herotoonefan

First--thanks for the quick responses .

Second, I guess what I really want to hear is HP is best, but I wanted to see if anyone who knew more than I do could talk me out of it to be sure :P.

Third, I haven't posted my build because it would horrify anyone who knows what they are doing. He's built more for my concept of what his powers are than for effectiveness. But this is one small area where more regen or HP could fit conceptually equally well and I can't tell which is more effective, so I wanted some feedback. Concept is why I can't sacrifice in another area.

So... is HP the winner, or is there someone in defense of regen?

Sigh, found another mistake--didn't realize the slot level was set wrong on Mids.

Ok, so, to re-state: which is better--21.6 HP or 12% Regen (.05%/sec, 1.27 HP/sec) on a WP Brute.

This is making me re-think my leaning towards HP.

Sorry for the slop, y'all.

I know that is good advice, but I already have x5 of that HP bonus and I need 4 Reactive Armor's in there for the S/L/E/N defense. My build would not make a minmaxer happy, but it makes me happy because of concept. And part of the concept is tough, tough, tough (unfortunately on a budget), and I didn't go Tanker cause Fury fits the concept too. This is just one piddly little tweak I can't decide on.

Thanks!

Crap, all of those numbers are right except the "29% Regen" was a typo I didn't catch--should be "12% Regen". Sorry, I'm a goober.

Ok, in a vacuum, which is better--25 HP or 29% Regen (.05%/sec, 1.27 HP/sec)

Hope all those numbers are right--think so.

Now, out of the vacuum. Just looking at a WP build I made focused on being really darned tough. I noticed I used two Numis in High Pain Tolerance to pick up a little regen when I could have used two basic IO's and gotten more HP. Basically, in set bonus terms, the difference between a Huge Improved Regeneration bonus and just a hair less than a Large Increased Health bonus.

It's a small but tough decision, because, though it's "Huge Regen" vs only "Large HP" bonus, I usually always go with HP because, to my knoweldge, regen is based on a percentage of HP so higher HP increases effective regen anyway, and higher HP helps with Alpha Hits, which WP is a bit succeptable to.

Tiny tweak, but I'll go with HP unless someone can show that the regen will increase survivability better.

Thanks!

OH! One more thing--I know I'm a squishie, but do I have to be SO squishie? A solo build focusing on survivability would be nice, I'm developing a callous on my forehead from faceplanting :P.

Thanks!

Hi all,

I have a LVL 50 Rad/Rad corruptor that, unexpectedly, I play mostly solo. I know Rad/Rad isn't the best solo build, but it's what I've got and I love the concept! I really want to make her the best solo that she can be with a light-working-towards-moderate budget (remember, I solo, I'll never have tons of inf) and, ideally, without totally gimping her team usefullness, because I do team once in a while and I like to switch modes and really focus on support then. But being as effective as possible at high-level solo is my overiding goal.

I am willing to totally rework her in every way (except rerolling :P), and I like to solo at as high a setting as possible because I love the challenge and it just makes me feel bad ***. I'm having trouble getting past bosses soloing +3x2 right now, and I'd reallly like to push it as much higher as I can with a Rad/Rad on a medium budget.

Thanks for any help you can provide, because I'm really not sure exactly how to go about this.

Well, it makes sense that you could have it all if you could throw enough influance at the build, but I mostly solo or play with RL friends and don't have a SG, so I don't and probably will never have mad inf and currently have a "ghetto" (mostly yellows) build and I'm aspiring towards a "moderate" (mostly oranges) build--so for me, for practical purposes, I couldn't have both max brute undefeatability and the very top attack chain.

Currently my build is really, really tough but has a sub-optimal--but servicable--attack chain. Because of that, in the back of my head I wonder if I didn't just turn a brute into a tank when it would have been easier to just start with a tanker in the first place.

He's tough enough that I find myself running point on PUGs alot, and, while with slotted taunt I do pretty well holding aggro by alternating taunt and foot stomp, I wouldn't mind gauntlet helping out and I LOVE "cushion", as you say. Yet, I suspect that to get the damage I'd want, I'd need to double perma-stack rage, and, man, those extra rage crashes would be annoying.

I think the final answer is that either way, tanker or brute, would have been feasable for what I want, and each has different advantages, but I probably did the right thing by going brute for the kind of "scranking" I like to do.

I really do appreciate the feedback from more experienced and knowedgable players, thanks guys.

Alright! This is the kind of discussion I wanted!

So, for solo when you don't like defeats, you end up pretty well on the tanker, though the price you pay is twice as much "time out", which is annoying (I think Rage crash is silly. Just charge more end.)

That's a hard choice.

Ad into the mix that to get the defense and HP you need to really have an undefeatable WP Brute you won't have the recharge for that top attack chain, IMO.

I think, in the end, I'll settle for being just a bit squishier than I'd like to be, like Fiery said, so that I don't have to spend twice as much time in "time out" for decent damage.

BUT, man, the significantly increased UNDEFEATABILITY for not that much less damage is intriguing.

Solo playstyle, I guess, in the end. But, if the penalty for Rage wasn't "time out" but just more end drain that could be mitigated, I think in the end I might go Tank for undefeatable solo!

Thanks for the discussion .

That sounds good. That way it's apples to apples. It may be that a really tanky brute wouldn't have the very top single target chain, but at that point we're getting into detailed build vs build comparisons, and that's beyond what I was interested in.

Interested to see the result and thanks!

OH! And I should stipulate--in the hopes that someone will take me up on my request for a number crunch--use normal/conservative around 150% damage bonus rage, not "max rage", cause that almost never happens. When I said that it seemed like they might end up nearly even, I mean't in actual solo gameplay, not theoretical optimum cases or when buffed to the gills on teams.

Thanks!

Ok, I figured as much. The way I made my brute he's damn hard to kill and has a decent enough sting to get through solo, but the temptation to be UNKILLABLE!!! is still strong :P.

Just from the itch of curiosity, I'd love for one of you awesome numbers dudes (English Major here, math hurts my pretty little head) to show a detailed break down in DPS between a Tanker with perma double-stacked rage vs a Brute with normal perma-rage--solo with no external buffs except insp. I don't even know quite how to go about doing that with the different base damage modifiers and percentages. Off the top of my head it seems like it could end up nearly even... ?

Word to all your mothers!

MAN I want to be able to turn off the Rage and Strength of Will auras like you can other auras. Is it because they are click auras that you can't or something? I don't understand why we can't turn these off too. They aren't an acutal power effect, like Fiery Aura's fire or Dark Armor's darkness, they are just visual effects that "represent" you being angry or focusing your will--we should be able to turn that off like other auras, I'd think.

Thanks for the reply, LSK!

I know that's generally the case between tanks and brutes, but would that still be the case on a brute with just single perma rage vs a tank with perma double-stacked rage and damage procs? To accomplish this the tank would probably take a bit of a toughness hit.

I guess another way of putting this would be--if you took both toons and tried to meet in the middle using IO's and without gimping, would you be able to, or would the tank always be tougher and less damage and the brute always more damage and squishier no matter what?

I'm especially curious about: perma double-stacked rage on a tanker vs single perma-rage on a brute as far as damage, and if a WP brute with lots of defense/hp set bonuses could be as tough as a base (let's say well slotted but no set bonuses) WP tanker.

Thanks!

Abstract, general question, just want to see what y'all think.

I have a SS/WP Brute optimized for scranking (perma but not stacked rage and lots of HP and defense from IO's), but I often wonder if I had done a WP/SS tank and optimized for damage (double stack rage and go for all the recharge I could get and maybe some damage procs?) how that would compare. Would it be much different at all? Would the double stacked rage be almost as good as perma-rage plus fury? Would the less optimized tanker be significantly tougher than a toughness-focused brute?

As far as playstyle, I HATE being defeated, solo or on a team, and I like to do enough damage to solo on very high settings but I don't need to be a damage god. So far my ghetto tank brute is doing this pretty well. If I got to make a wish, I'd like to be even tougher and I wouldn't want to do much less damage. I can live happily with the damage I do now--but then, who wouldn't want a bit more if they could get it .

The only thing that I'm sure about is that I hate rage crash and wouldn't enjoy the double rage crash on a double rage tanker, but if he did roughly comparable damage and was even harder to defeat, it might be worth it.

Whatchy'all think?

Umm, I just made a male huge-build Broadsword/Shield scrapper and he runs like he's wearing high heels when he has his shield out. I looked for a post on this and didn't find one, so sorry if this is a repeat, but I've never made a shield toon before or heard about this.

Is this a bug, or are all toons, reguardless of gender build, really supposed to use a female-gender run when you have a shield toggle on? It was... distrubing. I'm not sure I can play him LOL.

Thanks!

Hi! I posted this over in Suggestions and Ideas and they said it'd be better to post it here, so here goes!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope this is the right place for this and that there isn't already a thread somewhere, but I couldn't find one.

Click powers like Rage and Strength of Will--powers that represent emotional states and aren't actual depictions of powers like "Ston Armor" or "Fiery Armor"--often have auras (in the case of rage, it's one heck of a really bright one) that you can't turn off like other toggle auras. This can be a problem in low FX hero concepts.

For example, I have a SS/WP who I don't want to have any auras for concept, and I can turn off the FX in most of the WP powers, but the best I can do is to grey Rage and SoW out. With SoW it's not that bad, but when I gray out the Rage aura he ends up looking, well, kinda hazy around the edges, like he's blurry and out of focus.

Is there a reason that these particular representation powers don't have a "no aura" option? Would it be a big deal, since the interface for Primary and Secondary powers is already set up anyway, to just give us the option to turn them off in PVE also?

BTW, I love that COH has auras associated with both powers AND emotional states or things like "being invulnerable". I think the aruas are great, but I also think it was great to give the conceptual flexibility of being able to turn them off. In the case of Rage, I have to either glow like the sun or look out of focus like Bigfoot in a video sighting :P.

Thanks!

I hope this is the right place for this and that there isn't already a thread somewhere, but I couldn't find one.

Powers like Rage and Strength of Will--click powers--often have auras (in the case of rage, it's one heck of a really bright one) that you can't turn off like other toggle auras. This can be a problem in low FX concepts.

For example, I have a SS/WP who I don't want to have any auras for concept, and I can turn off the FX in most of the WP powers, but the best I can do is to grey Rage and SoW out. With SoW it's not that bad, but when I gray out the Rage aura he ends up looking, well, kinda hazy around the edges, like he's out of focus.

Is there a reason that these types of powers don't have a "no aura" option? Would it be a big deal, since the interface for Primary and Secondary powers is already set up anyway, to just give us the option to turn them off in PVE also?

BTW, I love that COH has auras associated with powers and I think the aruas are great, but I also think it was great to give the conceptual flexibility of being able to turn them off. In the case of Rage, I have to either glow like the sun or look out of focus like Bigfoot in a video sighting :P.

Thanks!

Wow, forgive the reference and grammar errors in that previous post--I was at work and trying to dash it off before my boss came back. Also, it came across harsher than I meant.

What I meant was that while ignoring in-game descriptions--or even ignoring the fact that it is a superhero-themed game at all--is possible and perfectly valid for any individual, that doesn't mean it's how everyone should be or in any way the "right" way to play. And, yes, the same goes for the opposite perspective.

But, regardless, the fact remains that it is a superhero themed game and there are specific in-game descriptions to faciltiate this theme, or else there would be nothing for you to have to ignore.

That being the case, for those who choose to play the game in the way it was conceived designed, my original point, that the really especially synergystic combinations are not the classic combinations and seem not to be intentional, and that the melee sets that are conceptually "lower powered" based on their in-game description are often slightly stronger than the conceptually "high powered" ones, is valid.

Now, I originally saw that as a problem, but, as the thread has progressed, I feel less so.

You did already make that point--that your perspective is that there is no high or low powered sets. Or that any one, if they should so choose, could be to ignore the in-game descriptions also. And, as an individual perspective, it's perfectly valid. But that doesn't jive with the in-game description--which may be ignored but exists for a reason in a superhero themed game--and it doesn't make it the ultimate truth that is the end of all discussion.

I mean it when I say I have really enjoyed the discussion. It has helped me appreciate the diversity more.

I still do think that, in general, the really especially synergystic combinations are not the classic combinations and not intentional, and that the conceptually "lower powered" melee defensive sets are often slightly stronger than the conceptually "high powered" ones. And that seems backasswards. Since it can't be perfectly balanced, I just thought some attention could go to making sure the classic, cosmic/god sets and combos get some consideration.

But, I could be wrong. And, as was stated, people are going to play the classic combinations anyway because they are classic, so maybe it promotes diversity. It is true that the FotM's are often thematically awkward and so people don't flock to them as much as they would otherwise.

AND I learned not to mention a specific power set in a thread unless you want it to turn into a powerset discussion :P.

See you in the game, I'll be the one with the tights, conspicious underwear-clad package, and towel around his neck (just kidding, I'm more into silver age--tights, but no underwear).

Thanks

Well that's an interesting idea and one that I never thought of. Something a bit more than just power choices that you could use to create synergy between sets. That would do the same thing without leaning on certain combinations.

But that sounds more like a major game-mechanic change than I was thinking. I was more suggesting that the Devs just be mindful that certain power combinations are especailly solid since they are classic. More of a conceptual suggestion than a game-mechanic suggestion.

When I wrote that last response your response wasn't up yet, Gob, so I just wanted to say that my last response wasn't because of you :P.

That's a cool rationale for the Psi resist. It makes me kind of wisht the sets weren't labeld "willpower" or Invulnerability", but less specifically--but, I understand it's there for game flavor, and can be ignored.

Holy cow! I should NOT have used SS/Inv as an example! No one paid any attention to my Electric Blast/Storm Summoning vs Illusion/Rad example, but people are defending SS/Inv's honor like a hot maiden at a Renaissance Festival--and ignoring the whole point of the post.

I, here now, do fully retract and redact any and all of the aspersions that I did not cast towards SS/Inv.

Let's forget that ill-fated example. Let it go.

My point was that certain sets in the game have especially good synergy that seems to be unintentional. If that is the case, why not make it intentional and intentionally in harmony with the stated nature of the game since it's going to happen anyway.

The response was lukewarm, so there you go.


I think we've all learned a lesson here--don't *blank* with SS/Inv!

Yes, that is synergy. But I meant exactly what I said. Super Strength and Invulnerability don't have "exceptional synergy"--like Dark Melee and Shield that allows you to solo AV's and rock the Pylon tests and still be very strong in general play. Or Illusion/Rad that lets you solo Giant Monsters and still be great on a team.

Yes, it's perfectly playable, but if there is gonna be THAT kind of synergy in the game anyway--it's already there--my idea was just that it might as well be intentional rather than random.

But, as the discussion on this thread convinced me, that might cause more trouble than it's worth .