Spiritchaser

[ QUOTE ]
i still expect more changes for EA than just these. we'll have to wait and see.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the low end adding some + HP to dampening field would make a big difference.

At the high end? Changing Gaussians to a +def all would probably make almost as much.

I'm really not very happy with the answer... but I'm happier that the situation is fixed than I am sad that this is what they chose... If that sounds even remotely clear...

It'll be interesting to see if there are defence mechanic changes as well

[ QUOTE ]
That's the funny thing about defining "performance" as "the rate at which you earn rewards in the game." Its almost completely blind to total defensive performance above a certain level

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably totally true of drops, but with regards to leveling speed, I think the fastest way is fastest safe way. It doesn't take much debt to really mess things up. That's especially true if the added protection elevates you above a fairly commonly encountered incoming damage threashold... I'd say from what experience I have that many EAs do run into this threashold while teaming.

I agree that it's important to look first at what's possible IN SET, but I think synergies, particularly very powerful ones need to be considered. I'm sure that at least for extreem monster barring, they are, but I have no Idea about other cases. I think that to some degree they should be. If one set has something very easy, some very potent synergy that permits it to do something very powerful (but not brokenly powerful), then that thing needs to be considered. Weighed evenly with what can be done in set? of course not, but I can't imagine that it's without value.

It's probably acounted for to a large degree by datamining. If people ARE taking cj + fighting and steadfast + gaussians on SR, then SR performance should be notably high...

[ QUOTE ]
in your posts your saying EA is great with IOs; yea well Invulerability is fantasitc with IOs as is damn near every other Armour. IOs are not what sets are balanced around Frost, dont ever bring them up in comparisons because it complicates them needlessly.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, we can't totally discount them. The reality of what SR has become is almost totally due to IOs (well, that and the defence resistance change). Talking about SR without a few cheap ones doesn't really seem fair now... does it?

[ QUOTE ]
i think what gets up other people's dander with that line of reasoning is that pretty much anything other than 9 copies of CP would serve as a decent solo defensive set as long as you have full mez protection.

that part of your argument is true but doesn't say much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, give me a blaster set with a mez shield and build up and 7 conserve powers and I'm sure I could be very pleased with the character...

When talking about IOs and EA, the discussion usually revolves around two ideals: Max recharge for maximum overload uptime, or softcap builds. While IO variety might be desireable, it seems greatly less discussed than these other two points of focus, and is probably less critical anyway. You could argue that in raw PvE performance, a set that can be IO’d to the softcap has more to gain than a set that can slot for all manner of things.

Bottom line: Without IOs, EA has so little capacity to recover health that it’s almost laughable. With them: it’s a very different story, but then we should be comparing /EA to everyone else with IOs, and they all end up being rather effective as well… I mean, there are blasters with 1600 HP and 30-second-up, 1-second-down-drain psyche out there these days.

Actually we probably shouldn’t’ put much weight in that at all. Sets should be solid as they come.

I don’t buy that this thread has become pointless because we now have every reason to think that help is on the way. We don’t know what’s coming, but even if it is “set in stone” for it’s first appearance, I have to think that there will be some measure of testing and feedback. Understanding the issues better going in to that can hardly be a bad thing.

Oh, one other point: suggesting that the endurance drain of rooted or earths embrace are commesurate costs for non granite stone’s radically higher performace as compared to non-overload EA is a bit odd. I’d gladly pay that little extra end for the massive extra survival. I think you’d be hard pressed to find an EA who wouldn’t

Point still open about the movement debuff of course.

And you...

Accounted for the regeneration in rooted in this somehow?

Accounted for earth's embrace?

Accounted for psi damage?

I'm sorry, I'm not in agreement that /EA would outperform /stone without tier 9s.

In fact I don't think it's even close.

I'll grant you that stone, with rooted debuffs speed, and thus SHOULD have more survival. The relative value of that debuff is certainly open to debate.

Stone armor has significant strength before granite. Even without that toggle it's a solid set (though for obvious reasons it is seldom built that way)

EA can make no such claim. It would become a very weak set that transforms radically in the late 30s.

Is there any reason you couldn't rebalance overload to make such a design work? No reason you couldnt (Overload would not look the same as it does now), but I don't think you should... I don't see that change alone resolving the sets problems that efficiently.

hmmn, not so bad there then, but I stand by my other objections.

I actually don't really like the idea for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that it's unlikely. Castle has described power boost type powers as one of the banes of his job... I doubt he'd add more of them.

I also don't like the way it'll interact so differently with the different primaries. EM and stone get a lot. Fire gets nothing (Fire/EA is NOT the combo we need to be shafting with a change to /EA)

Finally I'm not sure how those SS types would like the knock component... though there's no need for that to be constant.

Not saying it couldn't be workable, just that it'd be one of the harder fixes to get right.

Myself I'd powerboost overload, trash talk some blaster and...

hehe.

EDIT: not a psi blaster of course...

Especially if we're talking about ever transferring the set over to tanks...

In a perfect magical kingdom, I'd also wish the buff to take place in a power available before level 28.

Yes, ok, I'll grant that such a desire is hardly the most important concern. I'd much rather take any change, even at 35, than no change. Thing is, in the later game this set does have the capacity to add quite a bit with pools and IOs. No I do not think this should be a primary balance consideration, but at least it's something.

In the early game EA does not even provide this option.

[ QUOTE ]
/EA starts off strong, and never gets any weaker

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose the most simple reply would be to appeal to those new /EA players, or potential players, readers who skip to the end of the thread and read this post to do themselves a favour. Read as much of the rest of the thread as they have time for and interest in.

There are some excellent reasons why the above line of reasoning should be considered... unusual. Most are detailed at some length earlier in this thread.

nin is a bit harder to softcap. Maybe hard enough... except that with that heal, a softcapped nin "scrapper" (why stalk when you're practically a tank?) is really very tough.

Still, only SR has that crazy defence resistance.

Don't get me wrong, I think that def set imbalance is something that should be looked at (and again, even just changing gaussian might be enough), just not as a best and final solution for the /EA issue.

[ QUOTE ]
more melee/armor IO sets that give a bonus to Smashing/Lethal damage

[/ QUOTE ]

I have two problems with this.

The first is that IOs are intended to be optional, and that sets are intended to be, more or less, balanced without IOs considered in the mix.

Now: if one set can do something really really special with IOs, more so than any other, and it's an intended strength, then that should carry a little weight. I don't think it should be, or that it in any way is, a primary balance consideration.

Second concern? more typed defence will make invul and WP stronger.

Invul may sound like a weak set for scrappers and brutes, and it's not the strongest (though it's really not bad, and can be very strong when well built) but for tanks it's quite solid, if dull.

Throw in the capacity for it to softcap easily? now it's a monster.

WP is already something of a monster, and if it's allowed to softcap easily for tanks, then there will be very few occasions where granite will be worthwhile anymore.

Oh, and wp brutes and scrappers will become rather durable as well, I'd guess that they'd become very popular. Oh wait...

Yes there's some room for a little more added def without really breaking things. You might be able to add between 2% and 4% typed defence before degeneration of build styles ensued. I don't know the exact number.

Just changing gaussian from all positional def to def all would probably do it...

But again, I don't really hold with balancing on the basis of IOs, except for monster barring.

I suppose there is another way to look at the “remove stealth” suggestion. I’m arguing a point I don’t really support here, but lets see where this goes anyway.

Lets say that we argue that right now, /EA doesn’t NEED survival, because it has a the tool which potentially limits incoming aggro. If we remove that tool, then survival must increase to a more normal level, in order to compensate.

In other words, if one perceives stealth as a play balance barrier to /EA getting tougher, and one feels that stealthy weak /EA is less valuable than non-stealthy strong /EA, I can see why one might argue for the removal of the power

Now, again, I don’t see why one can’t have the best of both worlds. After all, /DA does, but others might not be similarly convinced.

I don't think we need to get rid of the stealth. Just adding a powerful taunt function will give you be best of both worlds, in the same way /dark has it.

That set works fine conceptually and functionally for brutes and even tanks... No need to be in your opponents face until, well, you actually are RIGHT in you opponents face yes?

One could easily keep the stealth and add a taunt aura, although there are plenty of other ways to do it, like adding a high taunt to energy drain, or some such.

Again this work fine for /DA, allowing stealth when desired, and when stealth is not desired? no problem. The stealth toggle can even stay up, just start using the power that overrules it.

I'd argue that there are far too many players that have invested far too much time into /EA concepts that benefit from stealth to simply remove it, particularly when there are other sets where it works just fine.

I don’t think the same thing HAS to be done, it’s just a thought. I think double CP is likely to go on both sets, and a single drop in, while hardly needed, is somewhat more elegant than some options.

I agree that /Ele has a very strong survival mechanism in its sapping. With hasten, Powersink is up in just over 20 seconds, or in just under 30 seconds without. No normal spawn is likely to have anything at all left after that second powersink, and LF with endmods will hold them at zero reasonably well. Weaker spawns don’t even get to my second sap before drying up.

It’s generally possible to survive for just 20 seconds. Throw in IOs (I know a dangerous line of reasoning, but even so) and power sink is up in 17 seconds or some such. There are clearly a lot of things that can cut through an /Ele in 17 seconds, but most of these are getting to be fairly hard on any brute..

Even so, A tank may very well need more than this, and a scrapper, who won’t have the same tier 9 at all, will especially need more than this for EBs, who may not be especially bothered by 75% resists in power surge, and who won’t be at all bothered by power sink. Also, in their own way, electric brutes still ARE very delicate. Even adding a heck of a lot of extra HP still keeps them fairly low on the totem pole…

But again no, there’s no real need for any change to /ele to mirror what /EA gets.

So if we’re talking about adding +HP to the EA passives, or creating a passive to replace CP for /EA, (and probably /Ele) then we are talking about increasing the straight up survival of these sets.

What fraction of the short and long term durability that /Fire has do you think these two sets deserve?

Against S/L?
Against Fire?
Cold?
Energy?
Negative energy?
Toxic?
Psi?

Lets call long term infinite and short term the 30 second case, since we need to pick something.

That is to say, weighing in, as best you can, the value of damage auras, firey embrace, burn, rotp, consume, vs. a tier 9, and /EA’s stealth, /Ele’s end drain resists and so on… how much less durable do you suggest that /EA and /Ele should really be?

The reason I’m lumping these two sets (EA and /Ele) together here is twofold. First it is actually possible for one similar change to allow the porting of both these sets to scrappers and tankers, and secondly I think comparing /EA to /Ele and then /Ele to /Fire makes for an interesting exercise.

Now, obviously fire runs on its heal, it’s an active measure, so survival SHOULD be somewhat superior, at least in most environments…

But how much? Keep in mind that if we’re porting this over to tanks and scrappers, we’re talking about at least some situations where the “compensate with your primary” argument doesn’t hold too much water.

Now there’s a bit of a hidden thorn in /Ele if it were ported to scrappers, in that power surge, while an excellent power for tanks and brutes, is actually somewhat less good for scrappers… but that’s another discussion, and really belongs in another thread.

I'd also be inclined to give it a larger magnitude for /EA than for Ele.

Partly this is tit for tat, if /Ele is going to get the better end drain, /Ea should get the better passive, but really, that would probably have to come down to hours on the test server...

As for sets, I'd make it fully slottable with either.

And if it's going to be a tank set, then I'd definitely tear some HP out of overload. There's no need to design a set for tanks that tanks cannot effectively use without blowing through their hardcaps in set.

[ QUOTE ]
random weird idea

What about a passive power than buffs End. Not recovery, your actual Max Endurance.

say, a 10% buff that's enhanceable.

I'm think of this in place of Conserve Power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, here's another take on it. What if instead of just +end we go with +X% end, +Y% health?

Such a change would potentially solve a lot of problems, and could potentially be safe to graft into /Ele as well, to avoid the cp redundancy there as well.

[ QUOTE ]
does NOBODY but me play staminaless?

[/ QUOTE ]

I played this way for about 3-4 months. It wasn't my favourite, but it did work. My biggest problem with losing stamina on EA is that I also lose Health and Swift and or Hurdle. All of these are excellent powers in their own right and I'm loathe to miss out on them. If I'm going to build with swift and health anyway, well stamina is a pretty good choice.

Back when I went without stamina, I found conserve power to be fairly critical. This was before there were IOs, and even with serious endredux slotting, I needed it. The thing is, I actually think SF's potential replacement for stamina would serve /EA better than the original.

Sure it wouldn't be as intensely beneficial when it's up, but it'd have a much more effective, sustained performance all the time, and of course there'd be room for another +5% movement bonus to help make up for losing that speed from swift/hurdle.

We also have to consider that to be ported to scrappers and or tanks, EA will almost HAVE to surrender its CP. The possibility that both at once could be permitted seems to be remote.

The one place where I feel that CP is really critical is when dueling with another /EA brute. Now take this in the context from which it comes: I'm hardly a PvP expert, in fact I suck, but as far as I can tell, more often than not, the EA brute with CP is the one who's going to win.

Depending on the magnitude, and what the AT hard caps are, I'd go for that.

It could solve the double cp issue if the set were ported to scrappers/tankers and wouldn't exactly replicate something like quick recovery.

It would give you a type of ablaitive endurance drain protection, but do it in a unique way.

End recovery is more scalable than total endurance, so it would increase the net benefit of stamina, and of IO +recovery, probably more than qr increases the value of +end. The bottom line is that while it wouldn't scale with IO expenditure on recharge the way CP would, it'd probably scale well with IO expenditure in general, maybe to the same order of magnitue anyway.

It would potentially add value to energy drain. The bigger the end bar, the more you can pack away.

Would you have it accept endmod sets? (there are some nice ones...)