docbuzzard

I said sustained DPS because assassin's strike skews damage in short time scales. However, you are correct that once AS is out of the picture, the stalkers lag behind in damage quite clearly. While if you happen to be on a large team stocked with melee and are critting all the time, you might take the lead, that is an extreme outlier of a case.

Who is thus "rest of us" you refer to? You have a split personality or something?

I have no purples (and certainly no PVP IOs) slotted on any characters. Some of the builds are pretty involved, and quite powerful. I have no desire for handouts like you apparently do. Would I like to purple out my top alt? Sure. Doe I want to presented on a silver platter? No.

I guess I lack your entitlement mentality. Purples and PVP IOs in particular are very unnecessary. You can make builds easily capable of crushing the content without them.

Or maybe it could be that DA is not really focused on resistance, but mez? I consider the main resistance focused sets FA and ElA. They are resistance with heals and little more (FA has damage output, while ElA has endurance drain, but it's not really enough to keep alive).

Of course it's not balanced that way. However if you are comparing performance, you compare it at the edge of what is possible. You also don't compare things which are walkthroughs. If I am comparing how A works vs, B, I compare only A and B. Then I compare them up to the thresholds of where A and B fail. That is the actual measure of comparative performance. You are trying to base an argument on tossing additional uncontrolled factors into the mix which makes for a lousy experiment.

Wow, that point really did buzz right over your head. On a well buffed team, you don't need defenses. I've run on superteams of all kinetics defenders or controllers and we steamrolled everything in our path. Was it because of resistance armor sets? Um, no.

Look, proffering the case of 'resistance is superior on a well buffed team' is like saying a Kia will outrun a BMW as long as it's on a rocket sled. Well gosh, really? Is the sky blue too? The point you fail to accede is that on one of those teams, you don't need personal defenses at all.

But even if we are on said teams, say you get separated or have a lazy buffer. What happens then when the defense buffing starts to slide? The resistance builds will fold a lost faster than the softcapped defense builds because the latter is actually tough solo rather than only when propped up.

Take a speed ITF for example. For maximum speed the party breaks up to solo the shards in the second mission. There is no resistance build short of granite(which is not only resistance of course) which can survive the crowd around the shards. I've seen many softcapped defense builds pull it off.

You need seem to understand that's were not taking about random PUG level performance here. That's pretty much moot. I'm talking the limits of what is possible in respective defense methods, and positional defense is clearly superior.

Now I certainly grant that in your select case that someone with resistance who ends up on a team with a large pile of defense buffing that is consistent will be somewhat superior to a softcapped defense build. I do, however, note that it is moot and not really relevant to a discussion of the comparative strengths of the sets since it relies on external factors.

Though since you wish to not discuss the edges of high performance, how about we discuss the low end? Let's talk just SOs and no set bonuses. In that case the pure resistance sets are pure resistance, and the positional defense sets are pure defense. (I'll address mixed bag later). Since, as you say, there is tons of defense buffs floating around out there (manuevers, Fortitude, bubblers, ice shields, SoAs) then the defense builds will easily get softcapped. For example an SR brute without even weave can be softcapped easily by only 15% defense. A single crab or bane can do that. The brute then gets a reduction in incoming damage from 40% to 10%. That's a 75% reduction. Mr FA brute to his left on the same team with the SoA gets a whole 30% reduction in his incoming damage. He starts out before the buff taking 65% of the damage, which goes down to 45% of incoming damage(over four times as much). Not bad, but not even close to the defense build. Sure, more defense doesn't help the SR build, but make it a SD build starting around 23% defense and they will surely enjoy that defensive environment and hand out the pain freely. Now granted, if we assume there is lots of defense on that team, the positional defense builds will get past benefit and eventually you will see the resistance build pass. Let's figure out when that occurs- 65%/(1-x)= 10%. Here x = ~84% which translates to a 42% defense. So to make that FA brute have comparable mitigation to the softcapped positional brute, you practically have to softcap all the way with the buffs.

My brute is KM/FA and is 38 now, so I'm reasonably familiar with the 'killiness'. What I actually like to do is build up power siphon, pop burst, then burn all with blazing aura going. At that point everything melts. If I'm feeling over the top, I add in Fiery Embrace. That's generally overkill however.

I have a WP brute for when I want to feel durable. I'm also working up a SR one if I wish to be godly. I only did the FA one because they finally gave me back my burn. Mmmm, burn.

Granted I should have been specific to the positional defense sets as they are basically worlds better than the typed defense sets. (Having enough high enough level characters in all flavors to be familiar).

Describing Shield Defense as the same as Fire Armor is rubbish. Try looking up some numbers before making claims. SD gives 15% defense base to all positions. FA gives 22.5% base resistance to l/s/e/ne. Yes, it caps fire, but lags on cold, toxic and is useless against psi.

Given that defense is essentially double the number, SD comes out at 30% equivalent before enhancement.

22.5% vs. 30% is a pretty glaring difference. While FA gets a real good heal, SD gets a god mode power, and some health and resistance grab bag effects.

I have both a SD tanker and multiple FA tankers at 50 (who are retired because they are soft). Don't even try to claim the two sets are equivalent in survivability. That is completely false.

Indeed it is not. Any set that gets close to its capping value is a hell of a lot better. Those percentage of protection at the margin have a huge effect. Because positional defense sets with IO bonuses can get to their caps, they are markedly superior.

Umm, no. While it is true that stacked defense+resistance is optimal, it also is moot. If you can pick a team full of buffers it doesn't make a damned bit of difference what defense set you are playing. The blaster can be sufficiently buffed to hold the line and laugh at threats.

Teams are the only place where extreme survivability matters? Didn't you notice that difficulty slider? Did you miss that? I can set my missions to match team opposition by myself. That is the real measure of when the rubber meets the road on who is better protected.

Though hell, on your above team with a bubbler, an emp and a dark, a blaster could tank just fine. What a puerile example.

Actually again you are off. It is mixed, capped mitigation which wins. If you can only do mediocre mixed mitigation, you lose.

It is better to have 45% defense than 25% defense and 50% resistance any day of the week. The former gives 90% mitigation while the latter gives only 75%.

Yes, if you have 50% resistance on top of capped defense of course that is better, but the pure resistance sets don't have that option on their own.

That's a whole 2 examples. I could name more examples of psi or toxic damage users easily.
Just by group:
Arachnos
Carnival of Shadows
Rikti
Banished Pantheon
Devouring Earth
Snakes
Psionic Clockwork
Seers
Hydras

I've played a lot of electric armor set alts, and I know what makes them wilt. I've also played many of the options without psi resistance (as in most everything else but dark) and I know how much that hurts.

To contrast my SR brute and stalker are much more durable.

I didn't mention Willpower because it is a complete grab bag. Invuln, considering how good invincibility is, is also a grab back, but its defense has the same holes as the resistances (well some of them). Fiery Aura is offensive rather than defensive yes, so what do you call shield defense? It's got some mix, but it's primarily positional defense with offensive buffs and an attack. Fiery aura isn't much different other than being a heck of a lot less survivable.

Dark armor is the oddest case, but if the mez isn't cutting it, you rely on weak resistance.

Energy varies by AT as to how it works. On brutes it mixes resistance with defense. It is only pure defense on stalkers. Well actually it has a funky heal as well in both cases. Ice armor is rather like EA in that it is a mix of resistance, defense, and heal (and debuff as well).

Wailers
Council (or 5th Column) sonic attacks
Crey Rad scientists
Longbow
I also believe tar patch can be tossed by carnies and CoT

I mean honestly, I find it really amazing that people here are trying to claim that resistance is even in the same ballpark as defense when the rubber meets the road. You simply can't build someone to clear x8 maps based on the resistance focused sets unless you target a very specific damage type (FA vs fire or Elec vs. energy). Almost any map can be cleared by SR or SD with some limited exceptions. Note the contrast, for the resistance builds the exceptions are where they are strong, while in the case of positional defense, the exceptions are where they are weak.

That is true, but honestly it is a special case. I won't pull a percentage out of my posterior, but you know as well as I do that the vast majority of cases where someone had to beat an EB (or AV) they brought a tray full of purple candy.

This might be true if there were a resistance set which provided universal protection. Of course such a set doesn't actually exist. It would also require that the relative performances were comparable.

Let's look at the resistance sets:

The best of the bunch is Granite which carries plenty of penalties on its own, and still has the gaping psi damage hole (more common these days that in the days of yore). (granted calling on power of stone armor a resistance set is a bit odd, but it effectively is)

Electric is the next highest overall resistances, but it has a gaping hole to toxic damage (no protection at all), and the negative energy resistance lags the rest significantly outside of power surge. I find that my electric armor tanker just can't cut the mustard in an ITF for example tanking Rommy at the end.

Invulnerability stacks defense with resistance (then again so does granite), but against everything but lethal/smashing that resistance is fairly low. It has a glaring psi damage hole and toxic will make it weep.

Dark Armor has pretty much crappy resistance to everything but psionic and (sorta) negative energy. It makes up for it with mez effects and a heal, but for taking a pounding is pretty iffy. It survives on tricks, not durability.

Fiery Aura also has crappy resistance to everything but fire. no protection against psi, and little enough against toxic. It's a healing set to be honest and let's be blunt Rise of the Phoenix is not really an optional power.

Also, when someone talks about the mighty ability that is resistance debuff resistance, you have to remember that the degree of resistance is equal to the starting resistance. Thus for example, an electric armor brute is going to have 40% resistance debuff resistance. The SR brute next to him by comparison will have 95% defense debuff resistance.

Even more to the point when comparing defense debuffing and resistance debuffing is that defense debuffing has to hit you first. Resistance debuffing is going to go right on through against that resistance debuff resistance.

Now granted to hit buffs are another matter, but the numbers are generally fairly low, and not all that common (not like defense debuff).

Yes. It is pretty much universally known that if you want to make a top tier character in durability you will need a defense build (granite excepted, but even that uses defense). Heck, even when people try to make resistance builds good, they do it by going for defense bonuses (softcapped fire tanks, etc).

No. Defense cascade failure on ATs which lack defense debuff resistance will take people down fast enough. It has certainly worked against me. Heck, I've even had my softcapped SR stalker readily shown she is not even close to indestructible.

This is probably why most of the resistance sets have had many of the oddball resistances added (endurance drain resistance, slow resistance, etc). Of course those resistance numbers do tend to be a little low when every debuff in the world still hits you.

Hell yes. Given that people don't even bother to build for resistance at all, even on resistance protected sets, that says it all.

Honestly I would prefer to do so. I just like how resistance feels in play more. Though to be quite honest, even if they had the same numbers as the defensive bonuses (and right now they are much lower) you would still be behind the curve since you have so much further to go.

I think the resistance sets should have higher base resistance values (one way or another, be it in the extant powers, or spread out over more of the sets, ie give some useful resistance to Temperature Protection other than fire and cold).

Right now it is extremely clear than there is a survivability gap between the defense sets and the resistance ones.

I would prefer resistance to be brought up. It doesn't need to be back to i4 levels or anything, but it is too low now.

It most certainly is not. While there are those who would say the consensus of most is wrong, the in game record proves the consensus.

I would do two things.
A) Buff the base resistance of the resistance sets. It doesn't have to be a huge amount, but it should be higher. For example, an electric armor brute should be closer to maybe 50%(maybe 55%) resistance (l/s/f/c) when slotted up. Right now it is only around 41%. The base resistance now is 26%, buffing this to 31%(for 50%) or 33% for 55% would not be unreasonable. Right now a SR brute with just SOs gets a defense of 30% for all positions and huge defense debuff resistance (95% I believe). For a direct comparison of defense to resistance you have to double the defense number. Thus SR out of the box, without pools or IOs is as good as if you could pull off 60% resistance to everything. That's as good as an electric armor tanker (with holes for negative energy and toxic on the tanker). Even better the SR brute can toss in weave and combat jumping for another 8% defense, which comes in at 76% resistance equivalent. If a brute adds in toughness right now you only get 58% resistance. Heck if you made my change the resistance brute would still be behind the curve at 50% mitigation from the set vs. 60% for the SR, but at least they would be in the game.

B) At least make resistance set bonuses as high as the defense ones, if not higher.

Heck, even inspirations are biased against resistance. You missed that. Nobody every talks about popping a bunch of orange candy to take out an AV. It's always purples.

I do admit I've been thinking about slotting as much recharge into RotP as possible.

The Alpha slots are global, they do not pertain to a power in particular. All powers are affected.

I have only one thing to say on the brooding angle-
Man of Steel Woman of Kleenex

(Though for the record, it does look really painful, and I certainly will avoid the TPB).

The people I heard on the subjected believed that skill challenges favored role playing because they presenting a gamist system of resolving role playing. It was a reason to do some fairly extensive dice rolling to accomplish a non combat task. Maybe people somehow think that as long as it isn't combat, it is role playing.

Though your analysis of the defects of the skill challenge system is spot on. The problem with how it works is that by the very nature it reduces randomness in favor of skill ranks.

Whoever designed skill challenges was math challenged. It's a really horrible mechanic.

I would certainly have agreed with this on previous stalkers (EM and DM). However on my current ElM model, you want crowds because of the focus of the primary. It's a very different way to play a stalker compared to the ones I had before, but I rather like it. The game is AOE centric after all, so one may as well build for it.

I think you have far too much faith in the impact of the rules. In my experience rules do not overcome how people play. I can remember playing Spirit of the Century and having players who simply weren't a lot different from stumps. That game exhorts role playing with every fiber of its being, and yet you can't drag blood from a stone. My GM for that game was a hell of a role player as well, and yet some players just don't respond. That same GM has run d20 system games for me and those have been role playing extravaganzas. It's the people, not the system.

D&D is a game. It can be used however the players choose to. It does not have have enforced role playing, but that is a different story completely from "having nothing that enables roleplaying".

Though the existence of skill challenges in D&D 4th edition was heralded by plenty of people as an indication that it favored role playing. Personally I think it is a flawed mechanic.

If you sit at a table of LFR, yes, you will probably not see a whole lot of role playing. If you sit at a home game with a DM that encourages and expects role playing, you will see it. The system has far less to do with it than then people. Always.

A superior first RPG is far more defined by who is at and running your table than whatever rules they happen to pick.

Honestly, this argument is about as sensible as arguing the superiority of chess over checkers. It's a matter of personal preference.

The inability to understand that people might hold a different opinion than your own doesn't excuse your fetish with labeling people wrong.

I'm not going to play logical fallacies like you do and try to claim you're wrong. You have an opinion, and I don't agree. That ends it.

Funny, and yet I've seen a DM and players manage to swash-buckle as much as they like in a system which didn't reward crazy maneuvers.

I don't particularly care what Mr. Wick thinks to be blunt. He offers a game (or a number of games rather) which doesn't appeal to me. He thinks players need to be prodded into playing the way he wants them to. Good for him.

Yes, and the sky is blue, water is wet, and ice is cold. Thank you for the newsflash. I've played a number of those systems. I don't much care for them. If people have to be prodded into role playing, then I'm not really sure they wanted to in the first place.

Well did the idea that those average tabletop gamers playing D&D might have chosen the system because of how they like to play? Could it be that they like the gaming aspect rather than the acting aspect? A good role player will do fine regardless of the system. I have seen this enough in my experience (of more than a few years playing).

The truth is, systems you are talking about are just as much a mechanical gamist creation as 4th edition. They might be encouraging different outcomes (tactical boardgame, vs. forced role play), but nonetheless they are not simply world simulators. I prefer world simulators and then the action proceeds as a consequence of what the GM and players do, not what they are led to do.

I'm not getting worked up. I merely am expressing an opinion which dislikes forced mechanical role playing as if it will somehow make a bad player into a good one, or a bad GM into a good one. I prefer the player to be free to play the way they are inclined to play and how they enjoy it. I am not familiar enough with that particular system to say anything about its particular twinkability. I have, however, seen enough systems where 'roleplaying elements' are just another avenue by which to twink a character.

As I have said before, I have seen plenty of role playing in systems which are allegedly not conducive to role playing, and I've seen people with all the personality and animation of a stump playing in games which mechanically try to force all kinds of role play.

Maybe someone new to the system will need to have the crutches of a mechanical roleplay system to get into the genre, but I think a mentor showing the way works better.

You are falling into a trap. You are taking up the banner (which is common to rpg.net) that role players are superior to roll players. They are not. They are just different categories of people who like to play in that genre of games. Neither is superior, and as long as they are having fun the way they like to, all is fine.

I don't know if that's the case. Sparky is pretty awful. It can't be buffed. Won't pull aggro, and has no HPs to soak damage. While it does add in a smidgen of damage, you can probably a pool power to give you more bang for your buck.

Of course my /dev blaster got banished off my primary server a while back during free transfers, so I'm not exactly going to stand up for gun drone either. Picking between those two is like choosing between athletes foot and jock itch.