Umbral

Once again, it's not the same thing. The advantage of Aim is not the simply +tohit: it's the stackable burst damage capability. If you can say, "just take BUs or stock insps" the logical counterargument is to point out that sets with Aim get Aim, BU and insps so it's still not a valid counterpoint to simply say "just take something else": other sets get that something else as well as Aim so it's not equitable.

It's possible but it becomes rather pointlessly convoluted. You could either set it up to have a series of DoTs of the same size that start at specific intervals after the attack hits or you could simply have each iteration hit at a separate time, but, it's a little convoluted for how little effect it really has upon the effectiveness of the power.

That's already what you're suggesting.

While they might not come up often, the balance issues with PA come up quite frequently among the people I talk to in game (I don't hang out on the troller boards so I'm not sure if they crop up there much if at all). The problem exists in having an unkillable entity with a reasonably high uptime that deals damage and attracts massive amounts of threat. While it works for a control set wherein PA takes the place of the AoE stun, it's not really something that I would see as really working within the confines of a support set.

The problem with this is that you, once again, get to the point of asking whether it's really going to be worth it then. If the point of the power is to group enemies up but it has to be balanced against the fact that, in order to do this, it has to use a mechanic that does so in a convoluted manner that turns off all enemy attacks for a specific period of time, you're not really balancing it around being an attractive field but rather a breathing space power. If you were going to do that, what's the point of calling it an attraction field if that's not really what it's going to be doing?

That was a long time ago. There hasn't been a credible case of shattering the cottage rule in years, which is why it's such a big thing to suggest it nowadays.

Because FF is all about controlling gravity and not about controlling force fields, right? We're not talking about changing Gravity Control. We're talking about changing Force Fields, which is a completely different set and follows a completely different design mentality. Whether a suggested change meshes with a Grav/* concept is rather pointless.

It's not really the same thing though, and that's more of a side effect of the damage being in DoT form and the -res being applied at the same instant as the DoT is initially applied. It's not a scaling DoT in the intended sense.

Considering how much I said that Choking Cloud reduces incoming damage by (28.3%), I can say that your experiences probably grok with my numbers. Slotted RI is going to reduce incoming damage by 46.6% (31.25 * 1.56 * .75 * .75 * .85) by my numbers so Choking Cloud generally pales in comparison.

As I have said before, the PPP damage numbers in Mids' do not have their proper proc rates attached to them. As such, their damage is listed as if they had a 100% chance to crit. Of course, the damage for most APP attacks is incorrect because they add the damage for the minion crit rate and the non-minion crit rate.

There are a couple problems that I can see. The first is that there isn't, as far as I know, a way to have a DoT that changes in size without some very strange GrantPower work. The second is that, while I realize that you're attempting to borrow from Omega Maneuver, I'm not entirely sure that the Taunt mechanism for attraction would really work with a longer term power than Omega Maneuver. I'm pretty sure that Omega Maneuver has been known to have issues with actually attracting enemies because it's not an entirely reliable mechanism. There's also some issues with creating and taunting, undamageable AoE taunting pet. PA already has some curious balance issues involves in it because it summons unkillable tanks, though they're single target. With an AoE, you get substantially more questionable.

There's also the massive problem of the cottage rule. I think the preferable solution would be to keep the same fundamental mechanic (KB) and simply change how it is applied. I would be more of a fan of my revision that turns it into a mez aura (think Ice Slick meets Choking Cloud) by lowering the KB down to KD levels and removing the -end per target hit.

I thought about something like that, but the tradeoff is then a little extreme and you have to start asking yourself what the point of it is. The idea is that there should be a reason for you to spam it, but you shouldn't want to spam it all the time. There's also the problem that a growing -dam debuff would reduce the overall effect of the power itself and also encourage players to not use native attacks, even with the redraw penalty. I'd much rather see a truly inverse Parry (-def and higher damage) or a tiring variant (-end redux and higher damage) than something that dealt big damage right off the bat and caused the rest of your damage to simply peter away. I think it would work better to have an effect that causes you to trade survivability for higher damage in the same way that Parry already causes you to trade damage for survivability than to have an attack that only really exists for burst damage (at which point you have to ask whether there's much of a point to it recharging quickly in the first place).

And until that day, I shall lord my Soul Orb over everyone I know.

That's actually where I start to pay more attention. Of course, I actually want to get into game design professionally so it makes sense.

Because of the insanely low recharge on Parry/DA (3 sec base), it is easily possible to maintain 2-3 stacks at all times with just SOs. The 1.584 sec animation combined with a 1.81 sec recharge time (3 / (1 + .66)) allows for a cycle time of 3.4 seconds. With a 10 second duration, this means you're going to have 295% uptime on it with just SOs.

The problem with this line of logic is that Stalkers and Scrappers aren't getting the incredible defensive advantages of Parry/DA for free. In order to tap the defensive advantages of the sets, they have to take a proportionately large hit to their damage dealing capabilities thanks to Parry/DAs low DPA. If you wanted to invert that design, you would need to make the attack high damage but force it to lower the Tanker/Brutes survivability. If you simply added a Seismic Smash port, you wouldn't be inverting that at all.

If the devs really want to play around with the role alteration thing with a power that replaces Parry/DA, I would expect something along the lines of a resistable 15% -def debuff that lasts 10 seconds and the attack would get some portion of its damage for "free" (not factored into the dam/rech/end formula). Assuming it keeps the same animation time (1.584 seconds), I would give it a 3 second recharge time and make it deal the same damage as Hack (you would have a power tied for the best DPA in the set on a 3 sec recharge). Conversely, if you wanted to play with the "big heavy sword" mentality, you could instead have it apply a ~50% -end redux penalty (which increases the end cost of everything).

Either way, the entire point of such an exchange is to provide a reason to not spam the hell out of the power. Kat/* and BS/* attack chains are generally built around the assumption of a single stack of Parry/DA because of the side effects of using the power. If Brutes/Tankers got a version that allowed them to deal more damage, I would expect it to come with a rather glaring weakness to discourage using it in the same way.

Obviously. Some of us simply derive enjoyment from talking about the mechanics of said game. Enjoying discussion of balance and numbers isn't mutually exclusive with enjoying the game as it is played.

It pulses every 5 seconds and lasts for a baseline of 5.96 seconds. The only time you wouldn't get decent coverage is if you're missing a lot (which shouldn't really happen if you're using your toggles correctly), or you're fighting high level enemies without slotting up the hold at all. My calculations assume that you have it slotted enough for only a single stack on your enemies (either unslotted for +0-1s or slotted more heavily for fighting higher level foes). If you have it slotted more heavily than I assume, you'll actually manage substantially better uptime because you're going to be increasing your chances of affecting the target (not that they stack to increase mez).

1. The Soul Mastery Dark Blast is not as awesome as Mids' wants you to think it is. The Soul Mastery version is identical to the Darkness Mastery version. The new Mids' database publish messed something up so that it assumes on all of the new PPP powers that the crit is 100% of the time (rather than the 10% is normally assumes).

2. The Power Siphon does not work for any other powers except for the KM attacks. Power Siphon activates the mode and the KM attacks themselves generate the effect that casts the +dam buff on yourself.

It has a large area of effect and a target cap of 16, so I assume that 12 targets will be hit (roughly 75%, though I apply this on a per power basis normally because some powers, though they have high target caps, can't realistically hit that many reliably). I then reduce most debuffs to 75% of their max (to account for purple patch, since I play at +2 generally; this is also something that I do roughly to account for AV resists because when most people aren't running at higher diffs, they're generally running even level TFs with AVs) and reduce tohit debuffs to 85% of that total (to account for native lt. and boss tohit debuff resistance). I haven't yet figured out what a decent amount to reduce -dam debuffs by would be but that's because I haven't really put in the grunt work to figure out a rough proportion of enemies and how much they resist the damage types that they use themselves (I've mostly just let it stand at no resistance). I then apply that value for the duration of the fight.

That's actually the method I apply to most debuffs: I normalize the number of targets based on the max number of targets and the size, normalize it based on resists, and then just use the fully normalized value.

Choking Cloud is a bit more interesting because you have to deal with enemy mez prot. In my model, I assume that bosses consist of 25% of damage, lts. consist of 37.5%, and minions consist of the remaining 37.5%. Choking Cloud has a 0% uptime on enough mag to keep a boss down, a 28% uptime on enough mag to keep an lt. down (.95 * .5 * .8), and a 47.5% uptime on enough mag to keep a minion down (.95 * .5). Assuming that Choking Cloud hits roughly 75% of an enemy group (same logic as applied to the Rad toggles), I can then assume that Choking Cloud reduces incoming damage by 28.3% ((1 - .75) * ((.25 * (1 - 0)) + (.375 * (1 - .28)) + (.375 * (1 - .475)))).

Why thank you.

Well, it is, but not in the same way. If you've already got a crapload of +def (from IOs or other buffs), FF does provide something that is useful, but probably not as useful as the straight up +def: a defense debuff buffer. If you're just packing straight up 45% defense with no DDR, a decent defense debuff cascade is gonna take you out very quickly: get hit once while there are other guys paying attention to you and you're likely going down. With 45% +def, you're going to keep that 90% mitigation and avoid any real debuff cascade for a good long while because you're getting to maintain 90% functional DDR for 45% worth of defense debuffs.

There is one other major factor that I can't really quantify (and that I don't think anyone has really quantified with any model for either contributed or personal survivability): mez protection. Personal survivability models don't really need to factor it in mainly because it's an assumed value: if everyone you're comparing has pretty much the same mez protection, you don't really need to because the differences between them are largely marginal (excepting KB prot, which can have some rather substantial effects depending on what portion of the time you spend on your back). With contributed survivability, you can't really discount the balance factors behind mez protection because it's something that is both rare for the sets in question and relatively powerful. Contributed mez prot suffers even more from the binary conundrum even more than traditional buffs, as well: mez heavy enemy groups that make contributed mez prot useful are relatively rare and there is a large subset of players that get nothing from those contributions as well. I'm not even sure how I would start to incorporate that.

Actually, Brutes and Stalkers have the exact same AT mods. The only thing that makes Brutes hardier is the fact that they have more hp and higher resistance and hp caps. Other than that, Brutes and Stalkers (and Scrappers) should have virtually identical survivability.

The problem you're having is realizing that there is a reason that Stalkers got higher values in those powers in question. Stalkers don't get Energy Cloak, with it's higher +def values (compared to Hide). Because of that, in order to achieve a similar level of survivability, they needed to have that lower def factored into their existing shields. It's not an issue of AT mods. It's an issue of the powers simply being different because the powersets themselves are different and some things have to be changed to create equivalent performance. It's for this exact same reason that Stalker Evasion provides 21.375% +def(AoE) while the Brute version provides only 13.875%: Stalkers lose Lucky for Hide, so, in order to preserve their existing survivability, they need to have more +def from an existing source.

That's the main reason why I decided to use Blasters as my baseline. Any set with an appreciable amount of any survivability contributor is going to have redundant contribution from virtually any support set out there. Any non-squishy with an appreciable amount of defense is going to get overkill defense from either Cold Dom or FF. The same applies for resistance sets and most +res buffs. Any set that doesn't specifically stack defense or resistance is going to have a largely inconsequential amount of +def (unless we're talking about IOs, but IOs are largely outside the realm of the balance we're seeking). It just as easy to simply state that if you're already bringing in a large amount of whatever survivability mechanism is being augmented then the overall contribution of the set is lower simply due to a lack of synergy, just like bringing in more than one Tanker is going to do almost nothing for the team.

If it's a difference between the two toggles, it's due to the actual base powers being different rather than them being the same power and the AT mods being accidentally swapped: the game applies the AT mods, not the database, so it's not a question of the power values being swapped on accident.

I think you're also misreading what the actual effects of the differences between the two ATs are. Brutes get more resistance (thanks to Dampening Field) while Stalkers get more defense (thanks to the shields having Energy Cloak's defense folded into them combined with Hide). The end combination is that the two actually have almost identical survivability. The survivability is still lower than it should be when compared to other sets, but there isn't any particular discrepancy between the sets for the two ATs.

That's no so much creating a model as it is simply creating a spreadsheet that allows you to change the assumptions you're going to be operating off of freely. Simply allow for variables that you can use to assign outgoing damage from individual teammates, incoming damage to individual teammates, and baseline stats for various teammates.

The problem is in determining what fair point of comparison to use in order to actually gauge the comparative effectiveness of the various sets. You get into the whole issue of "it's too complicated to be useful" and that's exactly the problem: unless you're actually willing to compromise some accuracy by operating under some specific assumptions, you're never going to determine anything worthwhile.

This entire discussion reminds me of a joke I hear one time:

There is a farmer with a sick chicken but he has no idea what's wrong with it, so he calls his 3 friends from the university: a biologist, a chemist, and a physicist. The biologist gets there first, takes some blood and tissue samples from the chicken and tells the farmer that he has no clue what's wrong with them. The chemist does the same and similarly gets no answers. The physicist observes the chickens for a bit, begins doing some calculations, and then tells the farmer, with a grin plastered to his face, "I've got it, but it only works for spherical chickens in a vacuum.".

I'm saying that there's no way to account for all of the feathers and other fiddly bits involved in chickens so we should just assume that they're spherical and in a vacuum because it's not like we're trying to get a number that can pinpoint and quantify discrepancies in performance (at least, I'm not). The entire point of such a number would be to find out, without a reasonable doubt, that there are outliers of performance within the sets in question.

Where did I say that I discounted the Rad debuffs? The only debuff I discount from Rad is Lingering Radiation and that's because it's largely useless except against the targets that actually respond to -regen in a noticeable manner. I fully account for RI, EF, Choking Cloud, and EM Pulse. Don't attempt to put words in my mouth just because I said "Lingering Radiation" and you think that means "all radiation debuffs".

I didn't take those assumptions based exclusively off of how the FF handles everything. I chose those assumptions because I believed they would work for any set that I chose to put through the grinder (and I actually made those assumptions before I put any powersets through said grinder in the first place). The challenge, then, if you disagree with that assumption, is to find a different reasonable assumption that better fulfills the needed role without being ridiculously complicated (which is one of the reasons why I went with only a single AT rather than generating an arbitrary roster), otherwise you're just partaking in pointless complaining. If you have a problem with using assumptions that assume that targets have more than what can readily be demonstrated to be "standard" (i.e. 95% +dam and that's about it), do you have the same problems with survivability models that don't assume that there will be buffs on the team or insps used (such as every survivability model that has ever been put forward)? I can assume, whenever I play a support toon, that anyone I team with is going to have absolutely jack and squat. Some people may defy that assumption, but, because of the sheer breadth of options out there, it's impossible to accurately generate an "average" without making that average completely useless (what is the average of a set of 300 0s and 100 50s? is it 12.5, even though that value is substantially different from either of the actual values?): it will either be a composite that doesn't apply to anyone or it will be just like mine and just not care if anyone brings anything else to the party above and beyond baseline assumptions.

I would argue this a great deal, especially when you start factoring in the fact that FF only makes Blasters into gods because it can softcap them (which is pretty much the only substantial thing that FF brings to the table). It does almost nothing to increase group kill speed which I factor into the end value in the exact same way as I factor in survivability contribution.

I'm also saying that I'm using Blaster equivalents rather than simply straight up Blasters. I'm assuming that the individuals on the team have no preexisting defenses and that any damage provided to the team is multiplied based off of an assumption of Blaster damage.

For survivability, this means the almost the exact same thing as if I picked defenders, corruptors, controllers, or any other AT that maximally benefits from survivability buffs (the very same fact which is balanced out by the fact that the tougher ATs have higher base and peak survivability) which allows me to say with a degree of certainty that Blasters form the rough "average" for survivability buff contribution comparison: higher hp than the other low ATs with no preexisting defenses to inflate the value of said buffs (because a Scrapper with a modicum of defense can softcap with Cold buffs which would inflate the contribution of those very shields because of increased effect). Similarly, Blasters are the "average" of damage because they exist on the same damage level as Scrappers, Stalkers, Brutes, Dominators, and EATs without bringing in the damage contribution mechanisms of Tankers, Corrupters, Defenders, Controllers, and Masterminds.

Blasters exist as an excellent baseline of performance for the various ATs: they have baseline survivability and functional damage right in the middle of the ATs and, because all that matters to buffs is your baseline survivability and functional damage (because that's what the buffs act upon) I can say with some reasonable assurance that Blasters work perfectly well as a "standard" ally to gauge the effects of buff/debuff sets upon.

I think the biggest problem with proliferating Broadsword is, quite simply, Parry. Because Brutes and Tanks get punch-voke (and they have higher survivability than Scrappers or Stalkers), they could just spam Parry forever and kill virtually anything without much risk to themselves. If/when BS gets proliferated, I would expect to see Parry changed or replaced to prevent the set from achieving full on borkitude. Scrappers and Stalkers can get away with it largely because they don't have "hey hit me!" built into their AT and have lower survivability (both baseline and peak). I doubt the devs would let Brutes and/or Tankers do the same.

Yet you're ignoring the fact that the Siphon Life is unique because it's an attack that heals. No other attack set has an attack that heals so you can't simply say that because there aren't any other attacks with heals that it's somehow wrong for a Blaster prolif'd Dark Blast to have one.

Just because it's possible for a Blaster to softcap ranged with an incredibly optimized build (and also one that can barely manage any appreciable level of damage beyond the baseline due to all of the opportunity costs associated with such a build) doesn't mean that the devs should prevent an attack that is a hallmark of the set from being present. Dark's big factor is that it is based around providing utility: a self healing attack provides that utility and Blaster's don't have the ability to leverage that self heal unless they spend ungodly amounts of influence to do it so there's no foundation for excluding it (unless you honestly believe that the devs would cut something from a set because there is a power that can be leveraged for way more increased survivability than intended).

They gave out Drain Psyche after IOs had been released and that is way more powerful.

The bigger problem is actually Dark Pit. I can bet you money that the ranged AoE stun is one of the reasons why it hasn't been ported yet. Life Drain isn't a problem simply because it's not that big of a heal and there are already stronger powers out there (not to mention that it's a massive drop in DPS thanks to crappy DPA). There's also the fact that you're ignoring the fact that if they're pulling out a power, Aim is an obvious contender for placement.

That's about as likely as Dark Manipulation being given Soul Drain. Blasters don't have the staying power to make FU or FU type powers viable additions to their powersets (not to mention that every Blaster power already performs an FU like function so it's rather redundant) because burst damage is so important to their playstyle.