[ QUOTE ]
snip
[/ QUOTE ]
While you've got your nose in your dictionary, can you look up the verb "to call" for me? I'd be interested to know if it's a synonym for the verb "to imply".
Bottom line: you claimed I called the difference trivial. I didn't. The word was never used by me. You can legitimately criticize my downplaying the significance of the difference, but you don't need to put words in my mouth to do it.
[ QUOTE ]
It may not be strictly correct, but considering human nature i would've expected it be an ironic statement and consequently have the less strictly correct meaning. (Ironic in the literary sense, not the popular sense.) It seems to me that Centerfire's reaction would only tend to confirm that interpretation, despite how the poster may have intended it. This is really rather amusing.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is funny. 
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
Okaaaaaaaay, so how bout them trick arrow defenders?
[ QUOTE ]
Okaaaaaaaay, so how bout them trick arrow defenders?
[/ QUOTE ]
They are how you play the game on 'super duper hard mode.' This is "By Design."
*ducks*
"Experience is the mother of good judgement. Bad judgement is the father of experience."
[ QUOTE ]
Okaaaaaaaay, so how bout them trick arrow defenders?
[/ QUOTE ]
...Are there any left?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okaaaaaaaay, so how bout them trick arrow defenders?
[/ QUOTE ]
...Are there any left?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well I haven't DELETED mine yet. So sort of I guess.
Sgt Liberty - 50 Martial Arts / Super Reflexes
Verdigris Eagle - 50 Archery / Energy Manipulation
Stormeye - 50 Storm Summoning / Electric Blast
Did I just step into a regen thread in the scrapper forum? 'Cause it sure feels like it.
I'm just sayin'.
[ QUOTE ]
If you strike Trick Arrow down now, it will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
[/ QUOTE ]
Really?
*tries to strike Trick Arrow down*
*can't do enough damage with the arrows to overcome passive regen*
Aww..
A no attack "Group-Friendly" Defender is like a "Team Friendly" basketball player who won't dribble, run, or shoot, under any circumstances. "I'm a PASSER."
[ QUOTE ]
*ducks*
[/ QUOTE ]
No. Pigeons.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you strike Trick Arrow down now, it will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
[/ QUOTE ]
Really?
*tries to strike Trick Arrow down*
*can't do enough damage with the arrows to overcome passive regen*
Aww..
[/ QUOTE ]
I laughed at this, then had to shed some tears because it was true.
[ QUOTE ]
Note on testing:
I haven't checked this myself, but "people" say that the sets don't really acheive the final ratio of damage, etc. until level 20. I knowl, for HP, that the level 1's are all within 5 HP of each other, while at level 40-ish they've spread to whatever their final value is.
Level 15 may be a little early for testing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually I beleive "back in the day" it was said that the damage does not normalize across the board till level 30. Though most everyone reached correct ratio by level 20. So 20 should e fine but I would suggest for any real test you test at level 30 or above. Heck do it at level 50 to make sure you completely remove the variable.
Defender blasts are I am quite certain set to 66% of blaster blasts. Also blaster blasts are apprently NOT 100% effectivness but some postive percent based off some mysterious hidden number. Which we are not really privy to. Some people here have said here the corruptors are 100% blast strength. Given that they are 77% of blasters blast strength(a werid number) I consider the arguement that corruptors are in fact the baseline damage to have more than a little merit. Regardless there is no way to really know what the underlying base damage is, when the devs buffed tanks for example I think they said it was to 80% of blaster damage so that really answered nothing 
For all we really know it could be:
Tanks X+5%
Scappers X+15%
Corruptors X-5%
Defenders X-15%
Blasters X+20%
C0ntrollers X-30%
With X being some magic base number. I point this out because with out really knowing the equation the math an get all wonky if your not careful.
So ...
What is the final word about FF?
Everything, every single positive word I've heard about the set for months boils down to, "Yeah, love teaming with bubblers. Would I play one? Err ... just love getting those buffs."
Changing repulsion bomb so that it's enemy targettable was a nice touch ... but you folks missed out on how it never, ever was the knockback people wanted from the power. It was the disorient and quick recharge that made it situationally valuable; pepole worked HARD at mitigating the KB so it would be useful in teams. Now? You made it more useable at the expense of making it far less useful. And you did nothing to its needlessly long animation time. When I fire off a power with a 3+ second animation, I expect something pretty spectacular to go off, but when the ragdoll rollback hit, I had mobs standing up in mid-flight. The power didn't even interrupt the mobs' attack chain.
Please, _Castle_, if you folks are going to keep FF weighed down with situational powers, can you tell us, specifically, what those situations are? You, Geko, and Statesman have all previously given examples about when phases should be used, but no one has ever told us when FF's moment to shine is, or was intended to be.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Note on testing:
I haven't checked this myself, but "people" say that the sets don't really acheive the final ratio of damage, etc. until level 20. I knowl, for HP, that the level 1's are all within 5 HP of each other, while at level 40-ish they've spread to whatever their final value is.
Level 15 may be a little early for testing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually I beleive "back in the day" it was said that the damage does not normalize across the board till level 30. Though most everyone reached correct ratio by level 20. So 20 should e fine but I would suggest for any real test you test at level 30 or above. Heck do it at level 50 to make sure you completely remove the variable.
Defender blasts are I am quite certain set to 66% of blaster blasts. Also blaster blasts are apprently NOT 100% effectivness but some postive percent based off some mysterious hidden number. Which we are not really privy to. Some people here have said here the corruptors are 100% blast strength. Given that they are 77% of blasters blast strength(a werid number) I consider the arguement that corruptors are in fact the baseline damage to have more than a little merit. Regardless there is no way to really know what the underlying base damage is, when the devs buffed tanks for example I think they said it was to 80% of blaster damage so that really answered nothing
For all we really know it could be:
Tanks X+5%
Scappers X+15%
Corruptors X-5%
Defenders X-15%
Blasters X+20%
C0ntrollers X-30%
With X being some magic base number. I point this out because with out really knowing the equation the math an get all wonky if your not careful.
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe the damage scales look like this:
Controllers- 60%
Defenders- 75%
Tankers- 90%
Blasters- 110%
Scrappers- 125%
Although it's just easier to think of blaster damage as 100%
Controllers- 55%
Defenders- 68%
Tankers- 80%
Blasters- 100%
Scrappers- 110%
[ QUOTE ]
Can you explain how exactly the Controller version of FF is superior, despite that the Defender version will be providing more than 40% more mitigation through DEF? Even if you DO include Controller Primaries in the discussion, which is a bit shady, that's going to be a hard case to make.
[/ QUOTE ]
In any given fight[*]Ice Slick will mitigate some damage say at least 25% of incoming damage, I would say more like 50%.[*] Artic Air will mitigate some say 10%, I would say more like 25%[*] Jack Frost will mitigate some, say 5-20%
This is not even including mezzing which obviously will give even more damage mitigation. Really if a controller used force fields at even half the strength of a defender in most cases the controller will be providing vastly superior damage mitigation to a team then a defender will.
On top of this there are alot of bad guy powers that trump defense powers. ALOT of bad guys powers and they are growing in number with every issue. Mudpots, vengence, psi damage, fateweavers, drones? In all these cases a controller will be infinitly more effective at damage mitiagation then a defender because the controller still has his primary set to work with, long after the force field set has been trivialized.
Once your reach 90% damage mitigation, a number both can easily reach, who really cares? Controller or defender the team will generally be taking no real damage, at least none worth mentioning. Which then mean that the other things the defender or controller offers the team becomes important.
A controller bring nearly equal damage, the ability to lockdown a runner, the ability to lockdown an AV, the ability to lockdown a baddy with an auto hit AoE. Superior use of several of the none direct damage mitigation abilities in force fields. Plus a host of other nice debuffs including -perception, -speed, confuse, fear etc. etc. etc.
A defender brings some damage( though they are not generally expected to), and if the team is lucky maybe some powerful end drain. Otherwise not much else.
So controllers have:[*] Generally equal general damage mitigation[*] Superior damage mitigation when some bad guy plays a force field trump card[*] Equal or superior damage[*] Generally superior use of non-direct damage mitigation powers[*] At the epic levels the controller really gets to outstrip the defender by adding mezz protection and vastly superior damage.
All the ATs and all our characters do not exist in some theortically void where you can ask how exactly does the controller or the defender version of force fields compare. There will never be a controller that does not have their primaries and there will never be a defender without their secondaries. For the sake of purpose any comparsions MUST include all the qualities of the compared ATs otherwise your engaging in nothing more then theortical Ivory tower philosophising. The view from the ground is different than the view from the clouds.
Woulda, shoulda, coulda....
Controllers wield force fields far better than a defender can, controllers can leverage their effect far better than a defender can, controller see a greater solo benefit to force fields then a defender can. So who cares which version is stronger? The controller version is BETTER. And thats all that really matters.
Digression(aka rant)
It is annoying me to no end that a very serious issue with defenders has been revealed and while we should be discussing how bad the issue really is and ways and means to to correct it, Scores of posts have been spent in some fruitless arguements about which sheilds are stronger, the difference between primaries and secondaries or soft and hard cotnrols.
Please, this is not the thread for these disscussions. If you want to argue that controller/defender FF strength please do so to your hearts content in some other thread. In this thread could we try to work through the defender issues and possibly create a new and revised defender issue thread using the knowledge we have been given. Several empathy and psi attack peoples have raised valid points and possible solution but they to are getting drowned in all this dross. I believe, and have for some time, that defenders are overshadowed in nearly all ways by controllers now finally we have traction for that arguement, please lets not expend it on silliness.
PS:
Based off a rather vague statement of Statesman's the defense cap can be estimated to be at about 300% so neither defenders nor controllers could ever buff someone to this cap. I think people mean to say that defenders can floor MoB base accuracy. That quiet a bit different since their are alot of variables that go into determining that number. The I7 changes make the differences between minions, lts, bosses, and AVs effectively accuracy slotting rather than tohit buffs. That does not mean the MoBs still can't get tohit buffs or -def buffs.
_Castle_, since Freezing Rain was switched with the Controller version of the power can we make sure that no other storm/ powers are like that? There is no way for us to test powers like LS and Tornado for damage.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* Quality of Life: Currently all powers that prevent status effects last between 60 and 90 seconds, making them impractical for team buffing. Is this intended?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. Things like Clarity and Clear Mind are meant to be used on players as a cure or quick preventative measure for status effects. Maintaining the buff on a full team is not the goal of these powers.
[/ QUOTE ]
If the goal is not to maintain a buffed team, then what is the role of the Empathy Defender? There is no happy medium in this set... the buffs are either too short or take too long to recharge. Spending several hours in PvP on a team doing nothing but clicking 1 button repeatedly because a buff is so short in duration is boring and tedious. I don't mean to be rude, but if the goal is to make this set as boring and non fun as possible, you're succeeding.
Shard Warrior - 50 MA/Regen/BM Scrapper
Founding Member and Leader : Shadow-Force
Co-Leader: Council of Heroes
"Whatever evils come this way... we will be there to stop them."
The_Rad,
I understand all of that, and I agree that a lot of it is unfair on some level. I do not, however, see how any of that is relevant to a discussion of how Force Field's powers can be adjusted such that Controllers will receive less benefit.
Going solely on the powerset's numbers, Controllers already do receive less benefit. That's the only point I was making. While it's true that Controller Primaries allow for greater leveraging of certain FF abilities -- while it's true that Controller Primaries in general tend to compliment and be complimented moreso by the shared Defender/Controller sets -- there is no amount of value-tweaking one can do to the FF set that will correct this problem.
It's all about context. This thread started as a laundry list of power and set-specific tweaks/explanations. The discussion developed (or a thread of the discussion developed) into this issue of FF's being superior for Controllers as a set.
Further, I'd like to emphasize something you yourself pointed out (and which I pointed out earlier):
[ QUOTE ]
Once your reach 90% damage mitigation, a number both can easily reach, who really cares? Controller or defender the team will generally be taking no real damage, at least none worth mentioning.
[/ QUOTE ]
Right, exactly what I was trying to say in that passage of mine you quoted. If the Defender starts at or near the magical 90% mitigation mark for his team, then even if the Controller can catch up -- through use of his primary -- or even if the Controller can SURPASS the Defender's mitigation, is the difference really noticeable?
No, it isn't. Which is why I think that FF actually has an odd sort of advantage relative to other Defender Primaries in regards to Defender/Controller balance. With other sets, it's debatable whether any team will notice the difference in buff/debuff effectiveness when a Controller is wielding them. With FF, since its buffs are so tightly focused in purpose, and since the buffs are such a huge part of the set (which isn't necessarily a good thing), and since Issue 7 is buffing DEF's benefit against higher-level foes, a team IS likely to notice the difference between an FF Defender and an FF Controller (buff-wise).
On the other hand, worst case, the theoretical Controller who can compensate for the Defender's DEF advantage through proactive use of his Primary, isn't going to display a marked advantage in terms of overall survivability benefit to his team.
None of that means the set couldn't use tweaking. None of that means that Controllers are balanced in relation to Defenders. All that means is that I (and apparently a couple of others) don't quite understand or agree with the logic with which certain people are arguing for change.
Oh, and as to this:
[ QUOTE ]
Based off a rather vague statement of Statesman's the defense cap can be estimated to be at about 300% so neither defenders nor controllers could ever buff someone to this cap. I think people mean to say that defenders can floor MoB base accuracy. That quiet a bit different since their are alot of variables that go into determining that number. The I7 changes make the differences between minions, lts, bosses, and AVs effectively accuracy slotting rather than tohit buffs. That does not mean the MoBs still can't get tohit buffs or -def buffs.
[/ QUOTE ]
In Issue 7, DEF is going to scale against higher-conning mobs. The equation dealing with mob ToHit bonuses is being reworked. What this means is that, effectively, no one will ever need more than 45% DEF to floor opponents' accuracy (and reach the 90% mitigation mark), at least in PvE. This is the "cap" to which I was referring.
The exception, of course, is when one is dealing with copious DEF debuffs. But for all intents and purposes, anything over 45% DEF will be overkill in Issue 7.
The DEF cap that Statesman alluded to was something different -- a concept, in fact, that i'm not even sure will survive Issue 7, unless the level curve on it is much steeper than I have reason to believe.
EDIT: As to your rant:
[ QUOTE ]
It is annoying me to no end that a very serious issue with defenders has been revealed and while we should be discussing how bad the issue really is and ways and means to to correct it, Scores of posts have been spent in some fruitless arguements about which sheilds are stronger, the difference between primaries and secondaries or soft and hard cotnrols.
[/ QUOTE ]
I understand your annoyance, but the issues are intertwined. This whole "FF is/isn't better for Controllers" discussion was, in fact, borne out of an attempt to correct what you call the serious Defender issue, or at least out of an attempt to IDENTIFY the exact nature of the problem.
How would you define this serious Defender issue? Are referring to Castle's statement that control powers will be stronger for Controllers whether they appear in Primary or Secondary sets? I'm honestly curious.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze
Nice build
|
[ QUOTE ]
Okaaaaaaaay, so how bout them trick arrow defenders?
[/ QUOTE ]
Truthfully? Everyone knows the problem is activation times, but the real problem is that the activation times in trick arrow in effect "squeeze out" time to attack. Supposedly, *solo* defenders are partially balanced (on average) on the assumption that the buffing/debuffing in the primary will buy you more damage on the target (or more mitigation on you to last longer to inflict more damage), but trick arrow just sucks up too much time. When you mate it with archery to eliminate weapon draw issues, you buy yourself even more activation time problems. So its deal with weapon draw/redraw penalties, or deal with sucky activation on top of sucky activation and having attack chains you lay out on a calendar.
*IF* you get just the right team, and *IF* you make every single shot count, you can be extremely effective with TA or TA/archery. But you practically have to have a crystal ball telling you what target you ought to be shooting at five seconds from now so you can plan ahead: its just way too easy to waste shots.
If all of trick arrow and archery activation times were cut in half, say, on top of the endurance cost reductions Castle referred to earlier, the combo would actually be quite darned good.
Which brings up an interesting issue. Force field defenders trade defense buffing (which means more mitigation/longer lasting fights) for foe debuffing (which speeds up fights). In any situation where a defender trades more offense for more defense, one thing I think should definitely be looked at is endurance. In effect, FF defenders make fights last longer instead of faster: they should somehow grant a little more endurance to themselves and teams to actually last longer in the fight. It doesn't have to be large, but probably something significant (in dispersion bubble, perhaps?).
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
Which brings up an interesting issue. Force field defenders trade defense buffing (which means more mitigation/longer lasting fights) for foe debuffing (which speeds up fights). In any situation where a defender trades more offense for more defense, one thing I think should definitely be looked at is endurance. In effect, FF defenders make fights last longer instead of faster: they should somehow grant a little more endurance to themselves and teams to actually last longer in the fight. It doesn't have to be large, but probably something significant (in dispersion bubble, perhaps?).
[/ QUOTE ]
I like that, although the idea of a +endurance toggle seems counter-intuitive.
Would it be better just to add a +offense power? One of the downsides of the FF set is that it (alone, now) adds nothing to DPS, and +endurance wouldn't help that. It'd be nice, but things would die just as slowly. It might be +offense would track better w/ Dark, (both being defense-only at launch) and Sonic (the resistance side of FF). Force Bubble could add a +damage buff, or Repulsion Bomb -resistance or -defense instead of KB (or in addition to).
[ QUOTE ]
I like that, although the idea of a +endurance toggle seems counter-intuitive.
[/ QUOTE ]
It would be, if it only boosted you; why bother when you can net it out. But an end recovery toggle that boosted everyone within the dispersion bubble does make sense, since its benefits would accrue to team mates as well.
Adding more offense works, but it doesn't so much fix the problem as make it go away. It suggests that the trade of more defense for less offense shouldn't happen at all. That's one way to balance the set against other sets, but then with more offense, defense would tend to have to be reduced to balance the set the way the devs do. If the devs do want to have a range of defense-heavy and offense-heavy defender primaries, then there will always be some stronger and some weaker in net total offensive benefit. The ones with the lower offense and higher defense are in effect being more heavily impacted by endurance, so they need some sort of compensator. And endurance adjustments can't be factored solely in the cost of the defender powers, because offensive oriented buffs help team mates also, so this calculus goes on outside of the defender itself. Team mates have the same issue of being benefited either by an offensive-oriented defender than helps end fights faster or by a defense-oriented defender that helps the team last longer against attacks - but doesn't necessarily help the team last longer in terms of being able to fight longer. The trade is time, and the trade is bit imbalanced unless the defense-oriented set allows some increased offensive staying power to go along with defensive staying power.
Its actually analogous to how enhancements affect attacks. When you slot for accuracy (up to the tohit ceiling) and damage, you increase both dps and dpe. But when you slot for recharge, you only increase dps, and when you slot for endurance, you only increase dpe. In effect, foe defense debuffs and foe resistance debuffs increase team dps and dpe. Ally defense buffs and ally resistance debuffs do not increase either; but in a sense, they increase dps as a percentage of the amount of time you can survive. They don't, however, increase dpe on an adjusted basis.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like that, although the idea of a +endurance toggle seems counter-intuitive.
[/ QUOTE ]
It would be, if it only boosted you; why bother when you can net it out. But an end recovery toggle that boosted everyone within the dispersion bubble does make sense, since its benefits would accrue to team mates as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is why I like it.
[ QUOTE ]
In effect, foe defense debuffs and foe resistance debuffs increase team dps and dpe. Ally defense buffs and ally resistance debuffs do not increase either; but in a sense, they increase dps as a percentage of the amount of time you can survive. They don't, however, increase dpe on an adjusted basis.
[/ QUOTE ]
Did you mean ally resistance buffs?
It takes a long time for +endurance to increase DPS much at all IMX. If that's the point of the +endurance power, I'd much, much, much rather just have +offense in some way. As you say, +offense helps DPE and DPS.
(BTW, I don't see "amount of damage before you die" is any meaningful measurement of DPS. IMO, dieing doesn't lower your DPS much on most teams, it just means somebody elses uses a rez. For Mutation (and Dark Miasma in terms of damage not mitigated, I guess) it might actually increase DPS for you to die.
Now granted, I haven't actually spend much time testing whether death and non-death teams do similar DPS. . . And I understand that POV, but I don't agree w/ it)
I'm going to join the debate, and probably regret it. I'll throw this out there, Defenders aren't valued for their secondaries the same way other ATs are. Why? Because of their two effects generally generated by their secondaries, neither is particularly useful to a team. 1) Damage, 2nd worst compared to controllers and pitiful compared to the "Big boys" scrappers and blasters. Really, this isn't going to change because too much of a boost to the damage dealing capabilities of defenders means they'll step on blaster toes once certain sets lay down their -res or -res/-def/+dmg or what-have you. So.. that brings us to 2) Their debuffs. There really are only two defender attacks with a noticeable debuff effect... irradiate gives a nice -def and short circuit does fairly nice end drain (not as nice as it used to be from what I hear). My dark/dark never really noticed -acc on her attacks through 50 levels. I notice the heck out of the debuff on my dark/ea brute (possibly because it's paired with a defense set? Any math whizes want to take a shot at that?). Why can't we bump up the debuffs on the defender blasts? Or bump up the duration of the debuffs? Make 'em noticeable. Make em useful to the team. Still, I'm not sure where this would leave energy blast, but I'm sure somebody can come up with something (more consistent knockback than blasters? reliable knockback maybe? Think of how useful Air Superiority is...).
All this useless secondary angst spills over into the primary when we find out other ATs get boosted effects when they use our primary as a secondary. Just my $0.02. Sorry if I derailed the discussion, or if this has already been brought up and dismissed.
[ QUOTE ]
Did you mean ally resistance buffs?
[/ QUOTE ]
Oops, yes.
[ QUOTE ]
It takes a long time for +endurance to increase DPS much at all IMX. If that's the point of the +endurance power, I'd much, much, much rather just have +offense in some way. As you say, +offense helps DPE and DPS.
(BTW, I don't see "amount of damage before you die" is any meaningful measurement of DPS. IMO, dieing doesn't lower your DPS much on most teams, it just means somebody elses uses a rez. For Mutation (and Dark Miasma in terms of damage not mitigated, I guess) it might actually increase DPS for you to die.
Now granted, I haven't actually spend much time testing whether death and non-death teams do similar DPS. . . And I understand that POV, but I don't agree w/ it)
[/ QUOTE ]
No, that's not quite what I meant. What I meant is something more like this, and I'll step through my thought process carefully this time so I don't skip any steps.
First, if you have some defender primaries that are focused on increasing the net damage per second against the foes (i.e. "offensive-oriented") they will tend to end fights faster (of course).
If you have defender primaries that are focused on reducing the incoming damage taken by team mates ("defensive-oriented"), they will tend to increase survivability.
Theoretically speaking, you could balance the two by setting the offensive set so that in the amount of time it takes to defeat everyone in a group, the amount of damage (the team with) it takes is about the same as the amount of damage that (the team with) the defensive set takes over the longer period of time that they are fighting. That balances them in a mitigation sense: the offensive set is "mitigating" damage by allowing the team to kill faster.
But that's not balanced in two senses. First, when the defensive set mitigates more damage, allowing a team to fight for a longer period of time, that team's dpe remains lower than the team with the offensive-oriented defender. Thus, while both dish out about the same amount of damage (because they just defeated the same amount of stuff) and both took the same amount of damage (because the defensive set deflected damage, while the offensive set took less time), in effect the team with the defensive set had to expend more endurance in the same fight.
In effect, conferring more offense (by foe debuffs or ally buffs) lowers net incoming damage per fight, and lowers net endurance cost per fight. Conferring more defense (by foe debuffs or ally buffs) lower net incoming damage per fight, but doesn't change endurance cost per fight. Overall, offensive benefits have a pseudo endurance cost benefit implicit in them. This doesn't have anything specifically to do with people dying or straight dps; I made up a pseudo-metric to (try to) highlight the fact that a team with a lot of defense burns more end per fight than a team with a lot of offense, even when their survivability is comparable.
The +recovery is not meant to increase dps: its simply meant to balance the actual benefit a defensive-oriented defender confers to a team relative to an offensive one.
The defender inherent is already endurance-based; it would not break the defender concept at all if defender primaries factored endurance benefits into balancing. It would level the playing field between defense-oriented primaries and offensive-oriented primaries without homogenizing them, and it would be a buff that could be much stronger for defenders than controllers (if its even given to controllers), separating the two significantly. It would certainly be a buff to force field defenders that doesn't unduely unbalance the set.
There is some small hints of this already. Empathy, a more defensive-oriented (healing oriented) set has recovery aura. Radiation, with more offensive punch, has a weaker recovery in AM. Kinetics, which is more offensive-focused, has transference (significant, but situational). It would be interesting, if the more offense a set had, the less endurance manipulation it had, and the more defense (and less offense) a set had, the more endurance manipulation it had; it would equate having more endurance with in effect being the offensive boost that defense-oriented sets had, to balance the more bursty offensive punch that offensive sets had.
Edit: I forgot to mention the *other* sense in which that isn't balanced. The other sense is that even if offense, defense, and endurance costs are balanced, if one defender set confers a net time benefit in allowing its team to go faster, that team will get more xp/hour. So its okay if defensive-oriented sets have a slight edge on offensive ones, or alternatively if the mitigation in the defensive sets is sufficiently strong that it allows the team to fight at higher difficulty levels to equalize the xp/hour rate, in rough terms.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
I still think that if every Defender Secondary was lowered to the current amount because of our primaries, *every* primary had better have some sort of boost ability to damage.
Be it -DAM RES or a personal +DAM of some sort, it effectively makes those sets with a +30% (or more) type damage boost effectively gimpy.
They don't all have to be group beneficial, but FF getting a "focusing lens" single-target bubble that you cast on an enemy that boosts your damage against him (and maybe *only* your damage) would make FF a much more viable soloer.
Still here, even after all this time!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All I said was that calling the gap between 40% defense verses 30% defense trivial because its "only mitigating about 10% more of the absolute incoming damage" represents an essentially irreparable misunderstanding of how defense works all together.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good thing that nobody called the difference trivial, then; you can flog your straw man in peace.
[/ QUOTE ]
Strawman, meet dictionary:
[ QUOTE ]
triv·i·al adj.
1. Of little significance or value.
2. Ordinary; commonplace.
3. Concerned with or involving trivia.
4. Biology. Relating to or designating a species; specific.
5. Mathematics.
a. Of, relating to, or being the solution of an equation in which every variable is equal to zero.
b. Of, relating to, or being the simplest possible case; self-evident.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dictionary, meet Centerfire:
[ QUOTE ]
My characterization of 40% +def vs. 30% +def: "noticeable, but not particularly important except at the margins, i.e., AV fights".
[/ QUOTE ]
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)