Rylas

I won't agree with this completely. Playstyle and build go a long way, but the biggest concerns for soloing an AV are Surviving and DPS. Most primaries will be fine, especially on IOs for surviving. Its the DPS that isn't always doable for secondaries.

Best odds for an AV soloer: Shield/DM. Great single target DPS and lots of buffage. The key would be making sure you have fodder for your damage buffs, and not killing those extra mobs while you try to kill the AV.

Fire Melee is mostly AoE with moderate single target. I'm not sure the DPS will be want you want for killing an AV. SS might be able to do it, but I've never tried with it so I can't say.

I have nothing to add to the thread since Rangle covered it, but this part made me chuckle.

Well, I'm not against new mechanics being introduced, but for the sake of getting changes that are easy to do and less problematic, adjusting scalars is the "simplest" approach that can be more easily quantified. If you want a mix of scalar and damage cap adjustments, I'm willing to listen. But certainly not just damage caps.

How did I not see that post!? Yes, I think that pretty much hit the spot. Balanced approach. And I don't think Brutes would notice all that much difference. How many brutes constantly run at 90% res and the damage cap? I play them quite a bit, and doing either is pretty difficult to do, let alone sustain.

Johnny, I think we're pretty close on something I could call an agreement. I would still prefer that scalars be adjusted over damage caps, so that EVERYONE can make use of the buff as easily. Buffing the caps would only be noticeable on people using builds like SS/Shield or DM/Shield, who are already creeping up to the damage caps. Make the buff a fair one for all builds, and I might just say you and I are one the same page about something for once.

To clarify, I don't find Tankers that bad off on damage, but the idea of making their damage potential on par with Brute survival potential is a fair request.

I think there's something to be noted for HP Caps. Factoring those in, tanks still out-do brutes on survival. So, if we're raising the Tanker damage cap, or adjusting the scalars, then I don't think they should be adjusted so that at peak performance Tanks do as much damage as Brutes.

So, to rephrase, I don't think a Tank with his damage maxed out, should throw Knockout Blow for the same amount of damage that a Brute can with his damage maxed out.

In this special circumstance, where defense is having much better luck than the res set, then yes, your unbalanced example makes Defense look better.

Now, let's say everyone took 3 more hits than the law of averages allots. Defense now takes 300 damage and Resistance takes 130. Resistance wins.

So that's why we use the law of averages when comparing Res to Def, because ignoring it can make anyone look stronger.

[edit] Oops, I made a math boo-boo. If Defense took 3 more hits than averages allot, then it's 4 hits total. Making the damage taken 400.

Yes, and if we're taking averages, then we can't assume the defense character never gets hit. This is what I was trying to point out with your argument. You assume one person has special luck, but then apply law of averages to the other. You're already using unfair measurements for your basis. If one gets special luck streaks, you have to apply that same special luck streak on the other side of the equation.

Planet_J, I'm not trying to single you out here. You came out and asserted that Res and Def aren't on equal footing. I was only pointing out that in terms of mitigation, they are indeed equal. It's not a personal attack.

I already explained it, but here it is in case you couldn't see it:


We went over this as well. I'll just sum up what we said before. Both have weaknesses, both have strengths. Arcana explained it in great detail, so I'm not going to bother trying to follow that up.

Well, if you're going to assume all attacks hit, you have to make the same assumption for defense. The whole scenario was based off a law of averages. The RNG can just as easily mistreat a Defense based set.

What is with all these strange circumstantial assumptions? Why can't we assume none landed on the resist set?

Again with all the inconsistent assumptions. Let's assume Res got this debuff, and then assume Defense never got hit, got a +1000% damage buff, levelled to 60, and beat Statesman in an arm wrestling competition. Do you think that would still be even footing? Well of course not, because you're talking about completely different situations now.

Whatever assumption you want to make, you have to make for both sides. If you want to assume that Def is catching a lucky streak, then you have to assume Res caught a lucky streak.

I could just as easily say "Let's assume defense got shafted by the RNG, and that Res got a debuff it happens to have virtual immunity to." Playing favorites in your situation set up is always going to be an easy way to paint a false picture. Just don't assume we won't notice.

Again, I point to Arcana's lengthy more in depth explanation about the weaknesses and strengths of both Res and Def.

I'd say you muddied it up pretty good, yes.

Well, the point of the post was that Defense has it's drawbacks as well as Resistance. Which goes back to what I was responding to, "placing them on equal footing by raising the res cap to 95%." They're on equal footing already, they don't share the same weaknesses, but they both have their own strengths. There's no need to raise one or the other.

I was just simplifying... sheesh, mom!

On the flip side, all Resist powers have Resist Debuff Resistance by default, where Defense powers do not all offer the same levels of DDR (and often times none at all). Also, ToHit buffs can begin to chip away at Def more than Res, and this becomes increasingly more obvious in the Incarnate content.

Give and take.

90% Res is mitigating the same as 45% defense. They're on equal footing already.

If an enemy is hitting you for 100 damage every attack, you will take 10 Damage with capped resist. Keep in mind, the base to-hit is 50%, so only half those attacks are hitting you.

So, after 20 attacks, you've only taken 100 damage.

45% Defense means only 5% of those attacks comes through.

So, after 20 attacks, you've only taken 100 damage.

This doesn't make a lot of sense. You don't want brutes to have their most extreme situations reduced, because they'll hardly ever be there? If they really don't get there without extremes, how much are you really nerfing them?

As someone who really enjoys their brutes, I'd be fine with the Res cap being reduced to 85%. My average performance isn't going to notice it, and it's more in line with balance between the 4 AT's anyway.

Also, I have to support the idea of raising the damage scalars over raising the damage cap for tanks. If the caps only going to benefit extreme cases, how can we expect the player base to notice an improvement?

Besides, if the scalar is improved, don't you still see that at the damage cap? Where as, just a raised damage cap is only effecting you if you're capable of hitting that on your own.

You mean like Alanis Morissette writing a song about being ironic, but never using an example of irony?

So unless you're socially awkward, bullied, outcast, living in your parents basement, living off Hot Pockets and lacking an ounce of muscle, you can't be considered a gamer.

J_B, there's more than one way to be a gamer. You're way just happened to be the kind that forms an unrealistic sense of elitism.

Some of us have demanding work weeks that require a bit of our time and can only play when we can because we might have families to support. Being a gamer doesn't have to keep a person from living a productive life, you know?

Had you made the 25 pack on sale (not necessarily 25%) I'd have bought it. As it stands, 25% off the Single Pack isn't much of a money saver when the 25 pack still beats it.

Very tempting.

[edit] Oops, I forgot it's a 24 pack, so the sale is basically offering the 24 pack savings. It would feel like more of a sale if you were coming BELOW that price mark.

Hence, the request ALL tanks get KB protection and stop excluding FA and DA.

I've been paying attention to what's been said. And I said most of that damage (if not all of it) is avoidable. If it requires more attention on your part to avoid that, then it's hardly a game-mechanic issue when you fail to do so.

Even if you're the only tank (which in my experience I can't recall a time I've ever only seen 1 on a full league - maybe some Lambdas), I doubt you're the only melee character with Taunt.

And if you're the only one willing to use Taunt, then communicate with your team. Or don't use it, and allow others to generate more threat. But an example like the BAF is hardly Tanker specific (you're telling me no one else in those examples gets Sequestered, just you?). Either way, you're talking more about an issue of teamwork than game mechanics. That devs can't be expected to force teams to communicate more.

The end-game content was always meant to be more difficult. Some amount of adapting is to be expected. Did you really think you'd always be able to just stand next to the big baddies without thinking about your health and swinging your fists all day? That's what regular content is for.

By your reasoning, unless they do Brute damage, then they won't be fun. Because the only definition of fun is doing more damage. But we know giving them Brute levels of damage will never happen, so by your reasoning, there will never be a reason to take a tank. So, more damage isn't really the answer. Part of an answer, sure. Not THE answer.

Either stay in context, or don't bother quoting me. I was referring to incarnate content where those things are indeed prevalent. And if you don't think those things are a nuisance for other ATs in iTrials, then I don't think we'll have any common ground to approach this topic on, so I suggest we don't bother discussing it.

Any particular reason 445%?

You've said Tankers are already extremely survivable and buffing that survival would be pointless because they don't need it. If they're that tough, why would they be scared to turn on a toggle like that?

We're talking about taking a percentage of another person's damage and passing it through your character's resist and defense numbers. If tankers are so tough, how would that be unsensible to mitigate a teammates damage?

And how would that be greifable!? You can toggle it as you see fit. Even if a character ran in and took a nuke in an effort to get you killed, you're only taking on a percentage of a percentage of that damage.

At least explain your complete disregard so you don't look like the stubborn soap-boxer you've become known as.

1. Thematically, that makes no sense. How does taunting one's enemy suddenly create a barrier of extra HP? At least bodygaurd can be explained as stepping in front of a teammate to take damage.

2. Sounds exploitable when two tanks with even moderate recharge just keep spamming taunt to keep absorb up. In the meantime, they're not using that extra damage you want because they want to keep spamming taunt for the absorb.

3. Let's say you shrink the absorb buff down to make exploiting less desirable. Then you've made the value of having the buff questionable.

4. I already have reasons to take taunt. Many people do. I don't see why your opinion of it not being worth using has anything to do with this.

5. Having to actively use Taunt to consistently buff yourself (which you already said tanks don't need more survival) or teammates seems time consuming. At least a toggle idea doesn't require dipping into your DPS to provide teamates a buff that could be more permanent when in range.