll cap out at 5). The sole exception to this rule that I'm aware of is the Luck of the Gambler "+7.5% recharge" IOs - these will stack up to 5 times on their own, but are treated as a seperate bonus to the other "+7.5% recharge" bonuses from other sets (as the bonus these IOs generate is named differently under the hood, even though it works out at the same level of buff strength).

For more information, see http://wiki.cohtitan.com/wiki/Invent...nt_Set_Bonuses

In all honestly, DM tends to go well with pretty much anything (aside from possibly Willpower, since DM likes more recharge to get Soul Drain up more often and Willpower gains nothing from +Recharge).

Dark Melee's big negative on teams is the lack of AoE damage output - for a Tanker, this reduces your aggro control as well as making you more effective versus bosses than hordes of minions. For that reason DM tends to work better on teams if you can grab AoE attacks from elsewhere - either your Primary or the Epic pools.

Of the three primaries you mentioned, I'd go with FA for extra spike Damage and the AoE potential of the Damage Aura + "Burn", Shield for extra prolonged Damage via AAO (and some spike AoE damage in Shield Charge) and INV for maximum survivability. DM's heal will help a lot if you go INV/, and Soul Drain works well with Burn/AAO/Shield Charge, so they all have some good synergy going.

You might have issues with survivability tanking unaided for teams as a Fire/DM. My own Fire/Energy (with "Tough") tended to faceplant a bit as a main Tanker for full teams until I slotted him up for S/L Defence set bonuses. A softcapped Shield/DM won't encounter much that can put it down in standard PVE except for Devouring Earth, Nemesis and possibly Romans. A well-build INV will laugh at pretty much anything except for certain Psionic AVs or hordes of Carnies/Malta.

Note also that Dark Armor is also a very good pick here as a "middle ground" option - with a bit of investment into Defence it can get nearly as tough as INV (and tougher versus Psi foes) but it comes with a Damage Aura and Endurance Drain resistance. It's downside is that it gobbles Endurance, but DM comes with a decent endurance recovery tool.

I personally went with Elec/, which is a bit of a Dark Horse set in that whilst it has no real holes in its typed damage mitigation it's usually not as tough as Dark or INV... but it does have a lot of other "toys" to play with - Regen/Heal ability, an Endurance Recovery tool, a Damage aura, a +Recharge passive, End Drain Protection and the ability to Drain foes of their Endurance. For me, DM provided extra healing potential and a bit of -tohit to layer on top of all my damage resistances (I managed to hit over 90% S/L/E, 50% N, 65% F/C and 70% Psi).

Whilst Tanker Dark Melee is probably the highest ST damage-over-time set and is certainly not anemic, it's not as good as it is on Scrappers or Brutes.

As you've touched on in your post, this is due to the Tanker lower damage modifier (compared to Scrappers) and the Tanker lower damage Cap and lack of Fury (compared to Brutes - Tankers actually have a higher base modifier than Brutes) - You're simply never going to be able to equal the prolonged damage output of those ATs, with sets and slotting being equal.

What Tanker DM can do however is come pretty close to matching the prolonged damage output of other Brute/Scrapper Primaries, at least in terms of Single Target damage output. And particularly with the new Bruising -20% resistance debuff on Tanker Tier 1 attacks - as Shadow Punch is actually pretty decent DPA and fits nicely into one of Dark Melee's attack chains.

The chain I've personally settled on is Gloom->MG->Smite->SL->SP->Smite - not the most optimal one on a Scrapper or Brute, but on a Tanker it works nicely at just over 9.1 seconds for a full cycle meaning SP's Bruising effect is always active. This inflicts an average of a little over 58 raw DPS unslotted . All things considered, full IO build and everything (and SL slotted for Healing as well as DPS)... I work out my Elec/DM Tanker's maximum damage output to be a little over 217 DPS with a Saturated Soul Drain and his Damage Aura running, or a little over 153 DPS with only one mob within Soul Drain range. For comparison, one of my Mace/Willpower Brute builds with a similar level of IO investment running an optimised attack chain hits an average of 47.94 DPS unslotted, a little over 184 DPS slotted and at 75% fury, and a little over 222 DPS with 75% Fury and Build Up running. Now whilst this might be nothing compared to the 290+ DPS that certain high-end DM/Shield Scrapper builds can put out, it's not exactly "poor", considering that it takes just over 94 DPS to solo an Archvillain (or at least to exceed their natural regeneration).

In the above example, the Tanker is actually better DPS over time than the Brute, assuming that you can keep enough mobs nearby to fully leverage 'Soul Drain'. The reason for this is that Tankers gain much more from similar levels of damage buffs than Brutes due to their higher base modifiers - and saturated Soul Drain really is that powerful... and as an added bonus, the -20% resistance from Brusing is making your entire team hit harder as well. The trade-off for this is poor AoE damage, and the need for mobs to fuel Soul Drain.

...What?

If a buyer isn't willing to pay X inf, they won't pay X inf.
It doesn't matter if the seller lists it for X inf.
The buyer won't buy it.

Supply and demand works PRECISELY that way.

Supply and demand IS setting the prices on the market. The only thing that people who "play" the market can manipulate is the short term prices (and most regularly particularly the price history) of certain low-supply items. If people don't want to pay that much for it, they won't... and eventually the people selling them (market "players" or otherwise) will be forced to lower the prices accordingly.

This is blatantly false, as you can deduce from the current situation with the +3% PVP IO. If (as you suggest) the prices would drop back to a market cap, why haven't they done so already for this IO? Altering the cap from 2 billion to one billion is not going to stop this IO being traded off market for 3 billion - the actual value of the cap is completely irrelevant once it is under the percieved value of the IO in question.

I can confirm this, because I'm personally hoarding some of them. I'm not intending to sell them, because I might need them in the future and I wouldn't be able to buy them from the market when I need them. If the market cap was high enough to let me buy the IO when I needed it and sell it when I didn't, this wouldn't be an issue. I could sell my stockpile NOW for (say) 3.5 billion inf, and buy them back later for that same amount of inf.

The "problem" you're seeing regarding certain high demand IOs is caused by precisely that - high demand. Those IOs are not dropping less often than other IOs of that type, they are merely perceived as more desirable and so are more likely to have bids on them. This causes a higher ratio of demand to supply, which drives prices UP.

Whenever the bidding price hits an imposed cap, you can't bid higher than everyone else in order to be next in line to get your IO, so you are forced to look for it off-market. Result: supply COMPLETELY dries up on the market.

The only way to rectify that issue is to alter the ratio of demand to supply - if you lowered the bidding cap it would make zero difference as long as the demand/supply ratio was unchanged. Yes, upping drop rate for PVP IOs WOULD affect prices. But it would affect prices across the board for all PVP IOs as junk IOs would become even junkier (and there are a great many PVP IOs going for 5-30 million inf: I know because I still sell them regularly).

No.

The drop rate on PVP IOs is perfectly fine, it is approximately one for every 100-150 kills. This has been tested and retested by many players including myself personally.

Purple IOs are more controversial. The drop rate on these has been more difficult to pin down, but is approximately one for every 1000-1500 kills. The Devs have stated that these are intended to be "Super Rare"... however I can safely say that you will not find one instance of a Purple IO which is as pricey as the top one or two PVP IOs.

The drop rates themselves are fine, if there IS a problem with supply, it's that there just aren't enough people actively doing PVP or farming for them.

The devs have recognised this. They have even implemented a process whereby a casual player can EARN a high demand IO themselves - although it takes time (a few months worth of playing missions or less if they're willing to part with some influence and merits to shorten the process) this is perfectly in line with the current perceived worth of the highest ticket IOs.

----------------------

To sum up:

Market cap lowering would not affect highest priced IOs at all, it would in fact mean that other fairly-high-priced IOs would start being traded off market as well. The prices on these aren't going to come down on their own. At least until:
(i) Supply increases (e.g. drop rate goes up or other ways to get them are introduced) OR
(ii) Perceived value of the IO decreases (e.g. IOs with duplicate effects introduced) OR
(iii) Perceived value of influence itself increases (e.g. influence "sinks" are introduced).

The devs have already covered (i) and (iii) by introducing a new means to earn these high-demand IOs with Alignment Merits, complete with an influence sink to make this earning go faster. We're still waiting on this gradually causing (ii).

If you lower the cap and merely wait for everyone who wants a rare IO (and is willing to pay more then the market cap to get it) gets one, you're never going to stop waiting. There are always going to be rich people making new alts and levelling them to a point where they want these IOs. Increasing supply is one option, but you would have to do this via introducing drop table weighting rather than a straight drop rate increase if you didn't want to saturate the rest of the market with rubbish.

If memory serves, Snipers are perma-immobilised (try throwing a Power Analyzer on them) which physically prevents them from moving on their own - it's not that they've actually been given any special AI in particular over other ranged critters.

I made a suggestion that this might be a good idea to propagate this type of immobilisation to the Mastermind "STAY" pet command a few threads down from this one.

Sadly given the relative general lack of Dev contact lately it's rather unlikely that any of these threads'll get a look in... even without taking into account that the MM board in particular never really has been a hive of redname activity. I suspect it's still all-systems-go for Closed Beta, which is rather sad, because it seems we're going from beta to beta these days without seeing any of the normal daily chatting-and-updates that the Devs here've been so good with in the past...

GOTO wouldn't be affected at all, it's the STAY command I'm proposing be replaced. It's available as a distinct seperate issuable command from the rest, but is currently coded as "GOTO here". This behaviour (STAY acting as "GOTO here") would be replaced with the new immobilise behaviour, but the behaviour of the GOTO command itself would not be touched.

See my later post in reply to Grant_Hammerhoof where I clarified this - I recognise that Melee pet sets can currently make good use of the "bugged" GOTO behaviour. I'd like to see the introduction of another option for the ranged sets since the GOTO behaviour currently isn't working for them... and since a STAY command is already coded into the game but isn't working as you'd expect it to, replacing it seems like the neatest option and one that wouldn't invoke the cottage rule.

Granted, if it were coded as a long duration single "click buff" power, there might be a problem. However I can think of at least one example of such powers being negated: Have you ever been into the Architect Entertainment "quiet rooms"? Or the new Auction House interfaces in Preatoria?

I suspect though that like any currently-coded passive or toggle power this would be best implemented as a short duration automatically-reapplying buff. Example: Apply a 2 second duration Mag 100 immobilise. Reapplies every 1.5 seconds. Whenever this is "turned off", the power is not negated or "wiped", merely told to stop reapplying itself. The currently applied effect expires a few seconds later and for all intents and purposes the power is now "disabled". This is what happens whenever a toggle power is turned off (either by you disabling the toggle, or by the toggle power dropping due to mez or lack of endurance).

Hopefully, if it can be coded the way I suspect it can be coded, it'd need only one call to tell a power to not renew itself anymore rather than applying a new power. Something that already happens automatically when activating mutually exclusive toggles - Combat Jumping and Super Jump, for example... or the turning off passives such as Stamina when Kheldians change forms.

Alternatively the STAY command could introduce a passive or toggle on the Mastermind which affects nearby pets rather than the pet itself - something that if I remember correctly already happens with the "Supremacy" inherent.

Cheers for the comments though - it's certainly making me try and think this thing through more clearly!!

It's a nice way to get pets to attack something whilst you remain in bodyguard more too.
Especially if you're /traps.

Stick Pets in Defensive/Follow + spawn a new Force Field Generator... old FFG dies to let the new one drop in. Pets think, "Hey, that mob just killed our teammate!" and start attacking.

Used to work in PvP too, was great fun fighting in Siren's Call. Melee toons would walk up to me and not attack when I was in Full BG mode... then when they saw my pets start to attack them they'd hit me as they'd expect me to have just issued an "Attack" command so BG mode would be down... only to hit me for piddly damage...

Thanks for the thought, I use a similar command bound to "H" for "Heel" - Passive/Follow on all pets. Basically a "BEHAVE YOURSELVES AND COME HERE NOW DAMMIT" button.

Unfortunately the problem isn't with GOTO or FOLLOW in "Passive" mode, do that and the pets'll ignore any attack or enemy. You can Passive/GOTO and they'll stay there all day. The problem is that pets are running away from where you tell them to be whenever they're "in combat".

Now with Melee orientated pets, this is fine. You generally want them to stray slightly from their GOTO location in order to whack nearby enemies. With Ranged pets, however, you want them to stay still. Especially if running away moves the stupid braindead pet in question out of range of your PBAoE buffs or heals, or into range of a Foe's PBAoE attacks, and especially especially if the pet in question, once it reaches melee range, stands about doing nothing until it finally remembers that it doesn't possess any melee attacks.

The "Passive + Attack" stance even brings the same behaviour into light - ranged pets will still run into melee randomly when told to attack something even when set to passive. The point is that an immobilise effect would FORCE pets to stay still, when attacking from a set position, or defending a set position.

Changing the "STAY" command stirkes me as the easiest thing to change to introduce this functionality, since (i) it would be optional and not interfere with the current "GOTO" behaviour - anyone who currently makes use of STAY purely as a "GOTO HERE" for their melee pets could still emulate that behaviour using "GOTO". And (ii) Forcing pets to remain in one position is pretty much the definition of what you'd expect a "STAY" command to do. So such a change should fall in line with the "Cottage rule".

Potential combat unbalancing flaw?

I mentioned that an immobilise effect could be applied without needing to also apply knockback protection - basically so that if the STAY immobilise was be used, for example, in a fight versus ForceField Set Longbow Bosses, the Pets wouldn't gain any extra unintended benefit from it... they'd still get knockbacked or repelled or whatever by the power effects of whatever they're fighting. I don't think that's particularly unbalancing, indeed it's exactly the behaviour currently on live, with the exception that the pets wouldn't immediately run back to where you told them to stay whenever they get knockbacked - you'd need to tell them to GOTO there (to break the immobilise) and then STAY again.

It's not intended to unbalance anything, just get the pets to STAY where you tell them to STAY, without forcing you to have to switch back and forth between Passive/Follow and Aggressive/Attack hoping that manages to clear a misbehaving pet's "hate list".

Essentially, when I tell my pets to STAY, regardless of if they're in Defensive, Aggressive or Passive (though ideally Bodyguard mode would still be applied in Defensive), I want them to be forced to remain in one spot. So that they can't suddenly decide to run in and hug the nearest critter... or rather they might decide to, but they won't physically be able to.

Yes, I've noticed the effect is much more pronounced and annoying on Bots and Mercs than other primaries too... though I believe that the Thug's Arsonist is still the poster child for it!

And that is in fact why they don't come close.
You can't pair them with /shields... :-(

Apologies, I mentioned shields being the best secondary in that post, but I didn't spell it out clearly why that fact meant that the DB and Claws primaries - and Spines, though it'd trail the pack anyway - lagged behind.

I was in work and didn't have my CoH stuff on hand (including the spreadsheets - which I am always quite happy to add to!) or I'd have reminded myself that you can't pair Katana with Shields. I hate the fact that this is simply because of the left handed-animations. The ability to stack -resist procs is wasted on a /Regen build!!

I had actually been following the pylon thread fairly closely a while ago, since then the only exception to that rule which I notice is Iggy's DB build paired with /Elec which managed to hit 262 DPS at one point which is through Fire/Shield and nearly into DM territory. I presume the damage aura made up the difference from having no AAO... I do wonder though if working Patron Pets into some of those builds (the ones that aren't /shields and so don't rely on keeping feeder mobs nearby which the aforementioned pet could get distracted by) would make a noticable difference.

If you're talking about killing ONE boss "Right the heck now! Sod damage over time I want burst damage!!" it's got to be Fire/Fire.

IIRC /Shield still has the edge over /Fire when talking about long-term DPS even with one foe nearby, assuming that you have a high DPS Primary. Reason being that Burn is brilliant but isn't the highest Single Target DPA attack out there, and Firey Embrace gives you a major short-term attack buff but it has a long downtime.

Concerning Primaries, it depends entirely on mob damage resistances. If I remember my spreadsheets correctly, the new Martial Arts technically has the highest DPS of any chain out there (assuming a considerable investment in recharge) but with the caveat that the damage type is highly resisted and there's no room for a -resist proc IO. However Katana (with the aforementioned resist proc) is pretty damn close on its heels, as is Fire/ and DM/ (since even one foe in Soul Drain range still gives a considerable buff). Fire Damage is probably the least resisted of all those damage types. DM's Dark/Smashing isn't resisted by nearly as much as Katana's Lethal or MA's Smashing damage is, although IIRC stuff that DOES resist it, resists it very heavily.

Claws (even with perma-stacked follow up buffs) and Dual Blades (comparatively poor Single Target DPA as I remember, sorry...) don't come close... even if you discount the fact that lethal damage is fairly highly resisted.

I'm not sure we're on quite the same wavelength here.

My point was that although Tanks can be built to deal damage (just as Scrappers can be built to "tank") by design Tankers are not a solo-orientated AT. They don't shine when they're solo, but when they're teamed. Scrappers, by comparison, tend to go the opposite way.

Tankers fulfil a specific role in the old cliche "Holy Trinity" of MMORPG gameplay: Mitigation, Damage, Support.

Scrappers don't fit into any of those roles particularly well. They can do great Single Target DPS, but generally on teams you'll be facing multiple foes, and even the most damaging AoE scrapper (Spines/, and either /DA, /Elec, /Shield or /Fire depending on who you ask) tends to get outperformed by an AoE-centric Blaster. And lets not forget that Spines is something of a 'Black Sheep' - the majority of Scrapper primaries have little or no respectable AoE damage output. So yes, there is overlap, but the majority of the Scrapper AT powerset combinations are not particularly "team friendly".

Now granted in CoH roles are more blurred, and taken as a unit, a team can have "enough" AoE to cope with a slew of minions allowing Scrappers to forgoe AoE DPS and just pitch in against the bosses or AVs... but since bosses and AVs are comparitively rare encounters, that type of limited contribution isn't particularly helpful to a team for the vast majority of Pve gameplay.

As a (rather crass) generalisation then, to an average team a Scrapper has no specific niche role - they are just a Blaster that contributes less effective damage but requires less babysitting to avoid a faceplant. A Tanker, on the other hand, has a very specific role - They are often the primary means by which a team mitigates incoming damage, through the combination of their ability to absorb damage and their ability to direct incoming damage onto themselves. Which leads on to my next point.

Again, I'm not sure we're on the same page here.

You said to take out the aggro magnet aspect and just compare raw survivability, but my point is that it is this very aspect that defines a Tanker.

Jonny Butane and yourself are both effectively comparing a Scrapper and a Tanker and saying "Well lets disregard that Tankers can control aggro for an entire team; Scrappers' defenses are nearly as good, and they are better at damage".

My argument is that Tankers are not defined by their possession of good defenses, or their ability to control aggro, but both together.

You might as well compare a Controller and a Mastermind and then say "Well lets disregard that a Mastermind can control their pets; Controllers' pets are nearly as good, and they are are better at [buffing/debuffing/controlling a mob]"... as Masterminds are defined not by them possessing pets, or by their ability to control pets, but both together.

And when you're soloing, even soloing on high difficulty, or running with a team of self-sufficient characters, I don't doubt that this is the case.

I haven't seen you tank, so I don't have grounds to question your own personal ability. I'm speaking here purely on my observations of the capabilities of the average Scrapper or Tanker build, a generic toon where anyone could be the "pilot".

When such a Scrapper is running with a full team in which there are "Glass cannons" or squishy support ATs, particularly against tougher or more resistant foes, in the time it takes them to kill a mob one of their teammates could have pulled aggro and died. They might have the damage and defenses, but lack the aggro control needed to lockdown the mob.

(Apologies for the long post, I'm trying to clarify my viewpoint without being viewed as launching personal attacks on anyone! There's enough of that in this thread already!! )

I agree with the "balance" statement, but there already is content such as this.

Task forces.

Specifically, Tasks forces scaled up for 8-man teams, on high difficulty. Or endgame encounters such as the ITF of STF or LRSF. Scrappers and Brutes will still tend to get overwhelmed, or encounter an AV they can't solo (Ghost Widow? Nictus-buffed Rommy? Methods do exist to kill them solo, but it's tricky on a melee AT. At least with the "no temps" rule...)

The same could be said for Softcapped Blasters.

Tankers are a team-orientated AT. They soak the damage so other ATs don't have to. In order to do that, they need to direct that damage onto themselves via aggro control.

It's possible to build Brutes and Scrappers to soak damage to the point that they can weather the majority of standard PVE foes, but all too often they will still lack the aggro control to direct that damage onto themselves and away from their squishier teammates. That's why you see people whining about scrappers soloing or tanking AVs, but not tanking standard mobs for a large team. You can build for AoE aggro control on a Scrapper/Brute, but it will be very sub-par compared to what a Tanker can do (very few ranged autohit taunt effects, for starters) and it is this lack of aggro management, more than any lack of damage mitigation ability which is evident in normal gameplay if/when they attempt to "stand in" for Tankers.

So... nearest I can tell, the argument is that Brutes or Scrappers are better than Tanks because when compared to a Tanker, an identically-built Scrapper or Brute receives more damage whilst inflicting more damage. And that this larger amount of damage recieved (compared to a tanker) is still within the limits of what the Brute or Scrapper can handle and survive?

Whilst I can see where you're coming from, It occurs to me that that stance makes big assumptions on what you're facing, and what kind of support you have available.

As an example, it may well hold true for certain one-on-one AV or GM tanking situations. A Scrapper with a lot of time and money invested into their build can certainly tank one single foe for a prolonged period of time. However surviving is only part of the "Tank" role - Scrappers lack any form of AoE aggro management capability (outside of a few select sets with aggro auras). Their taunt is single-target, and none of their attacks generate a "taunt". Brutes have it slightly easier due to their single-target "punchvoke" version of gauntlet, but start out with a lower damage multiplier than tankers and depend on prolonged combat to maintain their damage output and these days can only very rarely achieve a damage "peak" as high as Scrappers.

Basically, whilst you can replace a Tanker for single target foes, there is no (Melee Damage AT) replacement for a Tanker's large-scale AoE Aggro management and Damage mitigation abilities. The Tanker AT's role is intended for weathering and holding the aggression of large groups of foes. A Scrapper's is "boss killing". Brutes are somewhere in between, but still don't come close to the large scale aggro management of Tankers.

Both "roles" assume that there is a need to manage aggro or dedicate specific ATs to dealing single target damage in the first place. On a team filled with toons that can all manage their own aggro, there is little need for it. Which is why, for example, the Fire/Rad superteam concept works so well.

Dominators, Controllers, etc. can apply damage output and damage mitigation too. And just as safely, assuming foes are not mez resistant. This is one of the reasons why you don't need any one AT in the game. You can quite happily operate with a Scrapper/Brute for tanking bosses and a Dominator/Controller for AoE aggro management. Or you can replace both roles with a Tanker, and use the second slot for raw AoE damage output. Or you can use both slots for a Defender/Corrupter/Mastermind and stack buffs/debuffs.

As an aside, it's quite possible to build a high-ST-damage orientated Tanker. Or a high-mitigation Scrapper. But you're not playing to the AT's strengths by doing that, merely attempting to cover their weaknesses. You end up making the character into a jack-of-all-trades generalist, rather than a specialist. And usually it's different specialists that combine well to make the best teams.

If I needed to fill the "aggro management" role for a Task Force team I would certainly rather have a INV/SS Tanker along than a DM/Shield, for example. Despite the fact that both would be capable of tanking the "End Boss" AV, the Tanker AT would ensure the team had a far safer and smoother road to get there. The extreme Single Target damage output of the Scrapper would be a nice "extra", certainly, but it would be largely superfluous to the role I'd need them to fill on the team. Especially if the difficulty level was jacked up (More Exp. Yay! But need much more AoE aggro control and AoE damage than ST aggro control and ST damage).


Disclaimer: This post is brought to you by someone who plays both Scrappers and Tankers, and tends to run with them IO'ed at level 50 more often than not. Given that most Brute Melee sets running an optimised attack chain at extreme levels of recharge can still only achieve ~180DPS or less Single Target (after enhancements and assuming a constant 75% Fury) and I've an Elec/DM Tanker that can do the same (albeit whilst hitting the 90% S/L/E resist caps, >50% N, >65% F/C and >70% Psi, regenerating >45HP/Sec whilst sitting at more than 100HP over than the Scrapper AT's HP cap, inflicting a regular 20% -resist to eveything around him and a <2 minute downtime on Power Surge, whilst maintaining full AoE aggro lock with a Damage aura, Taunt itself and a Ranged AoE attack) I've no real complaints. If you're going to start trying to compare or balance damage output/mitigation numbers around what's possible with IO'ed builds across the various melee ATs, you'll be at it forever.

....Henchmen?

Cheers for the testing!!

Hopefully it will... the Tanker "Ice Melee" version is a decent attack and certainly takes damage enhancements, and has done since February 2008. The Blaster "Ice Manipulation" version doesn't as it still doesn't inflict any damage. I suspect the Prince's version not getting it was an oversight, maybe the allowed enhancements list was copied from the Blaster version or the "original" Tanker version.

The more I look into it the more I think I can live with the Ember Demon enhancement business though. Best endgame slotting would seem to include two plain level 50 EndRed IOs. Or (if you've got the cash) a Ribosome (if you want to enhance the Resistance shields) and/or a Golgi (if you want to enhance the Heals) as if I remember right those HOs are flagged as "Endurance Reduction" type, so the EndRed from them should affect all the pet's powers- heals, shields and attacks.

I'll try and explain:

It has a 17% chance of granting 64% Damage and 32% ToHit for 5.25 Seconds
Good so far.

However, in order to trigger the proc, your pet needs to use an attack.
At the point immediately after the attack starts, the proc has a chance to activate.

The 5.25 seconds Damage/ToHit buff duration starts counting down immediately after the start of the attack. However the damage and tohit buff is NOT applied to this first queued attack, as they were not active at the point that attack was activiated, only immediately afterwards.

The NEXT attack used by your pet gets the full buff, assuming that the start of that attack falls start within the 5.25 second buff window.

This means that if your pet uses attacks with long-activation times and long recharge times, then it is very unlikely that it will manage to finish animating the first attack and queue another attack all within that 5.25 second window. Also since pets are now no longer affected by any form of recharge buff, it makes it even more unlikely for pets possessing attacks with long recharge times to be able to get any use from the buff.



--- Assault Bot Attacks ---

Smash (Melee Single Target)
Cast Time: 2.67 seconds, Recharge Time: 16 seconds

Plasma Blast (Ranged Single Target, 30% KB chance)
Cast Time: 2 seconds, Recharge Time: 4 seconds

Dual Plasma Blast (Ranged Single Target, 30% KB chance)
Cast Time: 4 seconds, Recharge Time: 25 seconds

Flamethrower: (Melee AoE Cone)
Cast Time: 6.33 seconds, Recharge Time: 10 seconds

Swarm Missiles (Ranged Targetted AoE, 40% KB chance)
Cast Time: 2.67 seconds, Recharge Time: 16 seconds

Incendiary Swarm Missiles (Ranged Targetted AoE, "Burn" patches)
Cast Time: 2.67 seconds, Recharge Time: 16 seconds

----------------------------

Looking at the above, under the best possible conditions your Assault bot is only ever going to get one attack boosted by the buff, as the only attack with a cast time less than half the buff duration (2.625 seconds) is Plasma Blast. And that's not even accounting for Arcanatime.

You can completely forget about getting any buff if Flamethrower triggers it, as it's impossible to get any benefit - 6.33 second cast time > 5.25 second duration. Ditto for Smash if your bot is stuck in "melee" mode as it'll not recharge fast enough.

Plasma Blast, Dual Plasma Blast, Incendiary Swarm Missiles and Swarm Missles look to be able to trigger it, leaving a window of 1-3 seconds for another attack to go off and gain benefit from the buff. Under best possible conditions you could probably get one of the first three to trigger the buff, followed by Swarm Missiles which will get full benefit from it as it inflicts front-loaded AoE damage.

Note that if Incendiary Swarm Missiles recieves the buff, it'll get little or no benefit. Most of the damage in this attack comes from burn patches (which will technically inherit the buff, but in practice it'll have expired by the time they're "deployed").

In practice, I've found that it's very rare for a Assault bot to chain two of it's fast-activation, big damage attacks back to back. it usually gets stuck in "Plasma Blast" mode or "Flamethrower" mode, cycling only a few of its attacks over and over with gaps of several seconds between them. If you're very lucky it might fire off two missile swarms back to back without a plasma blast in between them to knock its target out of the way.

Honestly, it works out better to just throw a "Chance for smashing damage" proc in your Assault Bot from the Knockback sets, as they'll fire off on the same attacks you'd have the possiblility of getting buffed from the Soulbound proc (Plasma Blast, Dual Plasma Blast and Swarm Missiles) but inflict more damage when it goes off and have a far higher chance for successful activation...

Yeesh. That's a heck of a lot of time investment.

(Not sure what the "DR" stands for there, I'm assuming that's the 'Shield Wall' +3% Resistance one?).
That's the thing I really hate about the current state of the market. I don't agree with prices being so overinflated that you can't buy and sell them within the 2 billion influence cap.

I've been farming PVP IOs on and off over the past year or so. Even after the drop rate nerf (when they implemented the 10-minute cooldown timer) I've received hundreds of them in total: I've kept two of the Defence Procs in storage on an alt simply because they never appear on the market and I've a few theoretical builds in Mids that I might get around to rolling someday. If the market price of these was sensible enough that you could actually buy and sell them when you need them, I'd feel no need to stockpile the ones I get as drops. I suspect I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

(For anyone wondering: Yes, farming PVP IOs has been and still is very profitable. I strongly enourage people to try it because it greatly increases the supply of these IOs which drives the crazy prices down. I no longer concentrate on it because a few months ago it got to the point where all my 50s were "full up" and I needed to roll another alt simply to store funds on. Sadly an overabundance of influence does not help whenever the stuff you might want to spend it on is not available on the market at any price...)