[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fiction of the game is a bit inconsistent concerning the hit point bar and damage resistance. In some cases, the HP bar represents a pool of points that must be depleted before the character is dead. In other cases it represents a threshold of pain tolerance that must be exceeded before the character is rendered unconscious. It serves double duty.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're relating hp to the "hp of the shield," rather than the hp of the person. I think overload has a +max hp because your body is overloaded, so you have a higher pain tolerance and can take more damage before you fall.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well it was my interptertation, your citation does not limit or null my interpretation. As its not quoted that your depiction of EA's +Max HP is true, i would still take it as Ablative Shielding; which would be the first one, 'The HP bar represents a pool of points that must be depleted before the character is dead'.
[/ QUOTE ]
The HP bar represents a pool of points of the character that must be depleted usually. After all, depleting the points make the character dead, not making the shield dead. Also, toxic resistance is usually associated with +max hp, so it's very likely that the +max hp is referring to the body, not the shield. But of coz, the quote is not clear about this, it just says a pool of points, but doesn't say the pool of points belong to what. So, you're free to interpret in any way that you like.
Technically, if the hp increase is referring to the hp of the shield, I suppose when the hp of the shield is gone, your shield is broken and the toggle or overload has to drop unfortunately. Also, the shield should +max hp together with a heal, because it doesn't make sense to have a newly activated shield but completely worn out initially.
I think the ablation of the shield that you're thinking about is better attributed to adding resistance, rather than adding hp.
[/ QUOTE ]
But thats the point, little bits here and there to combine into a decent protection in, but say just under that of Def/Res Combo sets without the extra powers like energy drain and such, that keeps with the theme of the set.
Look at the +Max HP's as the connection between the user and the shield or similar less charged varients of Overloads. Im suggesting more resistance anyway, not in huge amounts as the set is predominantly Def but enough to give it that feeling and effect of stopping the damage like an energy shield should.
Perhaps throw it all together for;
Good Defence (energy obviously being the highest with negative as the lowest and a Smashing/leathal Psi defence. about the same as negative, if applicable, Toxic.)
with some ok resists (again energy being the highest and negative/Toxic being the lowest, if at all for toxic. a few percent above them is psi, making the psi defence EAs only majore Psi protection. and all the rest averaged out just above what they are now.)
and lastly the +Max HPs to add up to say +20-30% at most (filling whatever interpretation you might have for it 
)so not huge but not usless.
Or even still +Max End instead (fitting the thematic extra energy this sort of toon might have.)
Fitting it into the set shouldnt be too much bother. Psi Def/Res on Entropy Shield, Change the Auto Resists to reflect the changes, Add +Max HPs/Ends to all Toggles (like Kinetic Shield, Power Shield, Entropy Shield) and do it all in away that would not make the slotting as is redundant (Making the Psi Def/Res as a soild value or even make it the exception) by keeping the +Max HP/End as an unenhancable value.
And lastly adding Taunt to Energy Drain, lord knows we use it enough, so keeping it with its base design it has no Damage/Taunt Aura Toggle.
Balancing all this out to fit in all the Melee ATs for the sake of completness. So that if it is on a Stalker the +Max HPs (if used) dont make them hit their Cap before Overload. If on a Tanker the Def Soft Caps are still not reached (bar Energy) by EA alone before Overload. Etc.
Pretty much 2 things i'd like, a Tougher EA and a Balance to it (not overpowered or underpowered). Cause really theres not many Gimicks you can add to the set to counter balance its underproformance, not unless you move powers or Remove and add a few powers which would be more of a headache.
[ QUOTE ]
EA does not need stamina. It has resistances that are totally optional. If you guys start talking about making the set mimic ice to where you start giving it heals, HP increases, and massive global defense increases, AND THEN let players start building manuevers, weave, and aid self into the build, the set will be over powered.
[/ QUOTE ]
Am I the only one seeing the problem here?
Ice also has no stamina requirement, and can keep their blue bar full. You see Ice has a little power called Energy Absorption, and it allows /ice to refill it's blue bar just as often as EA can. Then using the excuse of being able to use more pools, that also means ice can have conserve power as well as a pool power.
Dirges
[ QUOTE ]
Ice also has no stamina requirement, and can keep their blue bar full. You see Ice has a little power called Energy Absorption, and it allows /ice to refill it's blue bar just as often as EA can. Then using the excuse of being able to use more pools, that also means ice can have conserve power as well as a pool power.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ice armor is very very difficult to run without stamina. It's useful shields net out to 1.56e/sec without adding in additional toggles for capping and survival (tough/weave) for someone who runs ice as a primary aggro magnet to tank effectively. with tough weave it caps at 2.21 end/sec. Very very expensive in endurance terms.
/ea can get away without being an aggro magnet and has less need for t/w, and thus can get away with about 1.04 end/sec use without the need for tough-weave. even with t/w it still caps at about 1.67 end/sec, which means that an /ea brute has a lot easier of a time running without stamina than an ice tanker. (of course this leaves out the fact that brutes attack a lot MORE, on average, than tankers do)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ice also has no stamina requirement, and can keep their blue bar full. You see Ice has a little power called Energy Absorption, and it allows /ice to refill it's blue bar just as often as EA can. Then using the excuse of being able to use more pools, that also means ice can have conserve power as well as a pool power.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ice armor is very very difficult to run without stamina. It's useful shields net out to 1.56e/sec without adding in additional toggles for capping and survival (tough/weave) for someone who runs ice as a primary aggro magnet to tank effectively. with tough weave it caps at 2.21 end/sec. Very very expensive in endurance terms.
/ea can get away without being an aggro magnet and has less need for t/w, and thus can get away with about 1.04 end/sec use without the need for tough-weave. even with t/w it still caps at about 1.67 end/sec, which means that an /ea brute has a lot easier of a time running without stamina than an ice tanker. (of course this leaves out the fact that brutes attack a lot MORE, on average, than tankers do)
[/ QUOTE ]
Why don't you read what I quoted before changing the subject. I replied to someone saying that EA with Ice's extras would be over powered, because EA has such endurance control. I was pointed out that Ice has about the same end control. Yes energy absorbtion gives less end, but still quite easily gives a full blue bar along with it's extra perks.
I will also point out on just a survivability aspect, both sets use the same end cost. The only reason your numbers are higher for Ice is your adding the damage toggle. If your going to use that as a defense. I will also note that Ice will then take less attacks to kill, thus using less end.
Dirges
No, ice doesn't get EA's perks. EA can roll without stamina easily, ice can't without self-weakening or expensive IO slotting.
It's not just the end cost of running the toggles that are the problem, it's ALSO the fact that /ea has more resistance to s/l than ice (ice has none), is able to put out almost the same defense as ice armor against more damage types (about 1.5% less, plus realistic fire defense) PLUS has the anti-aggro of energy cloak to compensate for lacking CE.
don't get me wrong, as my forum handle implies, I am an ice tanker first and foremost, and as my sig implies I am probably the strongest supporter of /ea out there (I find a LOT of similarities to the sets that suit my playstyle) but what I DON'T want to see is ruining the feel of /ea by giving it a recon or dp clone and massive defense bonuses to make it exceed ice TANKER defenses significantly... It's a brute set here, not a tanker set, and it doesn't NEED a heal to make it viable. and all the people agitating for a self-heal are basically agitating for something that will not happen and should not. You are muddying the waters when what we should be looking at is a way to IMPROVE the set without turning it into what it isn't and ruining the way it plays.
NO psi defense for /EA
NO heal for /EA
Changing that would change the entire focus of the set irrevocably. So let's see what we can do to make it better WITHOUT changing those two concrete facts around which the set is built.
+HP in the passives instead of the tier 9 is a good idea.
a taunt component in energy drain is a good idea.
Beyond those ideas, I have seen very few ideas that don't simply turn /ea into stone armor without granite.
And no matter how many snide comments you make about people's ability to read, so far you haven't added anything useful other than 'make /ea more like ____'.
The Ice comparison was started by me and was specifically said about Ice BRUTE numbers, so your comment about Tanker numbers is wrong and also has some negative implications about the ability of people your arguing with to understand balance.
[ QUOTE ]
It's not just the end cost of running the toggles that are the problem, it's ALSO the fact that /ea has more resistance to s/l than ice (ice has none), is able to put out almost the same defense as ice armor against more damage types (about 1.5% less, plus realistic fire defense) PLUS has the anti-aggro of energy cloak to compensate for lacking CE.
[/ QUOTE ]
1. CE provides up to 14% -dmg for Ice. This gets resisted alot but its more than strong enough to outdo the 7.5% S/L resists in EA.
2. Ice also has about 22.5% resistance to Fire in addition to the bit of defense. Ice also has little Cold Def, not that it matters with 120% resists to Cold.
3. Being able to avoid aggro is a dubious talent at best. Even the Stalkers have been given upgrades to make them more able to deal with aggro. Sure both they and EA retain the ability to start fights when they want but the fact that the AT centered around Stealth mechanics just got a buff to their survival outside of that Stealth should say something for us as Brute EA players.
4. i really don't see how EA's cloak is adequate compensation for a cheap taunt aura that slows and does -dmg. Partial compensation, sure. Adequate? eh.....
[ QUOTE ]
Beyond those ideas, I have seen very few ideas that don't simply turn /ea into stone armor without granite.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand your comments about no Psy defense. EA's closest comparison set, Elec has that Psy def. You can't argue that a set strong to Energy shouldn't also have some solid Psy protection due to that.
Level 50 is a journey, not a destination.
▲Scrapper Issues List - Going Rogue Edition▲
[ QUOTE ]
No, ice doesn't get EA's perks. EA can roll without stamina easily, ice can't without self-weakening or expensive IO slotting.
It's not just the end cost of running the toggles that are the problem, it's ALSO the fact that /ea has more resistance to s/l than ice (ice has none), is able to put out almost the same defense as ice armor against more damage types (about 1.5% less, plus realistic fire defense) PLUS has the anti-aggro of energy cloak to compensate for lacking CE.
don't get me wrong, as my forum handle implies, I am an ice tanker first and foremost, and as my sig implies I am probably the strongest supporter of /ea out there (I find a LOT of similarities to the sets that suit my playstyle) but what I DON'T want to see is ruining the feel of /ea by giving it a recon or dp clone and massive defense bonuses to make it exceed ice TANKER defenses significantly... It's a brute set here, not a tanker set, and it doesn't NEED a heal to make it viable. and all the people agitating for a self-heal are basically agitating for something that will not happen and should not. You are muddying the waters when what we should be looking at is a way to IMPROVE the set without turning it into what it isn't and ruining the way it plays.
NO psi defense for /EA
NO heal for /EA
Changing that would change the entire focus of the set irrevocably. So let's see what we can do to make it better WITHOUT changing those two concrete facts around which the set is built.
+HP in the passives instead of the tier 9 is a good idea.
a taunt component in energy drain is a good idea.
Beyond those ideas, I have seen very few ideas that don't simply turn /ea into stone armor without granite.
And no matter how many snide comments you make about people's ability to read, so far you haven't added anything useful other than 'make /ea more like ____'.
[/ QUOTE ]
OK what do you think about enhanceable defense debuff resists? I personally love this, but I've now checked and found that ninjitzu and ice do not get these either. So I am thinking that it probably won't happen. The thing is, ice gets all kinds of slows and damage reduction in addition to defense, which directly affects combat. EA's 'perks' are non-combat. What good is having all the endurance in the world if you are dead? And sure there's the cloak, but once the mob is aggroed, what good is the cloak? The issue to me is that all the other sets have other aspects that form a second or third tier to the protection package. EA's benefits make the set totally cool and unique, and offer all kinds of play options, but they don't contribute to protection.
Don't get me wrong. I ran the ITF for the first time a while back on my EA brute and only recently found out from reading the forums that people consider it hard. My EA rocks. But when I come up against a mob with heavy defense debuffs and my already below par shields are gone, I would like to have something besides stealth and endurance. That's why I thought of enhanceable defense debuffs. But giving those to EA might be thought of by the devs as robbing SR of its glory of defense set par excellance. What are your thoughts?
What about capped energy defense? This is borrowed from comparisons to other themed elemental sets. Fire is immune to fire, ice to ice, elec to energy. Why not make EA immune to energy also? What are your thoughts on this possibility?
I actually do think the +HP in the passives is a good idea as well.
But I went back and read the first post on all this thread and got kind of scared. People want to warp EA into something that it's not. If I logged on one day and found out that From Below, my EA brute that I made back in 2005, my first toon and first 50, with his 300 badges and hundreds of millions of infamy worth of IOs, could not cloak anymore, I would cry. So I don't want to see the set radically altered either. But a few perks here and there would be nice.
I agree no heal.
Why no psi defense? Tons of sets have psi protection these days. Others have positional defense. Others have heals. Others have slows. EA has a cloak and endurance. What does this do for anything against psi? I agree no heal. So this kinds of leaves us with the option of just flat getting rid of the hole with some defense or something. Why would psi defense ruin the way EA plays? I agree a heal would. But why would getting rid of the psi hole make EA into something it is not? I am talking about giving it the same low defense numbers as smashing, or maybe even as low as negative. This would make EA play like EA does now against everything else.
Those have been my suggestion:
1 - enhanceable defense debuff resists
2 - capped energy defense
3 - no psi hole
4 - add confuse and fear to mez protection [this one I edited in because I did not discuss it in the post]
What about these? Why not? And if all three are too much, then why not one or two of them?
[ QUOTE ]
NO psi defense for /EA
NO heal for /EA
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm going to agree with the latter of these and disagree with the former, but lets take where we agree first.
No Active heal for EA. Like WP this has always been a set that's been hands off from a survival point of view. You get what you get. Dull Pain? Not my preference, it's still a clicky, but it'd be stylistically better than a heal. A passive + HP or + regen? Sure. A toggle + HP or +regen? Ok, I guess, but a clicky heal is a fundamental change to how the set currently plays.
I have played clicky sets, I like them. I also like the option of not playing one.
Now about that psi defence. Lets say I had the options of adding the following things that are being talked about in these most recent posts:
Passive +hp (10-20% on a passive, hey maybe on both. Trade this off against the +HP in overload, and maybe throw in some +regen on the other passive)
Passive +regen (20-40% on a passive, mix or maybe match with +hp as needed)
Taunt added to Aura, or to Energy Drain (separate issue to be dealt with elsewhere!)
SR style defence debuff resistances. (slottable)
Psi Defence added to entropy shield (7.5%-15%. I strongly favour the lower number, but there's certainly debate on that)
I would argue that every single one of these is both conceptually and stylistically in keeping with the set, that it strengthens the set in meaningfull, helpful ways without overcompensating or making anything like a monster.
Every single one, individually.
Depending on the magnitude of each, all of them taken together could perhaps be too much (I doubt it, but I can see the argument). My only possible argument against psi def would then be that if I had to pick, I would probably take all the other things first.
Making the judgement that +psi in combination with the other bonuses would be excessive is extremely difficult without some kind of testing. I had a really good coffee this morning so I'll be optimistic: Hopefully testing of these, or perhaps other, wildly different changes is going on behind closed doors now!
I found an old level 18 Fire EA on a server I'd forgotten about. Maybe I'll play him after changes... my first Fire EA was... er... well deleted.
The cake is a lie! The cake is a lie!
[ QUOTE ]
But I went back and read the first post on all this thread and got kind of scared. People want to warp EA into something that it's not. If I logged on one day and found out that From Below, my EA brute that I made back in 2005, my first toon and first 50, with his 300 badges and hundreds of millions of infamy worth of IOs, could not cloak anymore, I would cry. So I don't want to see the set radically altered either. But a few perks here and there would be nice.
[/ QUOTE ]
In the first post, I already made it clear that it's simply a collection of the suggestions. If EA is going to be improved, the improvements should be only a small subset of the whole list.
This thread is quite different from other threads that consolidate issues. For AT or powerset issues thread, all confirmed and justified issues should be fixed. For a consolidated suggestions thread, it's not expected that the dev would accept all the suggestions, but just a small part of it. Nevertheless, the whole list is a concise summary of what have been suggested, which is a convenient resource for both players and dev.
For the energy cloak that you mentioned, it's included just because it is mentioned multiple times in other EA threads. It is quite unlikely that dev will delete this power. But such kind of suggestions might be possible when EA is proliferated.
[ QUOTE ]
Why no psi defense?
[/ QUOTE ]
There are several aspects about this issue. Several of you are arguing from the point of view of survivability and balance.
You can also take a look at my previous post much higher up in this thread. It's from the point of view of powerset design. The post is only meant to present you a different angle of looking at psionic defense. Finally, it's up to you whether you think it should be included or not.
[ QUOTE ]
I found an old level 18 Fire EA on a server I'd forgotten about. Maybe I'll play him after changes... my first Fire EA was... er... well deleted.
[/ QUOTE ]
NEVER play a fire/EA under any circumstances. NEVER. EA as it is is just weak defensively. Strong in ultility, weak in defense. EA must be paired with a primary that assists in mitigation. This leaves you with SM, SS, EM, DM, WM, and just barely Axe. FM is strictly off limits.
Even if the set gets buffed, the changes I would like to see should benefit in the area of CONSISTENCY, not overall toughness. Better defense debuff resists and psi defense (and maybe some more mez protection) serve to let EA function with its mediocre shields against a wider range of opponents. Fill some holes, so to speak. Not really toughen. The only change that I recommend that would actually toughen the set would be increasing energy defense. While this would make the set considerably tougher, it would not be the be-all-end-all. There would still be plenty of non-energy users out there that EA would have to contend with via its relatively weak shields. Because of the set's utility, I believe that in most cases it SHOULD rely on the primary for some damage mitigation. Therefore fire is just a nogo.
[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong. I ran the ITF for the first time a while back on my EA brute and only recently found out from reading the forums that people consider it hard. My EA rocks. But when I come up against a mob with heavy defense debuffs and my already below par shields are gone, I would like to have something besides stealth and endurance. That's why I thought of enhanceable defense debuffs. But giving those to EA might be thought of by the devs as robbing SR of its glory of defense set par excellance. What are your thoughts?
[/ QUOTE ]
While I don't know if they should be enhanceable, I DO know that they should be much higher than they are now. /ea's shields are practically the definition of non-dodge-based deflection, and higher defense debuff resistance would be highly thematic. I don't think it would steal SR's glory because SR shouldn't have it... most creatures that debuff defense do it with the 'ablation' theme, and dodging has nothing to do with ablation. besides, SR gets damage resistance that scales as it takes damage, which no other set gets.
[ QUOTE ]
Why no psi defense? Tons of sets have psi protection these days. Others have positional defense. Others have heals. Others have slows. EA has a cloak and endurance. What does this do for anything against psi? I agree no heal. So this kinds of leaves us with the option of just flat getting rid of the hole with some defense or something. Why would psi defense ruin the way EA plays? I agree a heal would. But why would getting rid of the psi hole make EA into something it is not? I am talking about giving it the same low defense numbers as smashing, or maybe even as low as negative. This would make EA play like EA does now against everything else.
[/ QUOTE ]
Once again, thematics. Force fields are the name of the game for /ea, kind of a 'melee force field' set. On the whole, that implies kinetic manipulation (ie. stopping incoming damage on an atomic scale) fire excites molecules, energy passes molecular vibration from one molecule to another, cold slows molecular motion, s/l moves molecules directly. What does psi do? it screws up your brain with some kind of 'mind force' that has pretty much nothing to do with molecular motion or fields at all. Dark is the same way... it's not something physics has an explanation for, and energy aura is all about the 'spurious physics'. Also, every set has a hole, and I'm much happier with a psi hole for a brute than I would be with...say... a fire hole. And the lack of confuse and fear protection kind of go hand in hand with the whole weakness to non-spurious-physics thing.
Truthfully, my biggest problem with the way /EA runs is in the lack of one, single power.
a 'phase style' end rejuvenator.
Honestly, I think sharing conserve power and energy drain with electric is just... well... stupid. Electric is supposed to be all about soaking up someone else's energy, and energy aura is all about your OWN energy.
While I don't think energy should get max energy resistance, I DO think that it should have electric's invulnerability to endurance modification effects.
Now, thinking about it as I write this post, here's an idea... Please guys, think carefully about it before condemning it out of hand.
One of the biggest problems with EA is it's inability to contribute to mob positioning.
Is it possible to make energy drain have two components? The first component is an 'energy sap' similar to what it has now, but with less endurance drain for you, and the second component would be... well... for lack of a better words, 'inverted knockback'. It would be a repulsion effect that, instead of pushing mobs away, pulls them towards you? increased radius on energy drain would, of course, be part of it (perhaps standard AOE radius)
I honestly don't know if it would be possible with the way that the powers are set up right now, and I know it is NOT a minor fix, but it would give energy aura a HUGE level of utility without altering the set too much as it stands or changing the feel.
[ QUOTE ]
NEVER play a fire/EA under any circumstances. NEVER. EA as it is is just weak defensively. Strong in ultility, weak in defense. EA must be paired with a primary that assists in mitigation. This leaves you with SM, SS, EM, DM, WM, and just barely Axe. FM is strictly off limits.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have a philosophical problem with that. I believe that every primary and secondary pairing should be very playable, and that they should all offer a strong advantage somewhere. Fire/EA may not offer the same advantages as Fire/WP, but it should offer, so much as reasonably possible, different and at least somewhat close to equal advantages.
EA offers utility. If that utility does not indirectly aid playability what good is it?
If Fire/EA is an especially poor combination, then either theres a particular weakness in that specific pairing, or each of the two sets is weaker than it should be in its own right, or in this case, probably both.
Given the wide variety of changes that can be made without breaking concept or game balance for the rest of the sets, theres just no excuse to have a nearly unplayable combination.
Why, in the current scheme of things would I make a fire/EA over a fire/SR? Well I probably wouldnt
And thats a problem.
Sure, in the age of IOs I can make a perfectly reasonable /EA. In the age of IOs I can make a better SR.
The cake is a lie! The cake is a lie!
[ QUOTE ]
Once again, thematics. Force fields are the name of the game for /ea, kind of a 'melee force field' set. On the whole, that implies kinetic manipulation (ie. stopping incoming damage on an atomic scale) fire excites molecules, energy passes molecular vibration from one molecule to another, cold slows molecular motion, s/l moves molecules directly. What does psi do? it screws up your brain with some kind of 'mind force' that has pretty much nothing to do with molecular motion or fields at all. Dark is the same way... it's not something physics has an explanation for, and energy aura is all about the 'spurious physics'. Also, every set has a hole, and I'm much happier with a psi hole for a brute than I would be with...say... a fire hole. And the lack of confuse and fear protection kind of go hand in hand with the whole weakness to non-spurious-physics thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just for some extra information, force field originally offered typed defense only, and didn't have psionic defense and toxic resistance. I bet players complained so much that the dev improved the bubbles later. Conceptually, force field was not intended to have psionic and toxic protection. I'm not surprised that energy aura is weak against psionic and toxic as I do think that the set is conceptually close to force field. And yeah, the lack of confuse and fear resistance also tells the same story.
But of coz, to bring the other side of the story here, as mentioned by other people, energy aura is also a set without much survivability tricks but have several holes. Other powersets are not like this.
You've to look at it both ways.
EA as it SHOULD have been designed:
1: Kinetic Shield- 12.8% defense to smashing, lethal, and 15% resistance to energy damage, 12.5% resistance to endurance drain effects.
2: Dampening field- This ability produces a mild dampening field that reduces all incoming kinetic damage, as well as reducing the endurance cost of all powers used. 12.5% resistance to smashing, lethal, energy. 12.5% resistance to endurance drain effects, 22.5% end cost reduction. 12.5% resist defense debuff. +15% hp
3: Power Shield- 12.8% defense to fire, cold, energy, 9.8% defense to negative, 15% resistance to energy damage, 12.5% resistance to endurance modification effects.
4:entropy shield- protection from knockback, repulse, teleportation, hold, disorient, sleep. 12.5% resist defense debuff. 12.5 resist endurance modification effects.
5: energy protection: 12.5% resistance to energy and negative energy damage, 12.5% resistance to endurance drain effects. 12.5% resist defense debuff. 22.5% endurance cost reduction. +15% hp
6: energy cloak: 3.75% defense to all. 12.5% resistance to endurance modification effects. 12.5% energy damage resistance.
7: energy drain: self +25% end, foe -25% end. mag 4 taunt 13.5 seconds.
8: Alter Phase: phase shift duration 30 seconds, recharge 180 seconds, +300% endurance regeneration.
9: Overload: +12.5% defense to all except psionics, +200% health regeneration.+12.5% defense debuff protection, +25% resistance to endurance modification effects. +15% hp. Duration 180 seconds, recharge 540 seconds. No crash.
-edit
Note that this would be a lot 'friendlier' for tankers, especially if energy cloak were replaced with something akin to rttc (but with better taunt)... but if they give a version with rttc to both tankers and scrappers I will be majorly peeved.
Frostweaver, how do you rationalize Electric having Psy resistance when EA can't have Psy DEF? Basically, I'm trying to imply that if a set based on Electricity(read:Energy) can be rationalized to have Psy protection, certainly a set based on Energy can.
Regarding your other ideas:
[ QUOTE ]
a 'phase style' end rejuvenator.
[/ QUOTE ]
that would be interesting but i think i like having Energy Drain as an active power that takes some work. Though I've often thought that giving EA a copy of Detention Field, allowing us to impose our energy fields on another for a short time.
[ QUOTE ]
'inverted knockback'
[/ QUOTE ]
anit -repel? Sounds fun. I'm not sure if its possible but the concept of a Trick power, an out of the box strength being added to EA is a good one.
Level 50 is a journey, not a destination.
▲Scrapper Issues List - Going Rogue Edition▲
[ QUOTE ]
anit -repel? Sounds fun. I'm not sure if its possible but the concept of a Trick power, an out of the box strength being added to EA is a good one.
[/ QUOTE ]
I remember suggesting something like this as a toggle on foe about a year ago... something like a reverse telekinesis with a modest aoe debuff that could work as a taunt aura. Might still be fun to see if they ever do a Grav Armor set, or some such.
The cake is a lie! The cake is a lie!
[ QUOTE ]
Frostweaver, how do you rationalize Electric having Psy resistance when EA can't have Psy DEF? Basically, I'm trying to imply that if a set based on Electricity(read:Energy) can be rationalized to have Psy protection, certainly a set based on Energy can.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not Frost weaver. 
For electric armor, the description for static armor says that "Static Shield can also help normalize your synaptic activity, granting you good resistance to Psionic Damage." You just have to cook up something to explain how entropy(most people suggest adding psionic defense to entropy shield) grants you psionic defense.
I rationalize Psi defence, not much if at all any resistance, as its a form of energy. that and EA has 2 holes and a weakness as is which is outright wrong. Negative energy should be its major down fall, giveing a moderate (20-30% at most after enhancments) Resistance to toxic and a decent Psi 'energy' Defence with little to no Rersistance. While Negative has a low Defence with a low resistance to forge it as its weakness.
Which still gives it weaknesses for all 3 but something substantial for toxic and Psi. Sure EA is similar to PPF but its not a Foce Field, its an Energy Shield. they are similar but different still. I agree a little more Def Debuff Resists should be implimented but if energy Defence is raised then theres not much need to give it more end drain resistance as it was said in a previous post the high Energy Defence IS its Sapping protection.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Frostweaver, how do you rationalize Electric having Psy resistance when EA can't have Psy DEF? Basically, I'm trying to imply that if a set based on Electricity(read:Energy) can be rationalized to have Psy protection, certainly a set based on Energy can.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not Frost weaver.
For electric armor, the description for static armor says that "Static Shield can also help normalize your synaptic activity, granting you good resistance to Psionic Damage." You just have to cook up something to explain how entropy(most people suggest adding psionic defense to entropy shield) grants you psionic defense.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't try to rationalize psi defense into electric. I think it has no place there, and I guess it was just added for balance reasons.
Although I can THINK of a rationalization... your brain and nervous system work by passing electrical impulses around, I suppose an electric user can strengthen those impulses so that they are less vulnerable to outside influences.
wow. that kinda makes sense donit?
I think we, as a gaming comunity can probably come up with a conceptual rationalization for a great many things.
My EA is natural origin, his powers stem from a perfect mastery of his internal energy, which he can focus around himself. He's the embodiment of the power of his will. If he'd been rolled today, instead of in I6, he might have been /WP, but things have worked out well enough. I've busted out the IOs and pumped psi defence over 30%.
He SHOULD have seriously high psi protection. It's very easy for me to think of a great and various many such reasons why energy aura SHOULD have psi protection, for all kinds of different concepts...
Certainly there's no special conceptual bar against it. Mechanically and balance wise? I'd also argue it's a good idea. I will however admit that depending on what else is done, psi defence may or may not be appropriate. Psi defence would not seem to be specifically mandated as a requirement.
The cake is a lie! The cake is a lie!
would you give up energy drain for a 12.5 psi defense toggle?
For that specific character? quite possibly. For the set as a whole? No. that would be a horrible thing to inflict on the EA community.
Nor should such a sacrifice be required.
Now if it were a choice between more health regen and or resistances and that psi def? that's a better choice.
The cake is a lie! The cake is a lie!
[ QUOTE ]
No, ice doesn't get EA's perks. EA can roll without stamina easily, ice can't without self-weakening or expensive IO slotting.
[/ QUOTE ]
So what does ice have to give up to have the same end management as EA? They both have a full blue bar every 30 seconds, and the same cost to run their defensive toggles.
[ QUOTE ]
And no matter how many snide comments you make about people's ability to read, so far you haven't added anything useful other than 'make /ea more like ____'.
[/ QUOTE ]
Where did I say anything about your ability to read? I only assumed you didn't read what I quoted because of the tangent you went on.
I have also never said make EA like ice. I was pointing out that ice has the same end management of EA. So using end management as a reason for EA to have more weaknesses wasn't a good argument.
Though you could mean my suggestion as changing EA to ice. Though I thought it didn't change things much, but helped fill in weaknesses. All I had suggested was merging the 2 passives, and adding a new power similar to Energy absorption. Except it would grant regeneration instead of end. It still left holes in it's protection, but regen would help a little . It isn't an overpowered suggestion, nor does it make EA a clone of any other set.
Dirges
[ QUOTE ]
Once again, thematics. Force fields are the name of the game for /ea, kind of a 'melee force field' set. On the whole, that implies kinetic manipulation (ie. stopping incoming damage on an atomic scale) fire excites molecules, energy passes molecular vibration from one molecule to another, cold slows molecular motion, s/l moves molecules directly. What does psi do? it screws up your brain with some kind of 'mind force' that has pretty much nothing to do with molecular motion or fields at all. Dark is the same way... it's not something physics has an explanation for, and energy aura is all about the 'spurious physics'. Also, every set has a hole, and I'm much happier with a psi hole for a brute than I would be with...say... a fire hole. And the lack of confuse and fear protection kind of go hand in hand with the whole weakness to non-spurious-physics thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Honestly I do not think of EA as force fields. I think of it rather as becoming energy. Like you are only partiall physical and partially energy, so there is a chance the attack just passes through you. And I would put the psi defense in energy cloak. Kind of like they can't mess with your mind if they can't see you because you are an invisible only partially material phantasm.
Just make typed def for /EA always add proportional res. This is basically 'deflection' or 'inertial dampening' and is virtually the same as +hp, but helps stalkers too (avoiding the hp cap issue).
For example, smash def of 40% would add say unslotted 8% res (about 1/5 is fair I think). This of course could be slotted.
Dark Bard, Zoobait, Debacle
jmsb
Por vezes d� vontade...
chucknorriss
speak american godamnit