Starsman

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think Endurance is a problem at all once you have Stamina (or Quick Recovery), at least no more than it's designed to be, and I think the Stamina debate is game-wide, it's not a Tanker issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first time i heard some one say that tankers paid more end for their damage than they should, I smirked, shrug it aside and thought they were crazy, never bothered entering those conversations.

Then one day I saw Arcanaville, of all people, join THAT side of the topic. I figured she may had lost it and keept on walking.

But when the big A thinks there is numerical inbalance, well, something may actually be wrong so it always staid in the back of my head, until I decided to run some quick speed tests one day and found my tanker running out of end way more often than my scrapper. Figured it was all about Rage crashing, "ss is an end heavy set after all", but by the time I had done enough math to know that SS is actually very endurance efficient, how could that be... my math may had been wrong and I'd have to go check it again to make sure I was doing my damage analysis right... and then I saw how big of an impact lower damge modifiers had on actual endurance efficiency.

Yes, all ATs can have endurance issues, but the tanker is, on top of it all, the most endurance inefficient AT out there. I can fully see how anyone can think that's all bullocks since I thought the same at some point, but the most I look at the topic the more I'm convinced it's a significant issue, its just not easy to quantify so people simply start labeling sets End Heavy without realizing it's not the set, its the AT.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Here is the thing, I solidly think tankers have issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

JB finally wore you down... =]
I have thoughts on your points but no time to reply, accept that I've had a lot of fun on teams with a second good tank, but that's anecdotal.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I had fun as a lone tank with 5 storm/energy defenders that seemed to just have Gale from their primary, but that's also anecdotal, not to mention just fun, not evidence that the setup was optimal or even balanced.

[ QUOTE ]

Didn't it also get mentioned that he was talking about unslotted attacks, which means that anything less than 1.95 scale was completely useless to use for a slotted attack given that the comparison was between damage of the attack to mob hit point levels. I ignored anything under the 1.64 mark for that reason alone - I don't play my characters unslotted, and at +2 it's effectively 1.6 for 100% slotting (or 95% with a 5% average boost from buffs).

[/ QUOTE ]

You were the last to post on that thread and I forgot to reply to you, even if i had half the stuff ready. Anyways, i got around to post a reply to those points there. The enhancement was dynamic based on level, lvl 25+ all were fully enhanced, lvl 10 and under unenhanced and in between there were 1-3DOs, depending on level.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There was a thread about quantifying Scourge a while back. In a "best-case" scenario [...] Scourge was providing roughly a 15% boost in damage, [...] Against minions it frequently had no effect whatsoever

[/ QUOTE ]

Starsman's estimate for the average Scourge effect in that thread is as follows:

[ QUOTE ]

Minions average +7% damage.
Lts average +11% damage
Bosses average +17.7% damage
EB average +19.7% damage
AV average +20.3% damage
GM average +20.7% damage


[/ QUOTE ]

He reported no boost against minions ONLY for attacks of more than 12 second recharge and 2.12 base damage. Due to the nature of his testing, that meant he was comparing to using ONLY that attack. Such would be totally irrelevant in actual gameplay. Given that if you are aware of Scourge and can anticipate it you can usually choose to use your weakest attacks to "finish off" the foe, I would say Starsman's estimates are probably as close to actual gameplay value as you can get with a raw analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, my final spit out number is a weighting of using a variety of attacks, even neutrino bolt. Linked a huge spreadsheet with averages for various attack types in the list.

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, she's WP/SS, and I'm currently working on getting her over 4end/sec recovery. I'm a little spoiled.

[/ QUOTE ]

Super Strength is the second most endurance effective tanker set, followed by Energy Melee. Rage's buff pump up your damage and the crash every so often is not hard enough to bring that down to normal endurance levels.

In my last calculator, SS benchmarks 2.6 on endurance efficiency. Fire Melee 2.3 and the normal tanker 3.1. (lower numbers are better.)

The worst scrappers benchmarks at 2.3 with scrapper fire melee benchmarking at 1.8.

That is the sets on isolation, though, no armor toggles accounted for.

[ QUOTE ]
My only Tanker is WP, so I guess I don't see it, except when fighting Carnies and other things that directly drain endurance (especially Carnies, who take pretty big chunks when their death blow hits). Is endurance really that big an issue for other primaries?

[/ QUOTE ]

A WP with both, Quick Recovery and Stamina can fare very well. Secondary can also make a huge difference (fire is extremely endurance efficient)

A WP with just QR may actually feel the issues normal tankers face, it also depends how far you try to go. If you hold back, you technically can keep going longer but you also kill extremely sloooooowweeeer comparatively to scrappers and blasters, much more slower than intended (less than half the speed.)

Edit: You can also try it yourself by using a free respec at test and removing Quick Recovery from your build.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Teams. [...]

[/ QUOTE ]

In that respect, any solution that requires one of the tankers to assime the role of a damage dealer is a non-solution, as far as I'm concerned. I generally play tankers in order to (primarily) tank. A "solution" that requires me deal damage as a tank is no more a solution than one that required me to heal in order to contribute.

[/ QUOTE ]

My favorite idea for this is the Reverse-Bodyguard mechanic where the tanker would absorb team damage, this would make multiple tanker work in interesting ways as each would theoretically make the primary tanker harder to kill while making the rest of the team less likely to die due to splash damage.

Secondary favorite is some form of inherent leadership, its even taken by most teams that the tanker should lead into the field, and in comics the mere precense of these mytho inspired heroes tends to inspire the rest of the team to do stuff they would not do otherwise, so an inherent leadership that boost team survivability and damage more the more tankers are in the team makes sense in both ways, as long as it does not become stronger than controller level buffs. Intimidation auras could also work.


[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, as I've pointed out before, the lack of stackability is simply a matter of content being insufficiently difficult. When you DO sufficiently hard content (such as certain MA missions), then a second tanker does become very useful. When the problem is that tankers do not contribute on a metric that almost completely neglects survivability, the actual problem is that there is a reason that such a metric is commonly used, and that is what would have to be fixed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even in the MA, I found the most draconian of missions just make more defenders/controllers desirable to keep the first tank alive. Other than having the main tank fail at it's job (due to self issues or lack of support) and die, the secondary tank does not help much. Content that encourages second tankers could be made by forcing splits, but making the third tanker useful at all is harder as it requires specific content. In the end, we cant expect the dev to tweak content for specific ATs outside of special TFs. The same was said a lot about stalkers and they ended up changing stalkers instead of content precisely due to the same hurdles: changing content is not a viable option.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) Solo ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I will wait for what the adjustable teamsize difficulty slider in I16 does to tanker soloing myself. Endurance efficiency is greatly affected by area effects (an AE hitting more mobs means better DPE), and tankers both have solid AE capability and the means to survive using them solo effectively.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tested some stuff like this on the early MA, when a lot of stuff allowed for insane spawns. I had similar theory but in the end, my tankers had not the endurance to keep going compared to my scrapper, yet the scrapper had enough survivability to do more than my tanker before he faceplanted. My tanker also faceplanted attempting to tie but due to running out of endurance and, consequently, detoggling.

I look forward to test this in average missions but I think the sliders will actually encourage tanker team desirability less. The chain of thought I expect from optimized teams will be:

We already running a 8 team size group, but have 7 members, whats available to fill the spot?

Tanker? We already have one/two, an additional one wont help us kill any faster nor be more survivable so we better off with just 7 until a buffer/debuffer or a true damage dealer shows up.

[ QUOTE ]

And IMO this is what separates you from J_B and why I was trying to respond in kind. I somewhat agree with your issue list (moreso about stacking than end... pre-20 end is an issue on almost all AT's in my experience, so I'm not sure I agree with that one as much) but didn't agree with your solution to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Endurance consumption of tankers deserves an extremely in depth analysis, I done such in the past, I was actually going to pursue a proposal I had around it when I got sold on the damage idea after reading Great_Briton's post. I never been one to propose damage boosts for tankers outside of a stance system (that I don't think will happen.)

The basic raw of it: Tankers are basically expected to fight longer than scrappers, killing slower because they can fight longer.

That sounds all nice in paper: tankers kill slower but can fight longer.

Issue is, they CANT fight longer since fighting longer means they burn more endurance directly (via attacks) and indirectly (via toggles) not to mention they are exposed to debuffs and end drains (if they exist in the encounters) for much longer.

A tanker can't even hope to defeat the same size of encounter as a scrapper before running out of endurance, yes, there will be a subset of these encounters the tanker will be able to finish, but the ones that push the scrapper endurance bar to it's limit (without tickling its survivability) will not be completable by the tanker without aid (insps or other end sources.)

Note that the desire to defeat the same encounter as the scraper is not even asking to defeat this encounter at the same speed, just to be able to leverage our ability to survive the encounter for longer by defeating it slower, but do so without running out of endurance.

I have various raw ideas for this, from higher base endurance to endurance discounts to making the tanker primary "inherent" (end free defensive toggles or extremely low end cost defensive toggles) I will experiment with these in some simulacrum environments I been working on as soon as I have them ready.

In an ideal world, Id make the tanker a heavy hitter on purely single target mode.

His AoE would be mute.

The Blaster would be focus towards AoE, huge ground coverage AoE attacks that get rid of huge groups fast.

The scrapper would be an in-between. Some one that would focus on cone AoE or very small radius, technically making him kill groups faster than the tank but slower than the blaster, unlike the blaster, he can actually stand in between those foes without need of some one to keep their attention (most of the time.)

[ QUOTE ]
Castle's seen the proposal. His reply indicates dev action is unlikely. I don't know if Starsman contacted Positron, but that might be something to do in the future if he has another idea. The nature of the recent Domm changes were a result of Posi and Castle talking. But then again, Posi has often said he's got a soft spot for Domms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the thing, I solidly think tankers have issues. There are two mayor issues and you may not agree with them at all but they are the true issues I can justify from a very analytical and objective point of view:

1) Teams. In teams a second tanker just brings 64% the damage a scrapper or blaster would (stalkers and brutes and now Dominators can be considered to be in the same ballpark,) while bringing none of the utility a defender or controller would(corruptors and masterminds also can bring the utilities and worse: Masterminds are designed to tank.)

2) Solo the tanker is the most endurance inefficient AT in the game. Defenders may in theory be close but other than force fields, all have a form of damage increase or resistance debuff that can increase their output enough. The order they get these tools may not be the most optimal, though, but they all get them.

A damage boost of sort would help team slightly by making the tanker team damage contribution a bit more acceptable even if not the reason for the invite while solo it would adjust endurance efficiency.

I am not sure if Castle agrees with these issues, I been wanting to get his feedback on this but either he never been open to comment in PMs or my inbox been too full for him to do so . either way, got to admit, I would respect a PM enough to keep silent about his opinion in the open, would not make me agree with a dismissal, though.

Now, lets just pretend Castle agrees with these issues: he is definitively (based on his response here) not sold on a damage boost, and if we can't sell it to Castle, we may be even less likely to sell it to Positron mainly because these guys got to agree in meetings about what they going to do. Posi has the final "nay", but the "yay"s tend to require agreement.

Now, this does not mean I think this thread is suddenly fail, but alternative ways of thought may be needed.

For the time being, I'm pushing back to the drawing board and try to craft a more specific proposal for the issues (separate proposals for the team and solo issues.)

This is not me giving up, this is me changing approach, as my goal is not getting tankers more damage but to improve tanker stack-ability in teams and make solo play a bit more fair.

More "damage" and "just more damage" are not the same thing and it's not just about semantics. Just more damage is boring and global, a unique mechanic can actually enhance game play.

Side bonus of all this: Taunt becomes useful while solo.

[ QUOTE ]
Why not go for 33% extra damage and make it really shine against AVs ( the kind of foes that would require a tank to not hold back).

[/ QUOTE ]

Math error correction: I meant 25% damge buff (my idea is to take tankers from .8 to 1 mod in this mode, made some wrong quickmath and related the extra .2 with extra 20% when its extra 25%)


That being told: why not 33%? That would take tankers to 85% to 90% scrapper damage, devs may think thats too much toe stepping.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm certainly not a fan of moving Taunt to unenhanceable status, that's the only power I throw my taunt sets into (as other powers deal damage or buff defense etc so taunt sets would be under using the power).

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a side topic but inherent are not necessarily unenhanceable. Sprint is an inherent, after all. So is Rest. Both are enhanceable.

[ QUOTE ]
I also find the game-world justification somewhat problematic. Taunt is already a somewhat artificially-feeling power as is; I'm not sure I want to exacerbate that by making it more artificial and on top of that see it being used more frequently for reasons that do not relate to its primary purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, technically, taunt (at least the ST section) will change from "hey, yommaa!" to "hey, you better take me down cos I'm now going to kick bellow the waist"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you didn’t, you either had more of a classic MMO background or are in the minority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Proof please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wellcome to the forums! Look around the tanker forums and spend more time with tankers, notice their power selection and character concepts. There you will find your proof.


[ QUOTE ]
I didn't roll my tank to do damage, I rolled it to play on a team and provide a support roll of absorbing damage... (since a lot of these arguments are conceptually based... aka to play the "Tough" guy, not the necessarily the heavy hitter). I would assume that isn't something uncommon for people who play the tank AT, however I have as little proof as you do so I'll stick with my personal experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

I been looking around for 5 years.
Also note, nowhere did I say in the original post Tankers are rolled to do damage, but that they are rolled in big part (when not by MMO players) by people that have an inspiration in Superman, Colosus, The Thing, etc.


[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't be completely opposed to gauntlet having an additional affect, but to me just increasing damage is boring, and has already been done.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I'm not just proposing increasing damage

[ QUOTE ]

Not only are you still saying Tankers must hit like girls even when not holding back, they also have to be scared about it as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

This extremist nature to your posts is another reason why your previous ideas also were the wrong approach. Currently tankers do 65% to 67% scrapper/blaster damage.

I propose 80% to 84%, you still think thats hitting like girls.

[ QUOTE ]

There's no point in them holding back their power when their power is still dwarfed by Scrappers, Stalkers, Brutes and Blasters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go to the comic world and tell that to writers, tell them that colosus should start punching everyone as hard as he can since wolverine does not and still can cut through stuff even colosus may take longer to punch through.

[ QUOTE ]

You miss the entire point of the "holding back" concept. Tankers wanting to keep themselves in check when they've got the potential to destroy little guys like raging Brutes makes them prudent. Them being gun shy for much less than that just makes Tankers timid wusses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't miss the point, (specially I cant miss the point of a point I make) you just think still you are playing superman. We are not playing some one of that level of power, so we are not holding back THAT much, we still hold back not because we are "wusses" but because tankers "care" about others (why we tank and protect.) If you want some one that is not like that, you don't even want a comic book tank, you want a hero brute.

25% against flagged foe (remember you must set flag with Taunt)

[ QUOTE ]

On another note what about an increase based on relative con and rank? Hmm, wait I already see an issue with all tank GM teams.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not entirely a bad idea to have the bonus be slightly higher for EBs, AVs or GMs, but I'd never go past 30% if so as that would suddenly jump into scrapper territory.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see this as necessary but if it's being proposed... then purely for the sake of this discussion, using the gauntlet inherent to increase its solo validity and for the purpose of increasing single target damage, why not not add a damage % with diminishing returns based on the amount of gauntlet splash checks per attack? And no, I'm not proposing a stacking effect either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because that would force the tanker into herding practices for one.

Also: if the buff requires herds, what happens in AV fights where the foe is only one? That's the points where this feature is the most useful at as the fight can last long with rather low damage.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I wish you had presented this at a better time and not when all the devs are in San Diego.

They dismiss my threads, but would consider yours if they were around to see it.

They may still see it, but why hurt your chances needlessly.

.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think I'd post this and not PM at least Castle about it? Tsk Tsk Tsk

[ QUOTE ]
Question: Would this only work by having Taunt the power set the flag? Or would any taunt-like effect set the flag?

[/ QUOTE ]

Either the Taunt Power sets the flag, or a new click inherent (but I'd say that would be redundant) sets the flag.

The fact that you can taunt a minion, one shot him and likely have to wait for an un-enhanced taunt to still recharge would be part of the balance of this. "Wasting time" on an initial challenge also would be part of the balance in this.

[ QUOTE ]
If you need to have Taunt to get this to work, isn't that kind of odd, since you'd be requiring people to take a specific power in their secondary to take advantage of part of their inherent?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I noted at the end I'd plug in Taunt being moved as an inherent, but the same goes for stalkers. Yea, stalkers get to use their inherent with hide (that they are forced to take at lvl 1) but they also need placate to do ultimate usage of their inherent (assassinate/placate/stealth crit.)

If taunt is not made an inherent, I still can see being forced to take taunt in your build as an additional balance point in all this.

[ QUOTE ]

1) Your rationalle for why this should be done wasn't good enough when I used it, so why is it now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your rationale came along with requests of requiring to do more damage than scrappers in any situation. The few times you toned down your requests (with things like the uber attack every few minutes) your proposal was so toned down it meant nothing outside of PvP.

Also, this post by Great_Briton, a re-posted a very old proposal that actually sold me on the idea of tankers not being over-powered if they get JUST a single target damage boost and no AoE boosts, as it would refrain the tanker from being able to solo huge maps any much faster.

Was very well outlined from both perspectives, comic inspiration and actual balance.


[ QUOTE ]

These three statements are contradictions, if I understand what you're trying to say.

First off, I don't think a 20% damage buff will increase Tanker damage to Scale 1 levels, especially when slotting is taken into consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a damage buff, it would be baked-in higher base damage. Like stalkers do double extra damage if the target is stealth, the tanker would just do 25% extra damage if the target is challenged.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, a character with super strength "going wild" and not holding back in this game, would translate to a Brute at near peak Fury.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is why your proposal always goes wrong. Forget "SUPER" Strength and focus on balance. 1 damage mod is high, once you experience that extra damage you will see a huge difference. With enhancements, rage and this, KoB would hit for 522.65 damage at level 50 instead of 435.54.

Also note that I used superman as an example of concept there, not an example of balance. I also made sure to note later in the post I was not looking to replicate superman or allow anyone to go liquefying AVs in 2 punches.

[ QUOTE ]

I mean, if he's not hitting harder than a Scrapper, why would he even hold back?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the comic-type tanker, even if he can't do more damage than the comic-like scrapper, tends to be more concious than the scrapper.

Example of a tanker holding back would be colossus knocking back people.
An example of a scrapper would be wolverine slashing the guts out of anyone just because they looked at him funny. Scrappers are deadly, and they don't hold back.

Tankers don't have to be deadly to still hold back.

That being told, not only is all this true but you also got to keep balance. You can't justify scrapper level damage with tanker level survivability even in single target levels. Stalkers, for one, are about there too, they actually get gutted on AoE. How are you going to justify tankers doing stalker DPS when they have tanker survivability? It's just not possible.

[ QUOTE ]
It is an interesting idea. I assume that the flag would only be set by a direct taunt and not the "splash" effect?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, only the direct taunt, no splash.

[ QUOTE ]
How would this function with more than one tank? If I taunt target A, my buddy taunts target b, then I fire FootStomp would both mobs get the higher damage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ideally, the tag would be personal only but I already asked Castle and it seems that the personal tag thing is extremely hard to get to work properly. In that case it would mean if a fellow tank is there and he hits foot stomp, he gets to do that 20% damage bonus against your target too.

Two tankers focusing on the same foe, though, will not go past 25% because this is an on/off thing, not a +damage deal.

[ QUOTE ]
Given the poor stackability of tanks it would be nice if gauntlet came with 10% -res on all targets.

[/ QUOTE ]

The stackability of -resist makes this a big no-no.

I’m going to break my own rules here for a bit, but not too much. The tanker does has a perceived comic counterpart. It’s not a true counterpart but it’s what people have in their minds when they roll tankers. Chances are, unless you were rolling specific exclusive sets, when you rolled your tanker you were thinking Superman or The Thing. If you didn’t, you either had more of a classic MMO background or are in the minority. I have to admit that although I had in mind that balance mechanics would force the tanker to be as it is, I too had a Superman-like idea in the back of my head when I rolled my first tanker.


"Tanks" in comics
Now, many state that tankers, if based of this comic counterpart, should do high damage. But every time we see these guys, they don’t go out ripping heads off. Superman can theoretically liquefy most foes with a single finger swipe, but he still holds back and just hits them hard enough to not break anything, sometimes he does it so softly he needs to do it again.

Technically, tankers work just like that right now. Only thing is, when Superman decides he is really going to let it all out against one foe, he really goes out at it. He will pick his target, usually a very tough foe, and just go wild, mostly because the foe can take it, off course.


Gauntlet
Now, what does Gauntlet stands for? The name of our inherent was based off the classic dueling term “Throw down the gauntlet.” Well, how about we start giving it a bit more meaning?


Here is my proposal:
Taunting a foe literally throws down the gauntlet. Gloves are off; you no longer hold back against that target and inflict extra damage against him. I’d say scale damage 1 against him; however anyone else will just receive regular damage.


How to implement:
<ul type="square">[*]Taunt sets a Gauntlet flag on the target (ST, no area) for 10 seconds.[*]Any subsequent attack, be primary or secondary, will refresh the Gauntlet flag for 5 seconds but only if the flag was already there.[*]If the target of any attack, even AoE, has this flag, you will do the extra damage needed do inflict a 25% "crit" (would not call it crit, though, perhaps "Unleashed damage")[*]If you are forced to stop attacking for too long you may be forced to reuse taunt to reset the flag. [/list]

Balance
The neat thing about this: it only works on single target, it requires you to taunt to engage the “duel” making Taunt an offensive tool, and it won’t make the tank into a farmer because it just helps you kill single foes faster, AoE damage will still be hindered by your old modifiers. If anything, it balances against Kheledians that in dwarf form have a base damage of 1 and can at will shift to squid to do much stronger damage if they are not threatened with death.

I want to Quote Great_Briton who actually seeded this entire idea and sold me on why ST damage boost is not only balanced but also thematic:

[ QUOTE ]
[...] What seems obvious to me is that the Tankers - if we follow established Comic Book mythos - are designed for heavy damage one-on-one. The "Slug It And See" fighters. They're not particularly well-designed for fighting the masses. The X-Men send in Colossus to take out the single larger foe, for example.

But that's fine, because as mighty as Colossus is, he can't do it all alone. The rest of the team don't sit back and say "Well... who watched 'Lost' last night?"[...]

[/ QUOTE ]


It won’t make you liquefy your foes, but the point is not to shoot to superman levels but instead to make your single target damage competitive when you need it the most.

I may plug in making Taunt The Power an inherent here too, replacing it with a new power, but along the same lines I would make Placate inherent for stalkers so will hold back on that for now due to the amount of work that requires.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Either City of data is incomplete or you got it wrong.

City of data lists a 50% damage buff and a -25 damage debuff.

Login into the game to check real numbers...

Hmmm... I see that 25% there... unfortunately don't have a kin at a level to be able to test this.

[/ QUOTE ]
it summons 3 different type of pets total.

First 2 pets:

Debuff Spherical AoE
[ QUOTE ]
* Summon Kinetic Transfer (1s) (PL_StaticObject) at Target

* DMG(All Types) -25% for 30s PvE only [Ignores Enhancements &amp; Buffs]

* DMG(All Types) -25% for 30s If target is a player [Ignores Enhancements &amp; Buffs]

[/ QUOTE ]

This one radiates from caster:
[ QUOTE ]
DMG(All Types) +50% for 45s [Ignores Enhancements &amp; Buffs] [Non-resistable]

[/ QUOTE ]

This one is summoned by the AoE debuff:
[ QUOTE ]
DMG(All Types) +25% for 45s [Ignores Enhancements &amp; Buffs] [Non-resistable]

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.redtomax.com/data/powers/...netic_Transfer
Click on the 2 links and the link on the debuff pet to see that I'm right here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm.... thats definitively a bug.... the corruptor and controller pets should be summoning this final 20% kin transfer buff

Apparently nothing is summoning it right now, as City of Data shows what powers summon pets and that one does not have any parent summons listed.

Either City of data is incomplete or you got it wrong.

City of data lists a 50% damage buff and a -25 damage debuff.

Login into the game to check real numbers...

Hmmm... I see that 25% there... unfortunately don't have a kin at a level to be able to test this.