Umbral

It's not a bug (well, not in the sense that you're assuming it is). It's actually an issue with the buff procs acting the same as toggles via the UI to determine whether they're active or inactive. In order for it to act properly, the Mids UI would need to be tweaked to have a completely different button to toggle on and off buff procs.

Also, it wouldn't really be 5% of the bonus because Mids' isn't set up to have different proc values for toggles/passives and activated powers (which would be even more complicated because they're got variable uptimes and therefore variable contributions). The contribution would actually be 2.625% +dam, rather than 5%, because the buff only lasts 5.25 seconds but the proc will check only once every 10 seconds (re: uptime of 52.5%).

As to getting better value out of placing the proc into powers such as BF, FU, and SD, that depends entirely upon what you're aiming for. Many people use the proc only to gain that sweet 6 piece Gaussian's set bonus. Putting the full Gaussian's into FU, BF, or SD is largely a waste because FU and BU are attacks and should be slotted as such and Gaussian's doesn't provide redcap +rech nor does it provide any +acc which Soul Drain needs because it has to hit in order to apply the buff. The Gaussian's proc doesn't really grant as much to a build as the 6 piece set bonus as far as I'm concerned, so I would rather slot to optimize the use of the set overall rather than a single, rather insignificant, damage buff.

Honestly, that's a little unfair to Lightning Bolt. Lightning Bolt animates in 1.848 seconds (if you don't understand how I got 1.848 seconds from a 1.67 sec listed animation time, check out this Paragonwiki link and this forum link, which is substantially wordier and involved) whereas Total Focus animates in 3.432 seconds. Lightning Bolt has a DPA of 31.9 whereas Total Focus has a DPS of 31.75. Where damage is concerned, Lightning Bolt is actually better than Total Focus, especially since it's got a better cycle time thanks to having a lower recharge.

Numberless summation:
Total Focus takes too long to animate to make it a decent damage dealing power. If you're going to take it, use it as a combination mez/damage power. Otherwise, you're better off just sticking with your normal attacks, however bad they may look (unless you just like seeing bigger orange numbers no matter how bad they look on paper).

Actually, it was a quantitative statement to some degree because I calculated the sustainable survivability contribution of */regen with and without the click powers. I never tried to say that */regen would completely lose 75% of it's survivability when affected by any degree of -rech debuff. In fact, if you're willing to accept average click power contribution as an acceptable substitute for the real binary nature of the */regen buffs, the 75% would be itself be reduced by a level approximately equal to the average magnitude of the debuff (i.e 40% -rech up roughly 50% of the time would reduce the 75% contribution from the clicks to 60% contribution thanks to how recharge rate affects real click power contribution over time).

The entire point of that statement was to point out that */regen is unique in the degree to which -rech negatively affects its survivability (*/Fire and */DA are similarly effected, but their click powers matter substantially less to overall survivability than */regen's). Of course, this is, and has always been, my position as to why */Regen needs some recharge debuff resistance, at the very least.

The first question when counterbalancing the two of them would be to first figure out the population and intensity of attacks without positions (re: */SR's hole) compared to the population and intensity of -rech effects. If you can decently gauge comparative populations and the comparative effects of the two different holes upon the powersets, you could feasibly balance the two of them against each other (re: the loss in survivability for */regen times the occurrence of -rech powers would be equal to the loss in survivability times the occurrence of non-positional powers). Of course, that would involve a hefty amount of research and analysis of how the AI chooses specific attacks, but it would be possible.

Considering that, at SO levels, */Invuln only uses base .778 end/sec (reduced to .487 end/sec with assumed slotting) compared to */Regen's .62 end/sec (reduced to reduced to .536 end/sec with assumed slotting), which is actually rather high thanks to click powers not having gotten the endurance reductions over the course of the game that toggles have. The only reason that */Regen has less endurance woes than */Invuln is because it's got Quick Recovery (for an extra .977 end/sec with assumed slotting). */DA end problems extend from DS and DR, though it's also got the advantage of having excellent animationless mitigation from OG and CoF (though OG is only endurance efficient one, honestly). I've always felt that */DA was one of the few sets actually based heavily around the idea of using endurance as a primary balancing mechanism.

Of course, at this point, you also get into a debate as to whether endurance is a more offensively or defensively oriented resource. Considering the fact that endurance costs are comparatively higher for attacks and other damage powers than they are for more support oriented powers (re: you get better returns reducing the endurance cost of your attacks than you do reducing the endurance cost of your support powers) and the devs changed the endurance costs of powers to make endurance costs more heavily weighted towards attacks, I'd venture to say that the devs decided a long time ago that endurance is an offensive resource. */DA actually follows this line of logic, insofar as it's capable of grotesque levels of survivability but is limited by its ability to actually keep its blue bar up.

Of course, you also have to consider how useful additional recovery beyond the point of infinite sustainability is. There isn't really a way to use endurance beyond that point while there is always a use for more animation time. You also get into the use of outside resources: there are many more ways to get additional +recov or +end, even without delving into IOs (insps, buffs, etc) but there are no ways in which to get more animation time (which would most likely be accomplished by reducing animation times). Simply including Stamina into the Invuln v. Regen endurance consumption debate would change everything substantially.

I didn't bother determining the actual mitigation advantages of the sets simply because there were too many variables and situations to account for (something which I think you can agree with me on at least for the analysis in question). The first problem is determining what the appropriate time frame to calculate survivability within is. Immortality inflates */regen's performance while burst or even short term inflates */SR's. Another would be determining an appropriate level of contribution from pool powers. Without pool powers, */Regen looks much better, but that's not a realistic assumption, especially since, thanks to the growing nature of mitigation contribution and the greater usefulness of pool powers to */SR than */Regen, that would deflate */SR's numbers. Even including Hover/Combat Jumping would give */SR a substantial increase to survivability, especially stacked with Health, Tough, and Weave, though it's hard to determine whether any of those should be included because, while they're incredibly common (to the point that you'll almost never see an intelligently built toon without them), they're not actually native to the sets. Even worse would be trying to determine the relative benefits of the indirect survivability contributions the sets offer. */SR gets Quickness and virtual immunity to defense debuffs, along with the ability to avoid most debuffs in the first place. */Regen gets Quick Recovery (and Revive, if you actually want to count that).

I agree with you completely. I wouldn't trust that specific ratio anyway, since it would really require that animation time be included on a fundamental level at the point that every power were created and not just hand-waved away (an actual balance theory would determine equivalence for every potential variable rather than just 2). The point of it was to take one of the most easily recognizable powers that offers an exchange of animation time for mitigation and derive some approximate value for the exchange to demonstrate that, if animation time were balanced in the sets in the same manner as it is in that recognizable power, */Regen would be noticeably more powerful than every other set even using heuristic assessment to account for the increased use of animation time that is only just now being recognized as a point of balance.

This is also ignoring the entire point of the animation time issue I keep bringing up: */Regen lowers its own damage dealing ability in order to bring its survivability up to the level of every other set out there. Assuming that both builds are capable of dealing 100 DPS if they only use their animation time to attack, the */SR is going to achieve roughly 99 DPS while the */Regen is only going to achieve roughly 94 DPS. That's completely and totally unfair to the */Regen that, if they're going to achieve the same survivability, the */Regen isn't going to be dealing as much damage simply because it has to consume an offensive resource in order to achieve the same level of survivability.

I don't think this would every actually be possible. The only challenges you can fail are the time challenges and the defeat challenges. All of the other challenges are simply static. I highly doubt the devs would ever allow the merit rewards to go negative that easily, especially since I'd be more than confident that the penalty would be less than the potential benefit (re: +12 merits from a bronze time challenge on a 48 merit TF would cost you -6 merits if you failed it). It might not even scale with the level of challenge rating you pick (re: lose 6 merits from your end reward no matter if you were running bronze, silver, or gold time challenge; it might also be lose 4 merits no matter which defeat challenge you take), which would encourage players to gauge the potential rewards with the potential risks of running under those specific challenges.

I highly doubt the devs would ever have a system wherein you could increase the potential reward of a TF without having some penalty for failing at that challenge. Otherwise, you'd just get everyone running every TF with defeat and time challenges like they do now without any negative affect though there would be the rather easy potential for a positive effect (re: increased merits).

As lo, Umbral did speak the grand words of the Dulling of Pain: thou shall not slot Dull Pain with but 5 piece Doctored Wounds (all but Heal/End) or possibly 5 piece Panacea (all but the proc, only slot Panacea if you've got the global +rech to get it permanent with only 74% +rech enhancement). All other IO slotting set ups are inferior and shall result in slapping upside the head.

And this is one of the big problems with the discussions that I've had with you on this very topic. I don't doubt the accuracy of your spreadsheet and your analyses for average gameplay. I've always doubted them in specific subsets of overall gameplay. The two concerns I've always brought up are the situations in which the secondary factors that you've explicitly excluded from the spreadsheet actually matter substantively: debuffs (specifically recharge and regen debuffs) and animation time.

I don't think it's at all untowards to say that a set that lives off of powers that are (or at least should) be recharging a majority of the time is disproportionately disadvantaged by recharge debuffs. For every other set, -rech is largely a matter of decreased offensive capacity. For */regen, which is the only set without any debuff resistance, -rech is of substantially greater significance because nearly 75% of its survivability is negatively impacted by it and its damage is similarly impacted negatively.

There's also the entire issue of animation time consumption which isn't factored in whatsoever. Ignoring balance considerations such as reaction time and effect delay (whether due to player skill, natural delay in a power's effect, or the interference of other simultaneous animations), */regen uses more than 6 times the animation time of any other set, a resource that is universally used for damage dealing. In every other set in the game, any power that uses up a nominally offensive resource such as animation time offers gains in survivability (DA/Parry; Granite Armor offers the same but inflicts -rech and -dam rather than using animation time) generally greater than the reduction in kind. Assuming you double stack DA, it will use up 10% more animation time over the course of a 10 second attack string compared to using GC (the closest comparable power) but provide 60% mitigation to more than 50% of incoming attacks (conservative estimate considering a majority of incoming attacks are going to be melee anyway). 10% animation time for roughly 30% mitigation (assuming that a single data point is sufficient) would then allow you to at least assume that a reasonable exchange rate would be for every 1% extra animation time, you'd get an extra 3% mitigation.

I did the math and figured out the percent animation time used up by */regen as it compared to all of the other sets (you actually commented on that thread several times). */Regen in SOs (it actually scales up pretty quickly as you get more +rech) uses up 6.01% of total animation time. */WP uses up 1.1% (and only if you're using SoW; though it's not really a fair comparison: */WP is stupidly strong, though the argument could easily be made that it doesn't really pay for that huge level of strength beyond not having click powers) to achieve it's assumed level of survivability. */Invuln uses up .5% animation time (1.1% if you include Unstoppable). */SR uses up 1.4% animation time (1.8% if you include Elude). */SD uses up 1.4% as well (2.1% if you include OwtS). */FA uses up roughly 7.7% (purely because Healing Flames recharges so friggin' fast but also because HF takes so long to animate), but it's also an "offensive" set with above average survivability for a normal set by the spreadsheet's determination. */DA can use up roughly 7.9%, but that's a highly doubtful case (it's much more likely DA wouldn't have any +rech slotting at all and would instead use up 4.2% or less thanks to the prohibitive end cost of DR).

The only sets that get even remotely close to */regen are */FA and */DA (the high percentages of which are actually explained by their performance and the design of the powers). If anything, */regen should actually be noticeably more powerful (15% if you put any trust in the "DA exchange rate") across all if not most of temporal situations thanks simply to requiring a greater investiture of animation time to achieve its assumed level of survivability.

Assuming this logic still applies, */regen would be left horribly out in the cold if only because it's only got QR and Resilience (gotta love a tiny bit of redundant stun res/prot, right?). Every other set at least has some decently quantifiable and at least situationally useful debuff protection/

Nah, we're not too young to buy beer on FreedUmbral (spell it right!). We just like playing too much to allow alcohol to get in the way of it.

I'm currently using St0n3y's unofficial Mids' update. You probably got stopped at 18 because I included the Gladiator's Armor 3% +def IO in MoB and that's not included in the last version Mids sent out. St0n3y has the links to the download for his version here.

The reason that power customization and the difficulty slider were added wasn't that "people want it/think they need it". The reason that power customization was added was that it's actually a significant cosmetic change that the devs wanted to have in game for a very long time (re: since before release they had talked about putting it in but having problems with the engine). The reason that the difficulty slider was added was to address player requests for greater challenges.

Neither of those mechanics was put in game to address a pure and simple "I want it even though it doesn't really change the game". The difficulty options changed the game significantly and promise to do even more when I16 is released (re: tomorrow). Power Customization promises to do the exact same thing, especially since it's a logical extension of the numerous other cosmetic customizations we've had since the very beginning.

A substantive reason would be one that actually has some reasoning for the developers to do it beyond "I want". By that very reason, anything could be reasoned into occuring. Vehicles have that exact same reasoning, and Positron has outright thumbs-downed that idea repeatedly.

There isn't a need to create a system. It doesn't change the game. It doesn't even make the game look better or offer you additional options. All it does is allow you to more easily circumvent having to earn rewards on any specific character as long as you've got another one at a higher level.

And I'm still waiting for somebofy to give any actual upsides to the idea beyond "You're making what I can already do easier" or "Because it will make me happy".

You have my condolences on your not being on the only server that matters (FreedUmbral!). If you were on FreedUmbral, I might consider selling some of them to you at a discount price (considering that the only IO of those that I need for any of my current projects is the BotZ).

I highly doubt that multipliers would be applied for a number of reasons.

1. "Challenge Settings" (normally referred to as Difficulty Settings) are currently done on a player-by-player basis and can be changed mid TF. To institute a system like this, the TF would need to have a difficulty setting assigned to it at the same time as applying all other difficulty settings.

2. What is the penalty for failing a challenge? Is it simply removing that multiplier (or addition) from the end merit rewards (i.e. no penalty) or is it actually a reduction in the end merit rewards (i.e. risk:reward exchange)?

3. Some difficulty settings are more dangerous/risky on some TFs than they are on others (re: buffed enemies on the ITF compared to buffed enemies on a Citadel).

It would be much more likely for the challenges to simply add a specific number of merits (possibly guided by some percent of the base merit award) at the potential loss of a similar quantity if the challenge is failed.

On a side note, the time challenge settings would require a large amount of datamining and testing to determine appropriate challenge times for every TF/SF/Story Arc in the game. The 30/60/120 minute standard isn't really a decent standard to apply to both the Eden Trial and the Citadel TF.

And because you would use it/think you need it then it should be added? That makes just as much sense.

The entire debate comes down to trying to convince Posi that the system should be in place even though he's pretty much decided that it shouldn't be there. It hasn't been done yet (and I doubt it would be a big deal, especially considering that the coding for Wents has already been done and could easily be copied/reworked for an inf xfer system) and I further doubt it will without some substantive reasons. And, no, saying "we already can by trusting another person in game to hold it for us", or "but I want to", aren't substantive reasons.

What server are you on?

That question was already answered several times in this thread. Also, Werner didn't ask it. He commented on it/provided an answer for the question that someone else asked.

Yes. Lotg +rech IOs are gold rolls. Which reminds me, I cashed in the 460 merits I had saved up on my Fire/Therm troller a couple days ago and got disturbingly lucky considering my past with recipe rolls: 2 LotG +rech, 1 Numina proc, and a BotZ KB proc along with about 7 other recipes that each sold for about a mill each (including 2 Oblit procs). I don't think I've ever gotten even remotely close to that lucky with my recipe rolls before.

Comparable to FU>Focus>Slash>Wait actually. :P FU>Focus>Slash would be better.

I'd also like to echo this (the echo of an echo?). Defense isn't a constant, reliable contributor like resistance is. That's why it's considered "stronger" than defense. Of course, it doesn't allow you to avoid all of the nasty side effects of powers, but that's just something you have to deal with by having a more reliable mitigation mechanic.

The problem, as I see it, is not that defense, as a mechanic, is better. It's not that the +def set bonuses are too common or too high (though there might be some merit to those claims when you can softcap a ranged character that has no native defense). The problem is that the +res set bonuses are too low and not diverse enough.

A single type resistance bonus contributes the same percent resistance as a double typed or single position +def set bonus and doesn't provide a secondary resistance benefit to encourage slotting those sets even if it's not the specific type you're aiming for. A double type resistance bonus contributes the half of the percent of a double typed or single positional.

The resistance bonuses, while only contributing half as much per percent, are also reduced in effectiveness by only getting half as much specific payout per set bonus, which is even less when you consider that they don't get the same tangential bonuses as the defense sets.

Of course, my solution for solving this would be to increase the double resistance bonus percentages to be the same as the double typed and single positional set bonuses (re: double them) and give all of the single resistance bonuses the other half of their pair. After that, you address the tangential discrepancy by giving each of the set bonuses half of the benefit to 1 or 2 other resistance types (psy/tox, possibly).

And both of those things were bad things to do. You should have changed the partially useless enhancement IOs out of those sets rather than taking out the completely useful ones. For Health, take out either the Heal/End or Heal/Rech rather than the Heal because the Heal provides more of the only benefit that you're actually using. The same applies to Quick Recovery for the EndMod.

Sure, get rid of some of that largely pointless focus on +regen set bonuses (you're DM/WP for Posi's sake; what are you trying to get damage recovery for? you've got it coming out of your ears!) and gnab some sweet, sweet +recov. Wanna know what I'd do? Sure, you do!

First things first, to get MG down to the required 6.6 second recharge time, you need 128% +rech in it. You've currently got 109.93%.

1. Switch the Acc/End/Rech in MG into a common Rech IO. This will net you 15% of the +rech you need and only cost you a pittance of accuracy and end redux.

2. Pull 2 of the slots out of Health and the tohit debuff IO out of RttC and put em into Dark Consumption (you can trade up the slots by getting rid of those level 50 slot assignments in lower level powers). Then, get rid of those Eff Adaptors in DC and replace them with the awesome might of Obliteration 6 piece. That will get you 5% +rech along with a bunch of other awesome bonuses.

Here's what you'd get after all of my changes (there are a few others I didn't mention, like putting the Numina proc into FH and taking out the Heal/Rech). It's got a tad less damage recovery (2.6 hp/sec less), but it's got better defenses (softcapped s/l) and better endurance sustainability plus tab bit more recharge and a 6.51 second recharge on MG. And Dark Consumption will actually be a respectable damage dealing power now too.

The issue with deciding between Tankers and Scrappers when dealing with massive, hyperpowered mobs is whether you actually need the additional survivability or if that additional survivability is actually going to make up for the lower kill speed (re: more damage means that there is less time spent in combat).

Now, assuming all other things are equal, we can attempt to operate exclusively off of the AT modifiers.

At a baseline, Tankers have 40% more hit points and 33% more mitigation (from the same set), so they've got 186% of the survivability of a Scrapper. Of course, thanks to their lower damage modifier and lack of Critical capability, they're also going to be dealing nearly a third less damage (66.45% of a Scrapper to be precise). So, at a baseline, the Tanker is going to have roughly 123% of the survivability of a Scrapper when you factor in kill time (assuming you can leverage the enemy groups to actually require those high levels of survivability).

Now, if you start talking IOs, it gets a bit more difficult. At their caps, a Tanker is going to have 333% (3212.7/2409.5*(1-.75)/(1-.9)) the survivability of a Scrapper but only 50% ((.8*3)/(1.125*1.07*4)) of the damage. The Tanker is still going to be able to take more damage, but the Scrapper is going to be doing the fights twice as fast. This is also where you get to the point wherein the AoE caps and the aggro cap start inhibiting the Tanker's ability to perform because the Tanker can only get so many enemies and, as has been shown by so very many AE farms, 16 enemies isn't really enough to threaten a Tanker, especially one that is heavily focused upon survivability. Once you achieve a certain level of survivability (it depends entirely upon the situation generally), additional survivability is largely irrelevant. Capped Tankers have gone so far beyond this that it generally doesn't make sense.

So, in short, the question you want to ask yourself is not whether Tankers or Scrappers are better; the question you want to ask yourself is do you plan on doing all of this crazy stuff on an optimized/high budget IO toon or a low budget/leveling build? If you plan on doing it low budget/leveling, Tanker all the way. If you plan on the optimized/high budget IO, Scrapper all the way. You just can't leverage the survivability of a Tanker past a certain point and that point is easily achieve on a Scrapper.

You obviously don't know how the devs calculate merit rewards then. They're not calculated based off of number of mishes or number of AVs or anything else that's just a formula that they just pop the missions into and put out a merit result. It's based off of the average (median) time that players complete the task force in. For every 3 minutes of that median time, the TF gets 1 merit. Positron gets 64 merits because the average (median) time is 3 hours and 20 minutes. The Virgil Tarikoss SF grants 12 merits because the average (median) time is only 36 minutes.

55% +rech from set bonuses and Hasten would give you perma DP, which is going to render further +hp rather pointless and give you a nice buff to your hp/sec regeneration. It will also give you better attack string, but, you know, that's just me.

Here's the tweaked build I've done for you though. It uses much the same slotting as your previous one except that I've moved a few slots around to achieve better slot bonuses (re: Invuln 4 piece LotG and CJ 2 piece LotG got turned into Invuln and CJ 3 piece LotG), switched out the common IOs to manage set bonuses (Tough Hide, Health, Stamina), and altered some slotting for better effect (Follow Up, Dull Pain). I also turned on the 4 passive accolades, which I generally assume on any and every build.

It's now softcapped to s/l with a single target for Invinc, softcapped to f/c with 4, and softcapped to n/e with 7. It's got 32% more +regen, 20% more +rech, ~30 more hp with DP down (they both cap when it's up), and slightly better resistances all around.

Hero Plan by Mids' Hero Designer 1.401
http://www.cohplanner.com/

Click this DataLink to open the build!

Level 50 Magic Scrapper
Primary Power Set: Claws
Secondary Power Set: Invulnerability
Power Pool: Leaping
Power Pool: Fitness
Power Pool: Fighting
Power Pool: Leadership
Ancillary Pool: Body Mastery

Hero Profile:
Level 1: Swipe -- KntkC'bat-Acc/Dmg:35(A), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx:35(3), KntkC'bat-Dmg/Rchg:35(3), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg:35(5), F'dSmite-Acc/Dmg/Rchg:40(5)
Level 1: Resist Physical Damage -- S'fstPrt-ResDam/Def+:30(A)
Level 2: Slash -- KntkC'bat-Acc/Dmg:35(A), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx:35(13), KntkC'bat-Dmg/Rchg:35(15), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg:35(15), C'ngImp-Acc/Dmg/Rchg:50(17), Achilles-ResDeb%:20(17)
Level 4: Temp Invulnerability -- RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx:40(A), RctvArm-ResDam/Rchg:40(11), RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg:40(11), RctvArm-ResDam:40(13), RctvArm-EndRdx:40(43)
Level 6: Dull Pain -- Dct'dW-EndRdx/Rchg:50(A), Dct'dW-Heal/Rchg:50(7), Dct'dW-Heal/EndRdx/Rchg:50(7), Dct'dW-Heal:50(9), Dct'dW-Rchg:50(9)
Level 8: Follow Up -- KntkC'bat-Acc/Dmg:35(A), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx:35(36), KntkC'bat-Dmg/Rchg:35(37), KntkC'bat-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg:35(37), C'ngImp-Dmg/Rchg:50(37), C'ngImp-Acc/Dmg/Rchg:50(39)
Level 10: Combat Jumping -- LkGmblr-Rchg+:50(A), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx:50(31), LkGmblr-Def:50(46)
Level 12: Swift -- Run-I:50(A)
Level 14: Health -- Mrcl-Rcvry+:40(A), Numna-Regen/Rcvry+:50(23), Numna-Heal:50(34)
Level 16: Unyielding -- Aegis-ResDam/EndRdx:50(A), Aegis-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg:50(36), Aegis-ResDam:50(36)
Level 18: Focus -- Thundr-Acc/Dmg:50(A), Thundr-Dmg/EndRdx:50(19), Thundr-Dmg/Rchg:50(19), Thundr-Acc/Dmg/Rchg:50(21), Thundr-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx:50(21), Thundr-Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg:50(23)
Level 20: Stamina -- EndMod-I:50(A), P'Shift-EndMod:50(39), P'Shift-End%:50(39)
Level 22: Super Jump -- Zephyr-Travel:50(A), Zephyr-ResKB:50(45), Zephyr-Travel/EndRdx:50(50)
Level 24: Spin -- Erad-Dmg:30(A), Erad-Acc/Rchg:30(25), Erad-Dmg/Rchg:30(25), Erad-Acc/Dmg/Rchg:30(27), Erad-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg:30(27), Erad-%Dam:30(34)
Level 26: Boxing -- Empty(A)
Level 28: Invincibility -- LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx:50(A), LkGmblr-Def:50(29), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx/Rchg:50(29), Rec'dRet-ToHit:20(31), Rec'dRet-Pcptn:20(31)
Level 30: Tough -- RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx:40(A), RctvArm-ResDam/Rchg:40(40), RctvArm-ResDam/EndRdx/Rchg:40(40), RctvArm-ResDam:40(40), RctvArm-EndRdx:40(42)
Level 32: Eviscerate -- Oblit-Dmg:50(A), Oblit-Acc/Rchg:50(33), Oblit-Dmg/Rchg:50(33), Oblit-Acc/Dmg/Rchg:50(33), Oblit-Acc/Dmg/EndRdx/Rchg:50(34), Oblit-%Dam:50(50)
Level 35: Tough Hide -- LkGmblr-Rchg+:50(A), LkGmblr-Def:50(45), LkGmblr-Def/Rchg:50(46)
Level 38: Weave -- LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx:50(A), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx/Rchg:50(42), LkGmblr-Def:50(42), LkGmblr-Def/Rchg:50(43)
Level 41: Resist Elements -- Aegis-ResDam/EndRdx:50(A), Aegis-ResDam/Rchg:50(43), Aegis-ResDam:50(45)
Level 44: Resist Energies -- Aegis-ResDam:50(A), Aegis-ResDam/EndRdx:50(46), Aegis-ResDam/Rchg:50(48)
Level 47: Maneuvers -- LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx:50(A), LkGmblr-Def/Rchg:50(48), LkGmblr-Def:50(48), LkGmblr-Def/EndRdx/Rchg:50(50)
Level 49: Conserve Power -- RechRdx-I:50(A)
------------
Level 1: Brawl -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Sprint -- Empty(A)
Level 2: Rest -- Empty(A)
Level 1: Critical Hit

Actually, no. That's Castle's opinion and that's the only one that matters. He wanted to give the set a heal and, thanks to also wanting to prevent cottage rule, he had to retain the end redux benefit. Because this would force the power to have a longer recharge, he gave it a +regen benefit. In the original incarnation, the heal was actually weaker (a 15% self heal, iirc) but, with player testing and spreadsheet analysis, it was increased to be on par with Recon and Healing Flames (i.e. 25% self heal). The +regen benefit was completely left alone.

The 120 second recharge is there because it's not just a self heal. It's a self heal with two other substantial benefits.

The "cottage rule" comes from a power change discussion wherein Castle mentioned that there would be no changes to powers that completely altered their functionality. Recharge, duration, additional effects, debuffs, etc. could be added, but the overall function of the power would not be rendered completely different. His example was that he would never change Build Up to build a cottage around the character rather increase damage. People eventually just started quoting this as the Cottage Rule.

Rose is actually no longer in PERC (I feel so alone...) and, iirc, she's not really playing all that much more anyway.

Strangely enough, no. Even when I was leveling up my Kat/WP, I still enjoyed playing my DM/Regen more. The Kat/WP was truly awesome, but it couldn't hold a candle to the playstyle awesome fun-ness of my DM/Regen. I don't think anything could really make me stop loving the toon that I've enjoyed even through all of the regen nerfs, ED, and everything else that's affected him.