jackdrek

Three Shard Task Forces give the badge.

[ QUOTE ]
Bugs are expected - agreed.
Should they announce badges are rewarded for tasks, know its a bug, and not correct it by stating they will datamine? No. totally unacceptable in any case.
Its not good customer service. Putting it in a spot where not every customer will see the announcement of said "bug"is not good customer service.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and Im just stating mine.
Regardless of this occurring to me personally or someone I barely knew - doesnt matter - my opinion remains the same.
The devs need to do the right thing and make sure they are awarded upon patch.
I have not received confirmation that this will be the case, just a PM stating that the fix IS IN the next release.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes,I did this TF on Thursday night, and the 6 of us left at the end of the TF petitioned it and all got back the standard response in the morning, pointing us to the Known Issues page.

I'm not so upset about losing 2 and a half hours of time, but I am upset that our entire team was misled into thinking we'd get the badge by the text you mentioned. And that I had to spend the next several days warning people who regularly read the boards not to do the Just Augistine TF (and note, it's Justin, not Justine as the Known Issue page claims... since there's only one female Shard TF contact, that further confuses things).

The LEAST the devs could do is have a red name post here saying "Justin Augustine's TF does not give a badge," since I doubt many forum goers are reading this far into this thread. I'd prefer it if they actually posted Known Issues that the devs will be unwilling to help with in text in the patch updater, rather than CoV / Issue 5 promotional graphics with a red link tp patch notes and a link that blends in to known issues.....

I would hope that they would do some sort of datamining, but again, I'm concerned that there's no real prevention of people being misled into thinking they can currently spend hours on the Justin TF and get the badge....

[ QUOTE ]
There was talk of adding one... but it would be beyond reason for anyone to attain the 10,000 Monkey badge at this point. The reason the badge was lowered in the first place was to compensate for the increased difficulty in getting to 10,000.

If we made a 10,000 badge now, we'd have the same problem all over again.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like the idea of having a 10k badge for monkeys, either, but I don't see how this reasoning for not having them is any different than saying some of the other badges would also be virtually unattainable, without months of dedication to getting them. For instance, most people have spent less than 1,000 hours in game on any one character, so the only way anyone would ever get Paradigm is if they got a sidekick, logged into a mission, and went afk for a matter of months.... I.e., it doesn't seem possible. I'm not sure if that's why they're "epic" badges, but it would seem that a seemingly unnattainable number for monkeys wouldn't be too much different than a seemingly unnattainable number for healing, and most of the people who would get it would have a little bonus recognition for having monkeys pre-I5, something that might appeal to some who wanted Vanguard before level 50 but couldn't get it because of the enormous number of monkeys or because of levelling too hgih before I2.

LOL, the ever lingering combination of grav/kin. I made a 12 (a while ago) on Guardian

No, kinetics don't get pets. I personally don't consider tornados pets, either, but that's also I guess a matter of perception

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

All that said, I think I wanna explain why I've said some of the things I've said (it's not just because one of my two "mains" is a empath Defender) and what I think the devs would think by reading this forum:

Idea #1 - "Defenders don't deal enough damage to make effective blasters, and if they don't attack they're just buff bots." - The devs will read this as "Defenders want their secondary set damage to do as much Blaster primaries," or at least more damage than they do now. I partially disagree with this premise, because let's face it, a group of 3 rad/rads can outdamage any group of 3 blasters out there, and even so, Defenders are primarily meant to Defend and only do damage as a back up (just like Blasters are only meant to use their secondaries as backup).

Idea #2 - "Such and such ability isn't as control/mez effective as we need it." - The devs will read that like it is, but I doubt they'll do anything. From what I understand, controllers weren't given blaster secondaries because the devs thought it was too powerful. I could have been misled, but consider when you're saying this that Controllers would get even more Controller abilities (not necessarily a bad thing), but Defenders would end up being more diverse because they'd have decent enough control powers AND the ability to blast.

Idea #3 - "Increase Defender buffs/debuffs by fixing such and such Defender ability." - Well, I personally am happy with my Defender buffs, but I could see certain primaries needing a bit more work on that for maximum team effectiveness.

Idea #4 - "Differentiate Defenders from Controllers/Blasters by making the Defenders' primaries do stuff the Controllers' secondaries won't do." - Somewhat of a good idea. Recharge boosts for example should not be the same for both. But will the devs read this as "Increase Defender buff/debuff ratio compared to Controllers," by increasing Defender buffs or decreasing Controller buffs? IMO, the latter would make the most sense, because some of the buffs are a bit over the top (my example, for instance, of buffing a full party too high a level for me to get exp), meaning you could actually survive with a Controller, but would prefer a Defender, much like what people do at lower levels.

Idea #5 - "The reason Defenders aren't needed is because every other AT gets EPPs and enough slots to replace Defender buffs." - The devs aren't about to unslot high levels or remove EPPs, so they'll read this as "Nerf the <bleep!> out of every other AT so Defenders are wanted again." I on the other hand, don't think this is the reason we're not needed. In fact, I think we are needed, it's just we are perceived as not being needed, because of complaints of using Defenders as "buff bots" and "leeches," when in fact teams run much better, as in faster and safer, with us than they run without us.

I think some people need to re-read what I said. When I said that FF abilities operate like Controller abilities, but probably not on the same level, and then followed that up by saying a lot of FFs choose to take Medicine, I wasn't saying that FF Defenders were operating on so much of a better level of controlling than Controllers that they were opting out of the FF pool!

Yes, there is something wrong with making a control focused Defender primary. The devs are obviously not gonna give it more control strength than a Controller primary, or else they would have made it a Controller primary. At least with the Storm pool, it has a lot of debuffs/buffs along with each control ability (eg, Hurricane may have repel, but it also is a mob debuffer), and I always considered that pretty control heavy for a Defender primary.

I certainly see no reason why there's not more +res in FF, since you'd expect things that end up breaking through force fields to be softened by the force field. Think of Star Trek or other sci fi shows, where with shields up, the ship gets hit and sometimes does still take damage (sometimes they don't, too), but with shields down, it blows up in one shot.

A lot of the abilities I see don't make sense role play wise or gameplay wise. So could someone who knows FF please explain to me where they came from and why they fit a Defender AT?

Detention Field I can understand, role play wise. It's more a controller ability, but it does make sense as a "Force Field." It looks like one of those abilities that either people hate or love, though, so if it were the only controlleresque ability or one of two, even, it'd make sense to have it able to "detain" all mobs, so long as they weren't AVs or Monsters.

Repulsion Bomb... I have no idea where the idea even came from. You put a force field around an ally and let it explode? I'd like to see how that works in the comics.... Besides, it's yet another Controller ability. Ok, so knockback is in a lot of sets, but here you're not really buffing your ally, you're just kncoking back the foes around it. Now, if you were to actually keep a bubble around your ally that lasted for a set time, which knocked back or knocked down enemies, it'd be a different story, because your ally would be buffed with a knockback/down power....

Force Bubble and Repulsion Field to me look like Controller powers, but it seems other Defender sets have similar powers. Which makes me wonder why these two powers aren't rolled into one power.... Hurricane does knockback, repel, and -acc, so why doesn't Force Bubble have knockback, too? Not that I like the way Hurricane works now, but it looks effectively to be a stronger Force Bubble, to me, and Force Bubble is the top tier power....

Last I'll mention is Force Bolt. Ok, so one person here seems to like it, but otherwise I've heard nothing but bad things about it. How does this belong to Force Fields, anyway? Protective shields are not weapons, so why are FF Defenders getting pseudo Blaster powers in their primary?

That's 5/9 abilities that don't really in any way fit the buff/debuff/heal theme of Defenders....

[ QUOTE ]
Another person that's never played a Force Field defender.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guilty as charged (though technically I have a level 4). Now that you mentioned it, I checked out FF's powers and they mostly seem to be more controller like than Defender, with the exception of a few buffs.... Not sure what's up with that, especially since they probably don't operate on the level of Controllers.... No wonder most of the Defender type FFs train stuff like Medicine.... Yeah, it looks like Force Field could be reworked a little to fit in more buff/debuff/heals, maybe get rid of Force Bolt, even. But I say this, again, not having really played a FF character.

[ QUOTE ]
Clear Mind: Please make the animation as short as Heal Other.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point. But my complaint has always been that Sleep, which lasts longer than most other mezzes, is broken by any heal. All the other mezzes seem to break before the Empath can figure out holds/disorients are going on. There are only two ways Clear Mind is really needed. First pre-emptively, although I sometimes use it this way, it's really annoying to constantly keep up while performing all your other empath duties. Second is to un-disorient an awakened/bounced back teammate. But as for using it to clear someone's mind in general, like the name implies, it doesn't really happen, since most people aren't clear about whether they're held or slept.

[ QUOTE ]
Regeneration Aura: make it more 'useful' i guess. i kinda dont see the point of having this, esp at later levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a perception thing... plus with I4, Empaths sorta got nerfed along with Regen Scrappers, as far as my understanding. Isn't there a regen cap, now? Anyway, on most characters, you're not gonna hit it. Anywy, if there is something like a team split, and one group is weaker than the other, but people in both groups need healing, regen aura will keep the eaker team alive while you to run bacak and forth, also allowing you to accidentally agro a mob or two without getting killed en route from one part of your team to the other.

[ QUOTE ]
Adrenalin Boost: umm, so it only gives one person unlimited endurance?... why not just go all out since its the last empath power... give the player invincibility (like the one scrappers have) as well as unlimited end with fort and cm to boost. After all, we waited all these levels for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it's more than unlimitted endurance. It's also +regen, and +recharge. Think of it like a heavily slotted Accelerated Metabolism on one character, without the mez protect. Put Adren Boost, Recovery Aura, and Regeneration Aura on any character, even a Blaster, and you've got your own mini Regen Scrapper on your team.

Actually, I'm not certain an empath controller could've done the same thing at the same level difference, since their heals are capped lower and I don't know about their regen rates on things like AB and Regen Aura. Certainly, a level 50 Empath controller could potentially do everything a level 50 Emp Defender could do, but that's more because of capped heals and a fairly low max health comparatively. Besides, a -15/-16 Emp controller won't even have Adren Boost or maybe even Regen Aura....

As for a Defender's role as a "buff bot," here's what it states in the manual:

[ QUOTE ]
The Defender's powers focus on healing allies, increasing their buffing bilities and decreasing foes' debuffing abilities. The Defender has little offensive or defensive punch of his own, but can radically increase the effectiveness of even the smallest team up, and he and the blaster have the only ranged attacks.

The Defender is a suitable archetype for grouping, though soloing is possible. Difficult, but possible. However, the tremendous usefulness of Defenders' powers should guarantee that they will always be able to find a team up to adventure with.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems I was using my Defender exactly as intended.... I didn't do much of the Blaster type stuff, doing my own damage which of course is set at 2/3 Blaster damage, but the Defenders are clearly meant to be group oriented and if I'm constantly doing stuff, anyway, I see no reason that has to include fighting on my own.

Again, I slotted almost everything in my primary, whereas in my secondary, I have maybe two attacks fully slotted. This makes sense, because you shouldn't be taking more slots from your secondary than your primary (which is called your primary for a reason) and then complaining because your primary isn't performing at an effective level. I'm sure there are people who've slotted mostly primaries that would like their primaries effectiveness increased, and I understand that. Heck, I'd like Fortitude to be able to take damage enhancements, but from my experience Empathy really doesn't need that.

The real issue is for the last sentence quoted from the manual, finding a team, which again is about perception more so than how effective Defenders can be in groups. By the high levels a lot of players mostly group with their SGs, with people on hteir friends list (who become more and more sparse because people drop out and either go elsewhere or start new characters the longer you wait around), or think they can solo at least some things, because every AT was designed to have the ability to solo, at least on Heroic. The problem is Defenders are supposed to be the most group oriented AT, and without a group, a Defender designed to be true to the AT will find that he is left with a character less useful than other ATs.

The response CAN NOT be to bring other ATs down to the solo level of Defenders. Nor can it be to bring Defenders solo levels up to the other ATs. Because in either case, there'd be no point in playing anything other than a Defender (except possibly a Controller, just to hold AVs).

I am not saying Defenders are too weak or too strong or is the perfect paradigm for all ATs, I'm sayng the Defender that I've played can do the job it was intended to do. It's filling a needed role in groups. IF groups forming don't see that, as far as I'm concerned, it's merely their perception.

[ QUOTE ]
So while playing buffbot and getting PL'd you didn't manage to die?

Well done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all what I said.

At at least -15 to the mission level, I got no experience at all, so there goes that theory.

I also said I did die, so you missed the point entirely. My point was many of my teammates died without me but not with me (both heals and buffs). I don't know about you, but I call that adding something of value to a high level team (levels capped). Something I think very few other ATs can say they provide in the lower 30s...

Wow, now that you pointed out Erratic's slotting, I wonder why he didn't stack many enhancements and why he's not using 50s instead of 45++s. Certianly, though, he does qualify as a good example of someone who slotted more solo oriented stuff than his primary (still not necessarily the perfect solo build, though).

On another note, maybe it's time I share my experience teaming with high levels as a Defender....

See my 36 Empath? At 34 or 35, he teamed with a full group of upper 40s and 50s (and one other person in their 30s SKed) to take on the timed Kronos mission on Invincible. No, I was not sidekicked for a good half of the mission, I was doing it for the heck of it. Near the beginning, an SR Scrapper was killed by an ambush, or something, too quickly for me to even get a single heal off. From then on, I kept the entire team buffed defensively, and at full health and full endurance. Until they somehow split up into two distinct groups. Then, I ran back and forth with superspeed between the two groups, still keeping them at full health and end and buffed as much as possible, until I died because running back and forth between two groups meant occasionally accidentally running straight into mobs 15 levels higher than myself.... Once I went down, and not before, my teammates started dying left and right. I came back immediately and after having the same thing happen a couple more times, they insisted on SKing me, and so I stayed near my mentor and then no one in my mentor's group died and the other splinter group was forced to make its way back towards us. This was with a group where some of its members are the kind of people that think that teams don't really need "hearlers" unless they're bad teams. Yet, they weren't holding their own without me.

Again, the only reason I wasn't fully functioning in keeping the high levels alive was because I wasn't surviving running solo into groups of mobs spawned for a +15 mission on Invincible.... While with the team, I was certainly holding my own.

For all of you who say that Defenders are worthless at high levels, name any other AT that can actually hold their own unsidekicked in a +15 invincible mission....

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, Defenders get the Dark Primary and the Dark, Rad and Psi Blast sets exclusively. But in overall function, both their Primary and Secondary are direct extrapolations of other sets in the game. Controllers and Blasters share a set list with Defenders and Tankers share one with Scrappers, but only Defenders share both set lists, making them -obviously- easier to replace on a team, even if a Controller's effects will be slightly weaker and they won't have Dark.

[/ QUOTE ]

This oversimplifies it.

Yes Defender Primary (buffs/debuffs) are also available as Controller Secondaries. Same with Defender Secondaries being available in Blaster Primaries. But, looking at the powersets of a group, that could be said of most ATs.... Blasters share ranged with Defenders, and meelee with Tankers and Scrappers. Tankers and Scrappers are just recversals of each otehr primary/secondary wise. The ONLY AT to get a set of powersets entirely unique in function is Controllers with their primaries. And even Dark Defenders get pets and mezzes can be found in many other powersets other than Controllers.

Nobody wants to "need" a Defender, any more than we want to "need" a Scrapper, or a Controller, etc...

[ QUOTE ]
BUT....I'm extremely concerned about the perception that Defenders "aren't needed" and thus "can't find a team" at high levels. Defenders should fill a valuable role at ALL levels and help Archetypes achieve levels that they can't reach by themselves. After all, Defenders are all about buffs (and debuffs). Every Archetype should be extremely happy when the Defender provides a resistance or defense buff...

[/ QUOTE ]

This has got to be perception and perception only. I made my Empathy Defender at about the same time as my level 50 Scrapper. I levelled them evenly up until about level 25, right before I2 came out and I started making newer characters and playing my Scrapper more, because I ended up soloing more.

Yes, I soloed more with my Scrapper, because that's what I was told I was supposed to be able to (by the manual, by other people). But had I designed my empathy defender more for soloing (as in not only not taking Fortitude, Adren Boost, Ressurect, and Heal Other, but certianly not fully slotting them and also taking more than a couple attacks, and probably more AoE/Cone or mez attacks), I might've soloed just as well. Since my intent was never to solo him, and to use him for groups, I didn't care. So, at lower levels, yes, it's possible for a Defender to solo just as well as a Scrapper.

So what happens when a Defender reaches a high level? Maybe people they're feel inneffective then, because they can't solo, although I have my doubts that certain Defender primaries slotted right can't solo anything a Dark Armor or SR Scrapper can.... One problem is solo strategies can end up clashing between Defenders and other players, just as solo strategies clash between energy blasters and aoe scrappers. Good players realize this just needs a little working out, and if you're high level without being a good player, something's wrong.

As I played my SR Scrapper into the higher levels, I found that I most definitely wanted a Defender on my team. Back in I3, all Defenders other than FF could help me recover endurance after an Elude drop, if I needed to use it. FF Defenders would make it so I wouldn't even need to use Elude.... So, instead of suddenly being toggless and defenseless except for my autos, against an AV or Monster, Defenders were the best people to call on (Controllers only used it in their secondary and never really reached the power of a Defender that way). I guess now that Elude's changed, I don't need the Defenders for the Adren Boost, but I definitely need them for the healing and/or acc debuffs on the bigger mobs (sometimes including same level bosses). Certainly, I'd rather duo with a Defender than a Controller, although a high level Controller could probably go off and solo the entire mission while I waited at the entrance....

So, what's my point? If people feel Defnders are weak or unneeded in high levels, its all perception. They recognize that if they build themselves to help a group more than to help themselves solo, eventually, they can't do the solo stuff that solo oriented characters are doing. So, in a small 2 or 3 person group, when the Tanker runs off from the group to show what he can do solo (mostly herd things into a big bunch), and the Scrapper or the Blaster runs off to show he can take entire small spawns one by one, and the Controller runs off and shows that he can hold a small group or two or tht his pets can just charge through them, the Defender sits there wondering why everyone left! The other characters built themselves around soloing builds. Again, the Defender, imo, could've done the same, but even though he didn't he very likely has built himself so that he can support these other people's ATs in doing whatever it is they do. In fact, I've noticed as the groups get bigger, the most innefective groups tend to lack Defenders, no matter how much people try to brag about how they can solo stuff without Defenders (I can immediately think of a specifc player who claims that defenders, especially empathy, aren't necessary who I persoanlly have witnessed die multiple times in a single mission without one)....

One thing I beg, do not make it so every single group NEEDS a Defender. Right now, a duo is missing 3 of the 5 ATs from a Pentad. Please do not make it so all duos need that second person to be a Defender. Even in a group of 5, chances are one AT will be doubled up and another missing. Please do not make that group of 5 require a Defender so that everyone else ends up getting shafted from groups, to ensure that Defenders can get in.

In short, Defenders are fine. Scrappers are fine. All ATs are fine the way they are. If any AT has a problem with being not needed in groups, it's either Scrappers or Blasters, since the one and only thing they do for groups is damage more than they get damaged, and that role is already taken by Tankers with more +res, Defenders with more debuffs/buffs, and Controllers with more holds/pet agro.

Don't believe me? Take a Controller, Defender, Tanker, with any primary and secondary powerset combination you want, and you can probably take on any even level AV without any deaths. But, if you have a Scrapper, Controller, and Defender, you're gonna start to have to worry about the powersets used and the AV yoiu go against.... Switch out a Blaster or Scrapper for the Controller, Defender, or Tanker, and you'll find you always have to worry about the powersets and the AV. Well, that is ignoring Ice Tankers, at least....

[ QUOTE ]
Why doesn't Burn only affect 5 enemies? By Geko's reasoning, they can have INFINITE damage, if there's an infinite amount of foes there!

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, whether you meant to or not, I think you just hit on something. People have commented that what makes the solo game so easy is the power of AoE. So, maybe there should be a cap on the number of mobs affected.

But it should certainly be more than 5. In normal gameplay, you probably come across 10-15 mobs, max, so maybe that's all that should be affected? Now, there are times I've seen fire tanks herd 20-30 mobs, maybe more, since at that point it's hard to count because they're so bunched up, and sit there with burn and defeat maybe a dozen at a time. Heck, at level 30, I'm already easily able to do 10-15 solo, so if an Empath defender were to fly above me and cast heals, I could easily see gathering 30 mobs at a time and burning them all at once. Plus, levelling a bunch of really low levels, I've noticed the powersets that get the AoE/cone attacks early one are the ones most able to fight effectively (and I'm not talking narrow cones like buckshot or about shadow maul which barely reaches anything). Now, I realize that as people get higher levels, defense/protection becomes more and more important, but certainly we still got the AoE effect going on.

Yeah, according to Geko's post, it's a cap on the number of mobs taht can buff you (effectively capping your defense at whatever 5 mob buffs gives you), not a direct cap on the defense. But that means that the mobs that don't buff you should still be affected, and assuming they still don't, that's a bug, right?

Yeah, at this point, I'm willing to say SR works differently than Ice (although it really is more than clicking one button, but is being reduced down to clicking nothing and rarely having survivable defense). But just like the other three reasons, I see the reason for this nerf not so much as what may/may not actually be in gameplay, but what the devs' perception of how EA works is and whether there's the possibility that it could even occasionally be used the way they consider it.

1. Hmm, I saw plenty of Ice Tankers.... Wasn't until recently that I saw a 50 Ice Tanker, but I've seen them all over the place since I started in October. I think there are fewer people who go with Ice really, because the major reason to do it is for the role playing concept more (and the role playing concept of ice covered warriors is probably less common than a big scorching demonic warrior, anyway), anyway. If you wanted a major herding Tanker, you'd've taken Fire (and my understanding is in pvp fire may be totally screwed if it can lose its toggles, but considering how easy it is to use in pve, I think it's much more than a fair trade off. But that's really a digression, just pointing out that Ice Tankers do exist if you look hard enough.

2 and 3. That's why some people think there should be more +res. The only way to keep from being one shotted ever is to have enough +res. Ultimately, it's all about the design of +res, which imo should never be put into a roleplaying game, but it's a little late for that, now.

4. PvP is irrelevant in any discussion, imo. The only thing it did was point out that some AT powerset combos can handle more types of players than others, which is supposed to be true. Scrappers are according to the manual the best at soloing, so you'd expec them to be able to handle more. Tankers come next, so likewise you'd expect they'd come next in pvp. The reason behind looking at pvp is saying wait a minute, that Blaster is able to solo that Scrapper (which I've had happen), so is something wrong here with those power selections? Or else, that Scrapper, yes, is able to solo the best, but somehow never goes down to anything? That's just not right, either. So, that's where you'd want them to start to look at the powers and say, okay, MoG isn't what it's supposed to be.

5. There are times when nerfing needs to be done, though. For instance, my fire tanker, level 30, I have one slotted Stamina, I have a 6 slotted Blazing Aura with 2 taunts, 2 end, and 2 acc, 6 sltoted Hasten, and all I need to do is run into a group of mobs, taunt, pull about 10 around the corner, sit there, with burn on, and then I don't even need to taunt anymore, just Burn, and they all just sorta die. Meanwhile I'm regenerating endurance, not losing it. Now, at level 30, I may want to at least look at the level of the mobs I'm herding and whether they're bosses or not. But say I was strong enough I didn't have to pay attention to the level of the mob, so if the devs might say that was the standard all ATs were set to, just hitting one or two keys and sitting back without paying much attention, I'd be a little... bored with the game. Some things actually need nerfing. Like the nemesis staff. Now, considering there's over a page of "Official" topics here, dealing with upcoming nerfs, the devs might've gone a little nerf-happy, but at least they're doing it to keep the game enjoyable, and not to just laugh at all the lower level players that will take forever to get to 50 because they can't solo -3 minions (much like the way certain other MMORPGs are set up in the higher levels).

And again, why EA? I think I tried to answer that for you, and came up with 4 possible reasons.

To quickly repeat my own possible reasons:

1) that, in pvp, even Blasters with Aim and Buildup can almost always hit any other character, and theoretically, an Ice Tanker in PvP could somehow jump into the middle of a 64v64 SG battle and get thousands of percent of defense (personally, if that's all the devs were worried about, I'd consider that a fair compromise for Ice tankers to have uber defense, but it may very well be what they were thinking).

2) when defense is pushed beyond the Test cap on EA (just one ability), it looks better than the entire SR set, which is fine for the set as a whole, but since on EA alone is insulting to SR.

3) that it is in only one power, and although most people who get to a high enough level to use it will (from what I'm told) realize that it's best to take other powers, on paper, it looks quite possible to skip all other +defense abilities.

and 4) One that apparently makes no sense with the way Ice actually plays, but that EA can consatntly drain mobs of endurance without letting them run away, which could potentially be compared (albeit apparently a very distant comparison) to Cloak of Fear and the nerf on DA Scrappers.

Ultimately, I'm told here 1-4 don't make sense with the way people actually play Ice, but again, the devs may think otherwise, and that's why people are awaiting the devs' test results, if they ever run them.

Remember, devs aren't nerfing because of the way things are used, necessarily, but because of the way things can be used and the way they personally think it's often used. I'd like to see someone jump in the middle of 20+ mobs to minimize their chances of being hit by mobs that have a huge accuracy bonus AND are higher level, without dying, because if the devs think that's possible (and likely they'll use Stealth and large cluster spawns to show that it is... watch for that) that's ultimately what their reasoning is for capping the number of mobs that can buff through EA.

And I mentioned that on Page 6 of the Scrapper test thread.... Why the heck did they slot the SR Scrapper with Quickness AND A 6 slotted Hasten? 5 slots is perma with quickness, heh. I think perhaps, they typoed, and the 5 slots on DA's Hasten was supposed to be 5 slots on SR's, and the 6 slots was supposed to be on DA.... Not sure, though.

Thanks for the clarification on the recharge enhancements, as well as the End usage info.

As for Hasten, I've got it on my Tank, and most that I've paired with have it. But clearly in general, Hasten is overhyped, at least imo, so I could believe there are Tankers out there that saw through it and chose for themselves. I think the problem Archuimedes and I were alluding to is that a lot of people don't. And I'd bet that when the devs test the various Tanker builds to see how they stand against the Scrapper builds, they'll throw Hasten on each of them.

In that case, my first post should have been good news for you. I was explaining the change to Ice might have been because the community outside Ice could look at it and think EA's got too much defense (that's where I made the Winter Lord comment that some newb might think Ice has too much defense). With the EA nerf, it appears to be a fairly minor nerf, but left enough room that the community at large will definitely see it as weak, so now maybe the devs can look at Ice and do something to fix it.

Intenal testing of Tankers, of course, will probably end up being against +2s and +4s using whatever the most powerful AoE secondary is. Good luck, though.

Hmm, since it seems are being more cordial, finally, I'll return to being more cordial, again.

I did not meant o offend anyone by suggesting you weren't doing any sort of testing. When people started complaining that the devs alpha strike rule (automatically hitting after an inordinately large number of misses) was affecting SR Scrappers adversely, immediately, people started testing to see the exact number of hits before an alpha strike. These numbers were posted on the boards an discussed. When someone mentionedthat the accuracy debuff on dark meelee is too low to consider slotting, I actually went on to the server and compared a sample of attacks against me without the debuff and then with the debuff going to compare (granted the sample size was only a couple hundred of attacks, which was awfully small, simply because the mobs would die if I debuffed them too much by attacking them). Essentially something you might expect the devs to do with internal testing that they don't release, only without bugs. What I was expecting was someone here, not everyone, who thought the nerf was going to actually seriously adversely affect their gameplay to compare the differences to what they can do on live and what they can do on the test server and then post it. That was before anyone agreed that the changes to EA's defense were more situational than not, so now I understand why you weren't posting numbers comparing test play to live play, but instead were comparing ATs.

So, I apologize if it appeared that I thought you were stupid or moronic. I hadn't. I was just confused why you were running numbers comparing ATs instead of running numbers comparing Live to Test.

As for slotting EA with 2 recharges along with perma hasten being optimal, I'm curious why? Someone here said it was permanent without any recharges, so is there a reason for the recharges other than making it perma? Does EA degrade or something that I don't know about?

Last thinig I'd like to say:
[ QUOTE ]
I honestly hope things don't come to a point where an Ice Tanker (to be seen as viable) has three power pool selections that they must have: speed (for hasten), fitness (for stamina), and fighting (for tough).

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a bit of friendly advice, don't go by someone else's build. I've been told SR Scrappers need Tough to mitigate one shots. The only attacks I've been one shotted by without Tough would've killed me with Tough. This may not be true for EA, but then that's someone else's build. Also, I was told all Scrappers need Hasten, but testing it on Test, I didn't have that much different of a damage output, and I simply used more endurance, because of its drain. I needed to put 4 extra slots in it to make it permanent, which as an SR, I prefer in other places. Back when Elude changes occurred, people said respec out of your toggles, but I didn't believe them. Now more and more people on the boards are saying use Elude in addition to your toggles.

Now, Stamina, unfortunately, is probably a must for everyone, even if you don't need to 6 slot it (and more endurance intensive builds will need to 6 slot it). But I've seen people not train it....

Don't get me wrong, I'd expect that Speed, Fitness, and Fighting were all recommended for pretty much every meelee combination out there, but whether it's necessary ultimately comes down to your decision.

I understand the worry that when the devs nerf something, they may be doing it because they also trained Tough. But if they didn't train Tough, would they have trained Aid Self, which potentially could be most useful by high defense characters? Aid Self of course, isn't a must, but my point is you have to weigh the advantages as you see it. Just because the devs seem to think Ability X is a must doesn't mean we have to follow in their footsteps. Heck, I'd be running a Super Reflexes Scrapper without Elude if I followed the devs' build.....

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming Ice Tankers always get buffs from 5 mobs with EA shows a complete lack of misunderstanding in how Energy Absorption works.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said it did, and in fact, that's why I didn't figure in a 6 slotted EA with defense build (really seems like what you're uspposed to do if you really, really want high defense, anyway). Keep in mind, if you 6 slot Elude with Defense, it's down 3/5 of the time without Quickness or Hasten, half the time with just Quickness, and maybe 1/3 of the time with quickness and hasten. If you have Haten AND Quickness, you can make Elude perma with only 4 recharges, and can save the other two for defense, assuming you have the slots to spare.

You can effectively get EA to give you at least 40% defense every time you fight a single mob or more, if you 6 slot it with defense.

I kept the base 93.25% on EA because I figured they both have their drawbacks with regards to down time if 6 slotted with defense.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, because mob sizes are not consistent over time because things die, EA ends up providing on average the roughly the same level of defense (56.25%) with EA unenhanced (which is okay since you stated Elude was unenhanced above).

[/ QUOTE ]

I highly doubt this, if you're fighting in large groups, because at least 1/10 of the time you spend fighting, you'll be fighting groups of 20 mobs or more, which gives you 375% or so defense, andd assuming you never use Energy Absorption after they start dropping, you'll have a 37.5% average defense already.... But when there are only 4 lts and a boss left and you're still getting 93.25% from the drain, unslotted, and so if that happens for another major portion of the battle, you'll have a pretty deent avg defense, certainly more so than 50ish. And this is all assuming that the last mobs you take down will be the toughest, since sometiimes groups try to weed out the tougher mobs, so there could very well be less danger near the end of a battle, anyway. I.e., you need your defense more at the beginning of battles than halfway into it, usually.

Sometimes EA will be above Elude for DEF and as the mob size dwindles EA will have less DEF than Elude. Not to mention that the DEF for Elude is across the board, including Psi. As are all of the other SR powers, no holes. Meaning that SR will have better DEF than Ice in both Fire and Psi.

[ QUOTE ]
Also Ice's base DEF ratings are only 5% higher than those of SR for Smash, Lethal, Neg, Energy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, this I see as a problem, not to mention the Psi problems of Ice, if it's in fact true. Certainly, the base +defense should be at least 35% on all attack types, without the big EA power.

[ QUOTE ]
You came in here and all but called us all morons and told us we'd all proven and showed nothing. I mean did you really truly expect opened arms to that kind of an entrance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse me? Quote me. Where in my first post here, where I "came in" did I even come close to calling anyone here a moron? It's inferences like these that make me highly doubt the follwing statment:

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be interested to hear it, I'd just prefer you spend the time to find the other thread in the Tanker forum, read through it. Find Havoks post on the Tanker forum and read through it. And then present your ideas on the Tanker forum thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

And again, I'm focused more on things that are happening because of the EA change than on balancing Ice in general.

[ QUOTE ]
It was the bit where you commented that EA is a slap in the face to SR that confused me, immedately after mentioning Winter Lord babies. Perhaps I read something out of context, but that part of your post isn't the clearest in any case.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I say it's a slap in hte face is because there will be players that are the equivalent of the perma-Eluders without toggles in the Ice set (the reason I mentioned Winter Lord).

Before I go on, I'll mention your later question about perma-Elude and SR. Off the top of my head, I can name 3 or 4 players or so that are level 50 SR Scrappers. One of them didn't even take Elude. The others stack it with their toggles. I only use perma Elude and stack it with my toggles in tougher situations. None of them use perma-Elude without toggles.

The end drops are just too annoying (the equivalent of 3 end a sec if you have 6 slotted Stamina, only they also force you to drop any toggles, including SR toggles and/or Pool/EPP toggles). For general gameplay, SR may appear to do well with perma-Elude and no toggles, but then the problem is it's no where near as saving perma-Elude for emergencies. Running off solo on 8 person team missions, where the mobs are similar to me in level, I do fairly well without even using Elude, so I doubt anyone needs more than 60% total defense (what my defense is at without Elude). And if there are higher level bosses, I throw up Elude, and have no problems there.

With Elude at a 65% base (give or take 5%), without enhancements, we're talking about 50% of our potential defense in Elude, unless we slot it.

EA on the other hand would be capped at a 93.25% base, which is closer to 2/3 of the defense in Ice, if I understand it correctly. The reason I thought the devs might've frowned on this is without the cap, it's not only potentially the "all your eggs in one basket syndrome," (and note, as I pointed out with a lack of actual toggle-less perma-Eluders, most people will/should still train both, but some may think EA Is sooo powerful it doesn't need anything else) but it's also that the one basket is better than the entire set of SR, defense wise.

There's nothing wrong with Ice outdoing SR. In fact it should.

The big problem I saw is a potential problem with people deciding they can train two powers from Ice (EA and Wet Ice for status protection), and then for the majority of the things they tank, actually out do an entire Scrapper secondary. Note, SR needs to be worse in terms of protection, against mobs, but not seven times worse....

[ QUOTE ]
I'll give you 3 plausable reasons. 1) Ice is already verging on vastly overpowering in large pvp battles. Uncappable defense would vastly overdo it- you think permaEluders are fun? HOed, an Ice tank fighting 7 foes can floor pretty much every single acc buff in the entire game. 2) The EA power in any other set would be vastly overpowering. From invul to fire to -blasters-, this power is only not overpowering in Ice because of the general 'mehness' of the rest of the set. 3) To force/encourage people to take all the powers in thier set.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, these are things possibly involved in the devs reasoning, but they all say that EA is "too powerful," without explaining what exactly about it the devs thought was too powerful.

On that note,

1) Note, the devs have said they're not planning on changing powers just because of pvp, although I'm not entirely sure I believe this. Although, I'm a little skeptical that this was the devs reasoning, as I doubt more than 5 people would be close enough to use EA in general, anyway, since players don't tend to huddle up like NPCs.

2) I think you're getting at exactly what I was getting at, only you seem to think Ice is the only set with "meh" powers. Stick this ability in SR in place of Elude, and people would not only drop the toggles, but the passives as well. Stick it in SR with the rest of SR powers active, and you wouldn't notice a difference against anything but psionics and lone AVs and Monsters. If that's what you think the devs mean by too powerrful, then yes, I think you might be right, and that's the only thing I was trying to say in my first post, here.

3) I think only one person has stated that they don't take all the powers in the set, so I doubt this alone is really the issue. It's not just the eggs in one basket problem, from the way I see it, it's that the one "basket" could be a lot weaker, i.e. comparable in defense to an entire defensive Scrapper set, and still be an all your eggs in one basket type of thing.

4) I thought of another possibility why EA is getting a nerf, and it's not related at all to the defense (though it could be considered together with the defense). Remember the comment about Cloak of Fear changes? Perhaps the devs thought Ice Tankers were draining mobs endurance so much they were forcing enemies to use nothing but brawl, which they may consider effectively the same as locking mobs into place with fear. I certainly hope this is not the case, but it could be yet another one of the devs reasons.

[ QUOTE ]
On this point, everyone's been polite enough not to say it,

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone's been polite? I've missed that. I've only noticed flames for trying to figure out what the devs were thinking....

[ QUOTE ]
you considered that Elude is even worse about that than EA will ever be?

[/ QUOTE ]

To specifically clarify, Elude is most definitely not usable as the sole comprehensive defense for SR. Some people on the boards have suggested dropping Focused Senses and Evasion (the range and aoe toggle), but aboslutely everyone has to take the first meelee toggle, I have not heard of any cases of perma-Elude scrappers without passive defenses, and have yet to actually meet any of these perma Elude only scrappers in game, past the 40s.... So, in other words if there are level 50 SR scrappers with perma-Elude and no toggles out there, they're only dropping two +def powers out of seven.... Certianly, I've seen a few struggle through the 40s, but usually in a group with a Empath or Kinetics casting end recovery on them constantly. I hardly call that all your eggs in one basket.

[ QUOTE ]
Not even sure what you're talking about with 95% being directly affected by the acc buffs.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm talking about is potential solutions (and I have a few) for mobs with bonus accuracy or defense debuffs, without including a rollback on the defense cap nerf. You've made it clear you don't want to hear it, amd that it doesn't belong, here.

[ QUOTE ]
If you have contributions, feel free to post, but please try to come up with something we haven't come up with if you're going to post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can ask for the same thing, can't I? My initial contribution was that as an SR Scrapper, I felt I could see why the devs were nerfing EA. I was flamed, so you obviously don't care have any contributions at all. All I heard was about how Ice compared to Invuln, and how Ice sucked and shouldn't've been nerfed at all, and that really suggests to me you've been entirely ignoring what I've said and you just kept on repeating what you've been saying.

[ QUOTE ]
We could use suggetions, ideas, and interesting thoughts, but we really don't like being told 'your power is fine' from someone who doesn't appear to understand the ice armor dynamic very well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did I say it was fine? I've only been talking about the defensive aspect of it, and did mention suggestions on how to fix it, where I was subsequently flamed for not being an Ice Armor tank (flaming my suggsetions was clearly an afterthought).

So, what I can do to cntribute is offer advice on Ice Armor from the standpoint of an outsider. If you don't wanna hear suggestions from me, without flaming me, that's one less fresh viewpoint you're gonna get. As one of the few people here at least partly supporting the nerf, I'd think you'd want my opinions and not simply flame me for not having read 500 pages of Ice Tanker threads spread out over the boards and for not running an Ice Tanker to 50, every time I post.

[ QUOTE ]
jackDrek-

I'm sorry. I see no reason whatsoever that a SR should be able to outdefend an Ice tank. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

For at least the third time explicitly stating this, I agree completely.

As for Circeus's post, I trust that there is information constantly being generated on the Tanker forum and elsewhere regarding possible fixes to Ice. But this thread is still in the Training Server forum and on the 49th page before I posted is still referring to the Energy Absorption nerf. Now, you claim that the reasoning behind the nerf was mentioned on page 2, which somehow I don't see... The only thing I do see is Geko suggesting that it's "still too powerful." Well, I was offering a possible reason for why they might think it's too powerful (actually, I ended up offering two). If you don't want to hear what possible reason they had, I guess that's fine, but good luck convincing the red names that you shouldn't be nerfed without having any idea why Ice was nerfed in the first place.

Now, you did manage to bring up the point of mobs using +acc on themselves making 95% a little too low. I could comment on a few alternative solutions, but since I know it will be misconstrued as an I hate Ice Armor post, solely because some people other appear to be die hard fans of the way it's operating on live (imo, not a viable solution), I'll refrain.

Alright, first off, don't tell me what the tone of my posts are. This is becoming a dead horse, but it's clearly one where I'm being completely mischaracterized. The tone of my posts is NOT to bash Ice Tankers or to claim they are the uber set. It enver was, and if you think it was, go back and read my posts very carefully.

The message of my all my posts here were clearly to defend the defense aspect of the EA nerf. Not to address the one shot problems, the agro problems, the psi protect problems, etc....

For all that I've been insulted for not reading page after page of what's being called a "friendly" discussion on how to fix Ice, I have read enough to know that mostly it's people complaining about the nerf and most of those complaints specifically centered around the defense cap.

In defending the devs decision to cap, I compared EA's defense to SR. SR potentially can have a +defense of 209%, if Elude is 6 slotted with defense SOs rather than recharge (but only for 100 seconds). I don't want some crazy Ice Tanker to come along and say, "Haha, you only get 209% defense? I can jump next to that Fire Tank and get 500% defense, just from Energy Absorption!" That's ridiculous. Yes, imo, I don't think it would be a good idea not to train the other +defense Ice abilities, but the fact is some Winter Lord newbie could do that and still have a huge defense at times. The point is, there's a certain limit where you simply don't need more defense, which is why I'm asking if anyone can numerically show me that the cap actually hurts them on Test. I assume that it's 95% on Test as a "test" number, but hte purpose of a cap is very clear to me that it's to prevent a big slap in the face to SR, whether that slap is deserved or not, as well as to prevent insane situations where Ice Tankers would try to tank +13s throughout an entire mission (we're not talking about a single spawn, which would only have 5 or so in it... one hit from a +13 would one shot any Ice tanker no matter what defense, anyway). As a side note, I would never ask a level 40, no matter what build, to tank my level 50 missions, so yes, I do see a problem if some more foolhardy Ice Tankers for some reason think they should be tanking them.

As for AV accuracy, I got that from here. I've seen those numbers from other places, so I assume they've been tested, but that's the quickest place on the boards to reference them. AVs have no where near a 200% accuracy, as I can tell you from attempts to solo some of them, even without using Elude.

As for the question about why not have 95% defense all of the time when other builds have 95% res? I think the devs wrestled with that one on Test, themselves, removing the acc modifier per level, but I guess that part disappeared. One thing to note is that +res will always be better because if you're getting hit for 5% of the damage delivered, you can heal that back easier than 100% of the damage delivered in 1/10 the time (Assuming a 50% chance to hit by even level mobs). Ultimately, it goes back to keeping the enormous +defense will not give the tankiness Ice is looking for. But keep in mind, 95% of the time, 95% defense is better than 95% resistance. It's just the 5% of the time where the break in defense really sucks, because you're hit for 20 times the damage....

From Circeus:
[ QUOTE ]
In fact I do spend time testing several different builds for Ice Tankers on Test. To the point where I put together bug reports for the entire set. And I do this any time a patch list on test shows changes to the set.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so you do play on Test. And your complaint is about AVs and Monsters. So, where are your hard numbers showing that +2 AVs or lower hit you more often on Test than on Live? You complained about the changes to Energy Absorption, but did you really run hard tests with sufficiently large samples to show that there really was a change to how often you got hit? If not, you're only going on the gut instinct thtat because the Test notes say there's a nerf, you're really that much worse off. Show me.

Again from Circeus:
[ QUOTE ]
And Archimedes is right, we're not arguing at all about standard encounters being all that badly damaged by this. That was what this whole conversation started as, yes, but it has morphed into a conversation about the general inadequecies of the set.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this topic is clearly still about Energy Absorption's defense nerf. I suggested alternatives to keeping EA's defense as is on live, and was told that Ice Armor characters want their defense from EA back. I pointed out that won't help, and Archimedes, who you're referring to, just admitted it:

From Archimedes:
[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, this discussion has never, ever been about Ice Armor's ability to take on any villian of Boss level or lower. It has always been about our inability to successfully tanker AV or Monster class villains.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't tank AVs now, why do you care about that aspect of it? It's not being nerfed, you're still able to take +2 AVs/Monsters as easily as you ould before, and even +9 AVs will be capped if they deal any damage type that Ice gets without EA.

And before anyone puts words in my mouth, I said "defense" is capped, I realize you can still get one or two shotted (depending on the level difference of the AV), but that's no different from Live.

Again, I need to see hard numbers that this is incorrect

From Circeus again:
[ QUOTE ]
This has led to several different comparisons, primarily to an Invuln Tanker since they are supposed to be the baseline Tanker for Tankers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this fits in witht he theme of the thread, simply because people think the defense aspect of Energy Absorption will keep Ice closer in line with the other Tanker sets more on the Live version than the Test, and agian, I don't see this, since defense wil be capped against pretty much everything you fight. I can completely understand other problems with the nerf (end draining 5 mobs as opposed to all of them around you would be a problem), but the recurring theme of the thread through all 50ish pages is the defense cap.

Again from Circeus:
[ QUOTE ]
And we have hard numbers. That's what number crunching is all about - hard numbers. And we've done our homework, and you've done little to prove that we haven't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I've done quite a bit. I pointed out that the defense on Test is really not that different from Live, unless you're talking about taking much, much higher levels without using defense inspirations (would definitely need heals, but no defense insps would be useful).

So, since you've said you've done testing, show me. Answer the following questions about these hard numbers: how large was the sample of attacks against you? How many times were you hit, and how many times did they miss? Did you have Energy Absorption up at all times through the test, surrounded by at least 5 mobs? Did you ever pop a luck by accident? Were you tracking the attacks of a single mob, or were you tracking multiple mobs? Did you run the same exact test on Live and come up with different numbers?

And if you were actually able to run hard number tests against an AV to compare Live to Test, I'd like to know how....

I recognize that there are inadequacies within the set, but you're not gonna get a fix by removing the defense cap portion of the nerf on Test. Apparently, you don't eve want a small +res, from these last few pages. The only other solution, I've seen in this thread was the suggestion to remove the 5% soft cap on the mininum chance to hit against Ice Armor. But I see this event as unlikely, because that's getting awfully close to a phase shift with the ability to attack (I would hope the devs never go under a 2.5% chance if they accepted this idea, because that's really one hit every two minutes per mob, or in other words, every time Hasten recycles).

All I've been asking, and I will keep on asking, is why you want to keep extra defense against things you admit defense alone doesn't even work against?

From JJ_Jason:
[ QUOTE ]
You want experience? How about Nanoc. From level 26-47, he's never had Frozen Armor, or Glacial Armor. He picked up tough around 30, and slotted it from there. I've played at least 50-100 hours getting to where I am now. Wet Ice, and EA. Nothing more for defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's exactly why I think the changes to EA defensewise are necessary. No one should expect their defense to be capped against a +4 AV from one single ability. Tough does not help with +defense. Weave does, if that's what you meant. On the Test server, you would have had about an 18% chance of being hit in the same scenario. Had you taken Weave and not even slotted it, you would've been capped defense wise on Test (Siege would have had a 5% chance to hit you). Had you taken Frozen Armor, you would have been capped on Test. Had a defender cast Fortitude on you, I think you would've been capped, and had a Defender or Controller ran Maneuvers, you would've been capped. With one small luck inspiratin, you would've been capped on Test. In other words, even with just EA running, you'd still be just as defensive as you could possibly be on Test. Now, my real question is what you did after those 7 mobs dropped, or if you just went straight for Siege first then the mobs (which is normally not what other players will do). Whether on Live or Test, when you drop under 5 mobs, you're gonn have under the 95% defense, and that's not gonna change by allowing more mobs to drain.

Again by JJ_Jason:
[ QUOTE ]
Why are we calling you a Troll? Because you seem to be defending the idea that Ice is just fine, and EA needs toned down. If you feel EA needs toned down, you are entitled to your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I do feel that EA's defense on Live (and only its defense) needs to be toned down so it isn't so dominant, as I explicitly stated several times. You don't need a 500% defense, unless you planned on tanking Siege without an SK... and certainly it would be best if you specifically were more inclined to take more than two defensive powers from your Tanker primary....

On that note, to make sure this misperception that I think "that Ice is just fine" doesn't persist:

All quotes from me:

[ QUOTE ]
(though I'd admit, it's not very effective to have a tank on the team sitting in hibernation).

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Granted the lack of Psionic protection is a problem that should be fixed,

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the 95% cap is a bit too low,

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You just explained that EA doesn't help against AVs and monsters, as is, because of one (or even two) shottedness. And I agree that this is a serious problem for any defense based set.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, Ice will not compare to other Tanker primaries.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Defense isn't what's needed to protect from the eminators, which is exactly what I said before when I said some level of damage resistance should also be factored into Ice. You simply can't protect yourself from 20 mobs all doing buffed damage compared to your level for prolonged periods of time.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Third, as for being two shotted by an AV, it happens, and always will, no matter how high the defense.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Last, as for defense debuffs, it's pretty much the same idea as quartz eminators. You're never gonna be immune to defense debuffs or acc buffs used against you.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I don't get is why the Ice Tankers here actually want the majority of their defense in one single ability that requires multiple foes nearby (if the foes go down, so does your defense!) rather than spread out and/or mixed with more +res, based on the abilities (eg, +res vs all but psi with EA would be nice, wouldn't it??)?

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Likewise, anything that would buff or debuff that much (including DE eminators) would very likely be doing enough damage, buffed wise or level wise, that EA wouldn't help you past the test server's 95% cap, because rounding up that many mobs would kill you, anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At some point we might ask for a lowering of defense debuffs and acc buffs on certain abilities, but then every Invuln Tanker and Scrapper will cry "nerf" when they suddenly have to slot an SO or train another buffing attack besides Invincibility to be able to hit an opponenent 95% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I was suggesting when I said +res wasn't the same +res that Invuln gets, eww.... I'd hardly want every primary to be the same. I was suggesting a smaller +res that would give some survivability from near full health to nil or in other words a chance to hit hibernate or whatever. Something along the upper limits of the 20% resist that you could get for fire and toxic, nothing like you'd get for cold. Maybe give EA a 5% +res against all per enemy with the same 5 enemy cap.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ice needs to be comparable to them, and I agree with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, JJ, most of my posts here are really getting at what you were saying earlier:
[ QUOTE ]
But if you decrease the "per mob" bonus, and increase the cap, does that really help us? Now if I only have one or two mobs I can hit in a group, I get a decent boost.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not needing a herd of mobs to cap defense against a +2 AV would be nice, don't you think? I do think End Drain sounds like it's important, because some claim Ice Tankers use it as another defense, but raising the cap, even back to Live status in general. 95% is almost always enough defense, accoding to the numbers. The first problem is when you run low on mobs, you're gonna want something to boost your defense, and the other problem is that you will always be hit 5% of the time, and that the cap on Test will not make either of these problems worse or better.

Again, back to my first post in this thread. I think I can see exactly why the devs put a cap on the +defense of EA. As is now, it's not only more +defense than any single ability should get, it's more defense than is really useful....