Spiritchaser

Just to add a stale two cents worth... I personally don't feel that EA needs stamina now.

In a lot of ways the fitness inherent will benefit EA less than most others...

Though I admit swift, health and hurdle are nice to have on an EA.

The only think I've found that EA can do... that the other sets CANT is chain mako cones relentlessly at high recharge for a true blast brute... weird and fun.

I love the swords in fire melee, I'd love to have sword animations for all the fire melee attacks, and my pick of firey swords to boot!

But sure, more animations is always good.

The lethal/fire lethal damage type argument has been made but I'm more than willing to overlook that completely if I get a couple more sword attacks.

We both agree that this build is not overpowered... I believe I stated that. It's protection is considerable... but not more than that.

Yes, obviously, granite makes a sacrifice, it sacrifices mobility, recharge and damage. [edit: and it looks... well just horrible]

I strongly agree that resists should have more debuff protection... This is why I made my suggestion from the first post in this thread: IO res buffs should give debuff resistance.

I also agree with this.

None of these suggestions, all of which I agree with, contravene my basic concept, or my basic premise...

If you want to go further than these and also say that:

1. Capping def is a good game mechanic
2. Capping res will not be worse than capping def

and therefore

3. "Res bonuses should be made significantly more available, such that they are as easy to cap as def bonuses, or at least in the same ballpark"

Then so be it. However, as I've stated, I dissagree with both 1 and 2.

EDIT: suggesting that you think that res bonuses should be made "significantly more available" may be a bit of a straw man, for which I appologise. Significant is a grey area at best.

What I wll say is that while the build I posted isn't going to break things, I submit that it, or one like it, would break things if it got much more to work with. Even doubling the existing bonuses would put it over the top.

Keep im mind my focus is on the desireability of using res bonuses.

With regards to 3: I'm not sure if you are concerned about that argument or not, I'd just like to re-iterate it here because it's important to my point. If it holds water, then it's important to the discussion. If not, well, we should establish that.

My third point was something like: Capped res would be more problematic than capped def because it would not be so subject to debuffs, and it would not be destroyed by high tohit buffs. There are not too many unresistable resistance debuffs around.

Moving on: You're right, I am saying there's not too much room to add resistance bonuses (probably a little, but not much) and I'm saying it without an exhaustive study. I can do some hand waving in a minute because it's fun

I'm making the following argument though: Res cannot be increased to the point where it is functionally competative for damage capping with def. Again, refer to point 2, which I understand you have mixed feelings about. Actually, res needs to be meaningfully lower than that, see point 3. This is basically what I was going on about in point 4.




I guess all I'm saying, and I don't feel that exhaustive builds are needed to say it is:

Res bonuses are poor in comparison to def bonuses, they should be improved

That def is broken, buffing res bonuses by giving them comparable mitigation to def would be broken. (potentially they'd be broken even with slightly less mitigation due to debuff/thb lets not break res too.)

Why not add something to them that won't break the situation?

Provided one subscribes to the assumptions (obviously not everyone will) the only problem I see is the suggestion that there's a perfect middle ground where res stacking will just start to be more usefull, than def stacking without causing the same scaling issues that def has.

This is probably where the exhaustive study and hand waving come in. I've been arguing that we're probably very close to that point for some specific builds even now, and all it takes is one.

Electric is the obvious first candidate, and while mids wouldn't let me import smersh's data chunk, here's the build I'm working towards myself:

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

Click this DataLink to open the build!

Level 50 Magic Tanker
Primary Power Set: Electric Armor
Secondary Power Set: Fiery Melee
Power Pool: Fitness
Power Pool: Flight
Power Pool: Fighting
Power Pool: Speed
Ancillary Pool: Soul Mastery

Hero Profile:
Level 1: Charged Armor -- TtmC'tng-ResDam(A), TtmC'tng-ResDam/EndRdx(3), TtmC'tng-ResDam/Rchg(3), ImpArm-ResPsi(5), ImpArm-ResDam(50)
Level 1: Scorch -- GS-Acc/Dmg(A), GS-Dam/Rech(5), GS-Dam/End/Rech(7), GS-Acc/Dmg/End/Rech(7), GS-%Dam(9), Mako-Acc/Dmg(46)
Level 2: Fire Sword -- GS-Acc/Dmg(A), GS-Dam/Rech(9), GS-Dam/End/Rech(11), GS-%Dam(11), GS-Acc/Dmg/End/Rech(13), Mako-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg(46)
Level 4: Lightning Field -- Sciroc-Acc/Dmg(A), Sciroc-Dmg/EndRdx(13), Sciroc-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(15), Sciroc-Dmg/Rchg(15)
Level 6: Static Shield -- TtmC'tng-ResDam(A), TtmC'tng-ResDam/EndRdx(17), TtmC'tng-ResDam/Rchg(17), ImpArm-ResPsi(19)
Level 8: Grounded -- ResDam-I(A), S'fstPrt-ResKB(50)
Level 10: Taunt -- Taunt-I(A)
Level 12: Energize -- Dct'dW-Heal(A), Dct'dW-Rchg(19), Dct'dW-Heal/EndRdx(21), Dct'dW-EndRdx/Rchg(21), Dct'dW-Heal/Rchg(23), Dct'dW-Heal/EndRdx/Rchg(23)
Level 14: Conductive Shield -- TtmC'tng-ResDam(A), TtmC'tng-ResDam/EndRdx(34), TtmC'tng-ResDam/Rchg(36), ImpArm-ResPsi(36), ImpArm-ResDam(48)
Level 16: Swift -- HO:Micro(A)
Level 18: Health -- Numna-Regen/Rcvry+(A), Numna-Heal(34), RgnTis-Regen+(34), Heal-I(46)
Level 20: Stamina -- P'Shift-End%(A), P'Shift-EndMod(33), EndMod-I(33), P'Shift-EndMod/Rchg(48)
Level 22: Hover -- LkGmblr-Rchg+(A), SW-ResDam/Re TP(25)
Level 24: Fly -- Winter-ResSlow(A), Winter-RunSpd/Jump/Fly/Rng(25)
Level 26: Boxing -- Amaze-ToHitDeb%(A), Amaze-Stun(27), Amaze-EndRdx/Stun(27), Amaze-Stun/Rchg(31), Amaze-Acc/Stun/Rchg(31), Amaze-Acc/Rchg(33)
Level 28: Tough -- TtmC'tng-ResDam(A), TtmC'tng-ResDam/EndRdx(29), TtmC'tng-ResDam/Rchg(29), ImpArm-ResDam(31), ImpArm-ResPsi(48)
Level 30: Power Sink -- RechRdx-I(A)
Level 32: Fire Sword Circle -- Armgdn-Dam%(A), Armgdn-Dmg/EndRdx(37), Armgdn-Dmg(37), Armgdn-Dmg/Rchg(40), Armgdn-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(43), Armgdn-Acc/Rchg(43)
Level 35: Hasten -- RechRdx-I(A), RechRdx-I(36), RechRdx-I(37)
Level 38: Greater Fire Sword -- Hectmb-Dam%(A), Hectmb-Dmg/EndRdx(39), Hectmb-Dmg(39), Hectmb-Dmg/Rchg(39), Hectmb-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(40), Hectmb-Acc/Rchg(40)
Level 41: Gloom -- Apoc-Dmg/EndRdx(A), Apoc-Dmg(42), Apoc-Dmg/Rchg(42), Apoc-Acc/Dmg/Rchg(42), Apoc-Acc/Rchg(43)
Level 44: Combustion -- Sciroc-Acc/Dmg(A), Sciroc-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx(45), Sciroc-Dmg/EndRdx(45), Sciroc-Dmg/Rchg(45)
Level 47: Lightning Reflexes -- HO:Micro(A)
Level 49: Build Up -- AdjTgt-Rchg(A), AdjTgt-ToHit/Rchg(50)
------------
Level 1: Brawl -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Sprint -- Empty(A)
Level 2: Rest -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Gauntlet
Level 4: Ninja Run



I'm currently having a hell of a time getting those PvP IOs, dear #$@ they're expensive.

[edit: something odd happened to my posting here, adding the missed bit:]
I don't actually see much in the way of scaling problems with this build, but you don't have to add much res to the thing to have to really start worrying.

Still you asked me a question about what I felt was broken, and where the line was, so I'll take my best shot at it, and give my best opinion:

I have no problem with any tank capping against it's area of strength, fire to fire, cold to cold.

If the area of strength was an uncommon type, add in even one more and you're probably ok, if you want to add in an additional exotic (toxic/psi) that's probably also not broken.

After that things start getting sketchy. I think adding s/l capping to a set that doesn't have that as it's strength should be on the bleeding edge of what's possible, and you should have to surrender a lot to get there, not to mention fight like hell for the inf/IOs to do it. I think that's about where we are.

I think capping your primary strength, adding caped, or nearly capped S/l, and having any other two common types above 80 especially if your build had any meaningful regen or healing, is going to cause too many of the same problems def has.

Minor points in a preamble to a major one: /ea brutes can hit around 35% psi def while softcapping everything else (potentially a little more in an extreem build). Throw the soul mastery ppp and you're there for the few freakish fights where you'll need it. Granite can protect itsself surprisingly well from psi in a pinch with modest psi def and lots of +HP and regen. Sure it's not the soft cap, but it's not too shabby. For corner case entertainment value I could also mention that extreem WP builds can also get most of the soft cap, though there's generally going to be one type they have to choose to miss. Ice can probably hit 38+ psi def in addition to it's other tricks, at least so long as you take a patron pool with a pet.

I submit that def bonuses are far more popular, and they are far more popular because they are far more powerful and useful than res bonuses. I submit that the market prices of these sets can stand testament to this fact if nothing else can.

I further submit that +res needs a cookie. I don't think you, or in fact most on this thread would dissagree with that.

Here's the problem: I think the function of a great many of the suggestions here would actually be to allow many tanks to softcap most or in some cases almost all resistances.

I submit that with overslotting and tough, even a modest increase in the general availablility of IO +res will very quickly lead to the same scaling problem that def has, only I submit that it would be a more severe problem, for the very reasons you yourself list: lower vulnerability to debuffs, and THB. I'll conceed that some areas of + res could be more available without much problem. Toxic res, for example, is not likely to break too many builds, but for physical and environmental... I don't think much can be added. Electric, fire and dark with tough are all pushing on various levels of "close" even with current IO builds. Adding another +10% here or there would probably be ok, but more (the kind of more that +def can muster) is going to get sketchy.

I think this is the fundimental point on which we'd dissagree. Can +res be increased without causing issues, and if so, by how much?

Would an ele tank that caps everything but toxic and negative be ok? What if they only missed negative? [edit:I just threw that in because I personally feel that toxic +res really is one place where builds should be able to go hog wild... feel free to ignore this case if you wish]

How about a fire tank that only misses toxic and cold?
How about a granite tank?


Any low increase that avoids potential problems is likely to be sufficiently low, that for the majority of builds, stacking def is still going to be the way to go.

Thus my suggestion that we give +res something else.

I'd suggest EA with a melee set that has a solid mez opener...

something that lets you leverage stealth to make a tough mob less of an issue.

Claws... meh, maybe.

I'd echo those who suggest this math isn't ideal, and for a couple of reasons:

1. Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't think capped resists or capped def are necessarily great design

2. There is more tohitbuff in the game than there is unresistable damage. If the DE had an emanator that made all their damage unresistable, maybe you'd have something.

3. As you've mentioned: Defence debuffs are more common/stackable/generally effective than res debuffs. Now: start throwing around some partially unresistable res debuffs and again, res moves closer to parity.

I'm not saying that in the current state of affairs, res beats out, or even equals def when it comes to stacking, but at the cap, it would have more serious issues than def has now.

And of course there will be stoners who do both. How can you possibly balance content for them and for everyone else?

I agree with you in feeling that res IO bonuses need more, I think quite a bit more... Thus the debuff resist suggestion.

Any comments on the sanity of this?

First, I will note, this is actually for the third time, I'm not suggesting that this is a bad change. I am arguing something else.


Secondly, with regards to the comment that stamina doesn't make endurance problems go away... And? this doesn't actually support your argument here, in fact it weakens it.

EA DOES make your endurance problems go away. That's WHAT it does. It does it sooner than Ele.

I've leveled a few EA brutes to 50, I'm not sure if you have or not, but I'm just going to say that now, as it stands, even without IOs, an EA brute does NOT require fitness. Never has, even with fighting leaping leadership builds which had 38% + def before there were IOs. Been there. Got the weird looks.

You could take it, and I often did, lets face it, swift and hurdle are pretty good for a brute too... I often took them least for some level ranges or between some respecs. it was a choice, but... You didn't have to. The same will now be true.

Whatever choices EA has without 3 slots spent in fitness, it already had. The same is NOT true of most other secondarys.

I am not claiming that EA is impoverished in an absolute sense. I am claiming it is impoverished in a relative sense. Given that, as far as I know, grav is still the way it was (haven't played it in a year) EA is not the very first set in need of attention, but... EA is hardly the strongest brute set out there, and it just lost a little something that made it special: If you wanted to, you got to pick more powers than everyone else.

As I stated, I think this is generally a very good change.

It changes the relative position of /EA because it devalues one of the few things it provides.

Consider: /EA does not provide a lot of survival. It doesn't provide more offence, it doesn't even provide solid aggro management tools that are beneficial to a team.

What /EA can do is provide an end hungry AT with enough endurance even without the fitness pool. That's a lot of powers you don't need to take on an EA brute (I still do, but at least players had a solid option).

There were a very few sets that didn't need fitness before. In the case of /EA, that was almost (not quite totally) all it provided by way of unique advantages.

That's a lost relative advantage.

Very well, we'll just have to agree to dissagree on the semantics and how we percieve the context.

If I couldn't live with that, I have no business posting on a web forum.

1. Lets be clear: I do not, nor have I suggested that hard targets should exist in every spawn. I think what I actually suggested was something along the lines of 30% of the spawns in large teams. A statement that every spawn should contain hard targets is ridiculously bad, but also fairly meaningless in this discussion.

2. Code... I'm pretty sure that the selection of mobs is something that many AI missions abused the existing code to do. If having the odd EB spawn seems technically dificult, imagine how much harder it is to get window reflections to work. Some players may remember tiny a bug from I 5 (or was it I6?) that replaced nearly all minion spawns with LTs...

3. Most importantly: I do not consider it good game design to require players to face each and every spawn in exactly the same manner. Play is different things to different people, but even if it's relatively easy going, adaptation is a good thing.

4. The root cause of selecting against the single target archtype is the lack of relevance of single target damage. I call it like I see it.

I'm not really understanding the root cause of your concerns... If it's that big a deal, imagine more controls on difficulty selection that provide the option of EBs... and adjust rewards such that it would be desireable to use those controls.

I really don't think it would impoverish the playstyle or tactical variety of common builds to have to deal with more hard single targets.

And I really do think there would be a lot of opportunities for marginalized single target builds. As others have mentioned, this isn't just stalkers.

EBs might or might not be the perfect scaling point for a single target, but that's not really my point.