Stupid_Fanboy

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not Castle, but the answers to your questions are implicitly written in the design of EA and the coming changes. You just have to accept what it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, considering what Positron has said about Shields, I'm guessing Castle's response would be more than unsatisfactory for me. I disagree strongly right now with what you and FW consider the 'exchange rate' for utility powers. I don't understand why almost every other defensive set is set within one range of power (some higher) and then you make another set (3 now) that are significantly worse and give them utility powers whose utility needs to be used to buy back into the standard level of performance.

it's not a perk or a utility power at that point. It's a deferred cost.

it's like saying, "Look, you have tons of Endurance Recovery! Have fun never resting" but making all the toggles in the set cost 1.0 eps.

So you do have the ability to never run out of end, as long as use no toggles (accept lower mitigation). If you want to perform as well as your peers, you don't really get that bottomless Blue Bar.

it's bad design and I'm a little sick of seeing it in EA, Elec and now Shields. You hold out a treat in one hand and then slap them with your other hand when they take it. What a great trade off!

bottom line on both of those responses.

I do vehemently disagree that sacrificing defensive strength to the degree that these sets do is remotely worth the tricks they are given.

Red name response is critical on this issue. And even then, honestly, I'll continue to argue if I don't like it.

Personally, I could care less about the IOs when without them the set doesn't match up well. Don't get me, wrong, I will leverage them to the best of my ability to do so, but I don't like that I have to.

I still don't like that we haven't been given the design intent for EA, or Shields for that matter.

How is that insulting, Frostweaver?

Despite months of arguing back and there is no difference in either of our positions. There's no point in beating our heads against the wall.

howabout I rephrase that, would that be acceptable to you?

"Regardless, my previous statement stands. Continuing to discuss this issue when clearly no one is going to change their minds is a waste of time."

[ QUOTE ]
Are you serious or joking?

[/ QUOTE ]

I hadn't seen that patch note when I posted that.

Regardless, my previous statement stands. Discussing this issue with you more is essentially a waste of my time.

I want a Castle post stating what they want EA to be.

[ QUOTE ]
I think we are having bad conceptual feedback here.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we're not. We're simply adding a new chapter to the old discussion in light of new changes. I know this because of your second sentence and your signature.

As long as you and 1 or 2 others still disagree with everyone else about this, our feedback about these changes is going to be incredibly different. I don't even want to comment on your feedback anymore because it's just the same old song and dance. I'm not even going to say you're wrong anymore.

What I want from Castle is some statement telling us what EA is designed for. I'm sick of arguing from ignorance over this. And it's carrying into Shield now too.

Castle, tell us what the hell this set was designed to do!

Is it supposed to be super strong to Energy like Electric is?
Is it supposed to be mediocre mitigation and have to buy more from pools with its End Recovery?
Why no Taunt in ED?
Why the same ED/CP combo?
Does the presence of Stealth and lower mitigation mean that EA isn't designed to be as tough as the other defensive sets on purpose?
What is EA supposed to be good at and what is the designed for average playstyle?

I'm sick of arguing. I want answers.

[ QUOTE ]
You know, after figuring that out, This is looking better and better. I wonder why castle decided on 3% instead of the 2% originally suggested?

[/ QUOTE ]

because ED isn't front loaded like RttC.

for simplicity's sake, slottting = doubling effect with this chart
numbers are %hp/sec

<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>target ED Rttc
1 0.20 1.04
2 0.40 1.25
3 0.60 1.46
4 0.80 1.67
5 1.00 1.88
6 1.20 2.08
7 1.40 2.29
8 1.60 2.5
9 1.80 2.71
10 2.00 2.92
</pre><hr />

Essentially, it's much easier to leverage better Regen from RttC than to get more healing from ED.

Plus, there's also the fact that EA needs more defensive strength to even be competitive with the average defensive set and by bumping it up, Castle's trying to do that.

In the average situations, RttC is nearly twice as strong as ED will be.

Hey man, stay safe over there.

ED
- 3% heal per target
Energy Protection
- 9.375% toxic resists

And that's it.

No increased def debuff resistance
No end drain protection
No increased Energy def/res
No taunt in ED

my testing has feedback opposite from yours, Frost. shocker, i know.

I found the heal making no little to no difference. Siphon Life and Midnight Grasp were used a lot more frequently and that was accounting for my increased survival due to damage. the heal in ED I felt was especially not effective when surrounded by large groups of foe. I'm sure its different in a team with buffs but then we're not talking about EA's mitigation anymore.

I'm not in closed beta either.

my point was that they told us 2% per target and the new number is 3% per target. that's a buff

going from 20% to 2% is a decimal error being corrected, yes. ending at 3% is a buff of some sort. Even Arcana was saying 2% was a little low. 2.5 to 5% was her idea. So 3% is right in there.

he said 2%. that would 30 hps.

this is 50hps, 3%.

a slotted 10% heal would now be 60% instead of 40%.

wait...

does math...

the patch notes were right at first, it was healing 20% per target and now they changed it to...

3%?

buffed already!

yeah, i'm not getting my dander up on anything until we get some open beta time.

also, now that I can look while I'm at home, what the hell is this entry for Power Shield?

+15% psionic damage on self

are the def totals the same? and how many targets is that for ED?

That's part of my point though. Being incredibly strong against your damage type is a theme of all the other elemental sets, so why shouldn't EA get that too?

The reverse point of dismissing it as simply "thematic" is the point I brought up earlier. If it's not a big deal and only part of a "theme", it wouldn't matter if we chopped about a third of the mitigation out of the other sets. They'd still be strong, just not the overwhelming strength they already have to their Type.

I don't think they other sets would like that, but it would simply be a thematic change, right?


(sorry for basically beating a dead horse. I'll shut up now and save the comments for whenever I get to see i13 test.)

The inherent property of Defense to avoid mez effects doesn't affect this argument. Do you really want to turn this into a "resists vs. defense" argument? You can't respond 'but, defense" any more than I can respond to you "but.. resistance". Yes, defense avoids effects. Resistance is more consistent than Defense and it's why plenty of people have have always liked Res sets better than Def sets. Despite the fact that Def avoids effects, Def sets have been given nothing but help for... ever since the game started because it was never enough to balance things out. that's why Ice has all its fun toys. that's why Sr has those scaling resists. Think about that. Even with the ability to avoid mezzes and other effects, the devs still considered SR so lacking that they made up an entirely new form of mitigation for it.

"Def avoid things" isn't a valid response here. The fact is that EA takes much more damage from its supposed strength than any other Elemental set. That needs to be fixed. Even with slotting, EA's Def and Res mitigate 70% of incoming Energy Damage. Fire? 90%. Ice? 92% and that's with only a single target for def from Energy Absorption. And Ice still has its slows, more def, its heal and its -dmg to help with that. All that stuff is not worth "mez effects land a lot less".


edit: if I'm sounding rabid or angry, I'm not. sorry if anything comes across that way.

[ QUOTE ]
Invuln doesnt hit the cap of S/L Resists either it sits on 49.7% Resist and 7.4% (without Invinc, 30.8% with 10 targets) Defence.

DA hits a grand total of 46.8% resist and 5.9% Defence for negative, heck Psi resist is better on it at 58.5% with the same defence, not to mention the utility of cloak of fear with its Mag 3 9.6s Fear and -7.8% Tohit debuff Slotted out with SOs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weird that Invuln in getting a buff to its S/L resists too, right? There's also the fact that Invuln has a massive self heal HP buff and defense to help with the fact that it doesn't cap. And of course the fact that S/L is the predominant damage type that we encounter in the game. Arguably, Invuln's protection to it is worth more than similar or greater protection to the less frequently encounter types.

As for the actual Elemental sets, Fire, Ice and Elec all cap out of the box. I already talked about DA in my other post on this topic. I gave the same reasons as you and more why it doesn't get capped to Negative. There is that tiny issue of DA having the best health recovery power in the game that has to be taken into consideration as well as 2 control auras.


WP and SR have no place in this discussion. I'm over here complaining my apple isn't red enough, so you point at some oranges and say, "so what?" It's a non response. I specifically have said Elemental sets a few times now, I'm sorry if you didn't understand what that meant. You can also keep your fail comment in your back pocket, or maybe somewhere a little more snug than that.

So, basically it's okay to give EA less mitigation to its own Element than other sets because of pool defenses?

No thanks.

I'll say it again, every other elemental set gets capped against its type without help. If Castle thinks that defense is special enough to warrant not doing that, I'll wait for him to say it.

If it is, the we should have the ability to cap our def debuff resistance like SR.

Very good point.

I'll settle for slotted 35% def and at least 25% E resists.

I'm just trying to help the newbies, that's all.

they don't really overpower the set but they do make perfect sense considering they were given to the other set which is primarily strong with Energy.

Look at it the other way, would it really matter if Electric Armor had its Energy resists lowered from 90+ in the set to only 60%? Ultimately, with the percentage of Energy damage in the game? Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't.

Considering the mitigation that Fire gets to Fire, Ice to Cold, Invuln to Smash/Lethal, well, it sure would be a major slap in the face to Electric if that happened. The only Elemental set that doesn't have capped mitigation to its element is Dark Armor. Which has the most massive health recovery power in the game. And a stun aura. And a Fear aura.

Even in the face of this rather more tame heal being added, Capped E def is still something that should be done.

That's why capped Energy Def is something we ask for.

re: my last post here

Frostweaver, I've had this done with an older guide that I posted that needed to be deleted. You can post a brand new guide and then you can give Lighthouse the link to the older guide and he'll delete it for you.

well, sure.

if you've got all that stuff to mitigate end recovery, you're not going to need ED as end recovery as much as someone who is still on their way to 50 or even who who makes the choice to use IOs for different bonuses.

well, what else do you have for end recovery. I can understand saying that if you have stamina and DC but giving up one of the best end recovery powers in the game because you lose 3 points of fury is more than a bit silly to me.