Frostweavers numbers are clearly bias, the obsession with endurance is clear in her sig of "A character can slot to succeed at ANY challenge in the game when endurance is no longer an issue." and her deluded and incorrect opinion that EA was fine, something noone else agreed with including castle.
The simple fact of the matter is that if you are going to slant things towards the strength of a set you can make it look good. Fact is any character can have infinate endurance without having any endurance powers at all. My spines/DA scrapper runs 9 toggles including 2 damage auras and assualt, those 3 alone are incredibly expensive and yet I have no downtime at all, even with firing off the mother of all heals (in both healing and endurance cost) in dark regeneration (and i have dark mastery, no conserve power here). With that in mind I can safely say that infinate endurance is possible for ANY character.
So any character can attain the endurance stability of EA yet EA cant broach on their domains.
[ QUOTE ]
1) I am not sure how/where you are getting yours. and frankly, after saying you have two questions, I am not sure I should try and find out 
2) I explained that in a post that got deleted. Primarily because I didn't want to have to decide what the 'best' slotting is, especially for powers like earth's embrace, since that would only open up more arguments over whether I should have slotted 2 recharge, 2 heal, 2 res, or 2 endredux, 2 res, or whatever. Obviously you can't 3 slot everything, so I left it out.
3) we are assuming a continuous incoming damage situation . Rest is a 'null factor' since it's the same for everyone.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bah. I hit the "3" on habit... It was only two questions and a suggestion, one that I feel is particularly important. You can't talk about "dead" time if you're talking about having to stop and recover endurance if you are also going to be talking about average damage over that entire cycle. If you're taking so much damage that you are only barely sustaining it when you have full endurance and are hitting everything as soon as it comes up, then there's no way in hell you're going to survive once you can't do that anymore. You're going to have to dart off somewhere and recuperate (through Rest or whatever). Not to mention the fact that in any situation where Stone is forced to rely on all of its tools until it runs out of endurance, Energy Aura would already be dead.
As for the equation, yeah, mine is correct. You can't simply add Resistance and Defense together, you have to multiply them, as SnowLace mentioned, otherwise you get bad numbers when you start having both Resistance and Defense. For example, it would say that having 40% Resistance and 25% Defense gives the same mitigation as 0% Resistance and 45% Defense, which is wrong, and it would also say that having 50% Resistance and 25% Defense would give you 100% mitigation, which is very wrong (and that my /Elec Brute with Weave has over 100% mitigation to Energy damage).
Global @Diellan - 5M2M
Mids' Hero/Villain Designer Lead
Virtue Server
Redside: Lorenzo Mondavi
Blueside: Alex Rabinovich
Got a Mids suggestion? Want to report a Mids bug?
[ QUOTE ]
Frostweavers numbers are clearly bias, the obsession with endurance is clear in her sig of "A character can slot to succeed at ANY challenge in the game when endurance is no longer an issue." and her deluded and incorrect opinion that EA was fine, something noone else agreed with including castle.
The simple fact of the matter is that if you are going to slant things towards the strength of a set you can make it look good. Fact is any character can have infinate endurance without having any endurance powers at all. My spines/DA scrapper runs 9 toggles including 2 damage auras and assualt, those 3 alone are incredibly expensive and yet I have no downtime at all, even with firing off the mother of all heals (in both healing and endurance cost) in dark regeneration (and i have dark mastery, no conserve power here). With that in mind I can safely say that infinate endurance is possible for ANY character.
So any character can attain the endurance stability of EA yet EA cant broach on their domains.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all. You want to compare the two sets 'in a vacuum' so I compared them in a vacuum. You, on the other hand, will not be happy unless I slant things in YOUR favor, assume 'impossible' slotting options with SO's, and basically play YOUR game. I refuse to do so.
You want to add power pools to enable you to have 'endless' endurance options, then I will add power pools to give me 'endless' healing. I can guarantee you that spamming aid self (and still not running out of endurance) with up to 35% defence trumps the crap out of earth's embrace and rooted's regen with health and stamina. That's something Arcanaville and I both agree on.
But go on, keep ignoring the effect that endurance has on build values. you want to pretend an important part of the game doesn't exist, be my guest. I prefer to acknowledge the reality of the situation that end exists and is important. And I am done with you Icesykle, I am sick of your harassment for no point other than being a troll and starting a fight.
A blaster with 4 slotted perf-shifter and some breakfrees can spam aid-self through a whole fight as well.
I am forced to discount any discussion as soon as aid self is brought up.
It is a ridiculously broken power.
I'm fine with comparing EA to SA, ignoring all enhancements and ignoring power pools.
If you're going to add power pools to the mix, you MUST add the same pools to both.
Then you MUST ignore primaries and only deal with X amount of incoming damage by type.
So add tough, weave, aidself, whirlwing, whatever, just make sure that you add to both and then recalculate.
Funny part is, I thought were were going to get your numbers for Granite/EE/Rooted versus EA w/ Overload.
I'm not asking for them now as I don't care. I already know the truth.
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
Come back when you have some numbers.
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe I read it in one of Arcanavilles Posts, specificly about SR around the days of adding the resists to it if memory serves. I sure as hell trust Arcanavilles math and theory more than yours. 
stamina is a ridiculously broken power as well, if you are talking about it's sheer utility to any power.
If you add 'only' the three fitness powers to stone armor w-o granite and /ea w-o overload, stone armor will win hands-down.
If you add 'only' aid other/aid self to both sets, /ea blows stone armor away.
If you start skipping attack powers and add BOTH power pools to both sets, /ea will win because of it's ability to sustain constant aid self spamming... but it's irrelevant because you will be crippling your attack chain OR your defenses, and both playstyle and slotting become far more important. The well-played /ea will make the badly-played stone armor look bad, and vice-versa.
But all this is irrelevant anyway, we will see what comes down the pipe this month.
I think we need an /EA Summary Thread for the /EA Summary Thread...
:S
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Come back when you have some numbers.
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe I read it in one of Arcanavilles Posts, specificly about SR around the days of adding the resists to it if memory serves. I sure as hell trust Arcanavilles math and theory more than yours.
[/ QUOTE ]
yeah, a lot of people let others do their thinking for them. I don't want you to trust my math or hers, I want you to do it for yourself and use your own brain instead of taking it on 'authority'.
[ QUOTE ]
I think we need an /EA Summary Thread for the /EA Summary Thread...
:S
[/ QUOTE ]
lol *I smiled* I'm sorry. I believe I can do a better job.
[ QUOTE ]
stamina is a ridiculously broken power as well, if you are talking about it's sheer utility to any power.
[/ QUOTE ]
Horse manure. Stamina isn't anywhere in the same ballpark as aidself when concerning brokenness. Stamina doesn't make anyone unkillable like aid self does.
And no, I was talking about damage mitigation, since we're discussing damage mitigation set comparison.
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Come back when you have some numbers.
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe I read it in one of Arcanavilles Posts, specificly about SR around the days of adding the resists to it if memory serves. I sure as hell trust Arcanavilles math and theory more than yours.
[/ QUOTE ]
yeah, a lot of people let others do their thinking for them. I don't want you to trust my math or hers, I want you to do it for yourself and use your own brain instead of taking it on 'authority'.
[/ QUOTE ]
Will you take personal experiance instead? Ive played my EA brute since i started, constantly attempting to rebuild it serveral different ways to contend with the other sets out there (this is pre-IOs). uppon coming to a complete failure to make a build that worked I played other sets and found them do completly blow EA out of the water as far as survivability was concerned.
Then i looked around the forums to find why EA suffered where other sets did not, what did i find? Acanavilles 'Fix Defence' thread. This taought me about more of the game mechanics than most people would care to explore but i gained the more usful points about Defence Armours and their inherent weaknesses.
1) -Defence is one of, if not the most, encountered Debuff in the game. I look at powers hitting me now and see if they have -defence just to re-enforce that too myself.
2) Tohit Buffs negate Defence too easily. I know this is a PvP problem mainly but Neme's get Vengie so dont discount the problem from PvE either.
In a high defence Set any damage that get through will hurt like all get out. Small amount of resistance to anything other than energy is next to meaningless when your primary form of deflecting/dampening damage is Debuffed to nothing or been rendered pointless by overpowered Buffs from your attacker.
And yes I even used Aid Self 6 Slotted (2 Heal, 2 Interupt and 2 recharge time Nonset IOs) which worked ok until the -defence stacked beyond my ability to defeat the mobs before they defeated me.
The utility of the set is subpar compared to other trick and pony Sets, sure EA is great for your end ills but lacks the scaled resists that save SR from eatting concrete or the solid alround durability of Invulnerability. Its great that youcan have no problems with end with EA but having a full bar of end doesnt help you much if your defence has been eaten away, expect to make close friends with the ground shortly after that.
I do admit im content with EA on my stalker, but thats because i can pick my fights with greater ease and not much lives long enough to debuff me. but on a brute that relys on fury to really get things done EA is far below the nessisary survivablity if your facing anything that uses an attack thats not typed for Energy. Sure its EAs strength but the other sets dont lack as much as EA does when it comes to the standard line up.
if I were going to calculate the migitation, i would think i would calculate defence migitation first then calculate the percentage that surpassed the Defence with resistance migitation. Id take into account that we are not mindless Brawl spammers and alot for 'Resting' (standing there and taking the hits while your end recovers).
Sure lets say its a race too, but the Stone can afford to stand there and take it but the EA would need to constantly pushing forward, using the Energy Drain and Conserve Power to its advantage. But the problem you fail to see is that doing that increases the incoming damage faster, so more damage needs to be migitated, if too much then EA falls over and has to hosp it losing his lead to the slow Stoner.
look, its far too late for me to be bothered arguing this beyond my own experiance and the collective knowledge of others. the fact is EA is a terrible set for a brute, it works ok but doesnt hit home where it should. so it needs a fix IMO, and i think that fix could be as simple as +HP to the Autos with some added Protection from Psi.
But hey what would i know, i dont calculate everything i do all the time. 
Very well thought out reply. I disagree with it, but I won't discount it.
[ QUOTE ]
Sure lets say its a race too, but the Stone can afford to stand there and take it but the EA would need to constantly pushing forward, using the Energy Drain and Conserve Power to its advantage. But the problem you fail to see is that doing that increases the incoming damage faster, so more damage needs to be migitated, if too much then EA falls over and has to hosp it losing his lead to the slow Stoner.
[/ QUOTE ]
I discounted that because I didn't want to bring /ea's stealth as a defense into the equation. It's already convoluted enough without adding in the ability to pick and choose your primary targets before the fight has even started, for the same reason I didn't want to complicate things with mud pots. Mud pots increases stone's mitigation (a dead enemy doesn't do any damage) but vastly increases it's spent endurance and it's too subjective an area, just like stealth.
-edit
what surprises me is a that no one has brought up a totally legitimate argument about IO slotting. Fact- EA gets LESS out of slotting IO's with multiple bonuses than virtually any other set. It gains more from slotting -recharge, but less from any other set bonus than any other set. THIS is what I consider /ea's biggest weakness, not it's actual mitigation numbers. I also consider it's lack of team utility to be a weakness... What I argue about is whether /ea's ACTUAL survivability is less than other sets, when combined with primary mitigation, in the environment that it is specialized for, namely solo and duo... and to this, I will answer a most resounding NO. It has just as much, if not considerably more, survivability in the single-player game as any other set. It is also friendlier at lower levels and with people that don't want to spend half their time wangling for IO's.
i think what gets up other people's dander with that line of reasoning is that pretty much anything other than 9 copies of CP would serve as a decent solo defensive set as long as you have full mez protection.
that part of your argument is true but doesn't say much.
Level 50 is a journey, not a destination.
▲Scrapper Issues List - Going Rogue Edition▲
When talking about IOs and EA, the discussion usually revolves around two ideals: Max recharge for maximum overload uptime, or softcap builds. While IO variety might be desireable, it seems greatly less discussed than these other two points of focus, and is probably less critical anyway. You could argue that in raw PvE performance, a set that can be IOd to the softcap has more to gain than a set that can slot for all manner of things.
Bottom line: Without IOs, EA has so little capacity to recover health that its almost laughable. With them: its a very different story, but then we should be comparing /EA to everyone else with IOs, and they all end up being rather effective as well
I mean, there are blasters with 1600 HP and 30-second-up, 1-second-down-drain psyche out there these days.
Actually we probably shouldnt put much weight in that at all. Sets should be solid as they come.
I dont buy that this thread has become pointless because we now have every reason to think that help is on the way. We dont know whats coming, but even if it is set in stone for its first appearance, I have to think that there will be some measure of testing and feedback. Understanding the issues better going in to that can hardly be a bad thing.
Oh, one other point: suggesting that the endurance drain of rooted or earths embrace are commesurate costs for non granite stones radically higher performace as compared to non-overload EA is a bit odd. Id gladly pay that little extra end for the massive extra survival. I think youd be hard pressed to find an EA who wouldnt
Point still open about the movement debuff of course.
The cake is a lie! The cake is a lie!
[ QUOTE ]
i think what gets up other people's dander with that line of reasoning is that pretty much anything other than 9 copies of CP would serve as a decent solo defensive set as long as you have full mez protection.
that part of your argument is true but doesn't say much.
[/ QUOTE ]
Heh, give me a blaster set with a mez shield and build up and 7 conserve powers and I'm sure I could be very pleased with the character...
The cake is a lie! The cake is a lie!
7 is a bit much. 4 though would be alright. perma CP then with a few IOs.
Level 50 is a journey, not a destination.
▲Scrapper Issues List - Going Rogue Edition▲
Your numbers are about what I thought they would be. I also agree with your assessment of stone having to stop for end breaks. Though I don't see any breaks for health.
What I see using your base numbers don't favor EA.
Say 100 smashing damage per second. First figured the defense protection, and resisted the remaining, since we don't resist defended damage.
EA gets 16.5 defense and 7.5 resists. Totaling 71.25 damage.
Stone gets 12 defense and 7.5 resists. For 79.55 damage.
Now you add regeneration.
EA has 6.26 per second, so it takes 64.99 damage per second.
Stone has 12.5 per second, so it takes 67.05 damage per second.
So not even looking at earth embrace as a heal/hp buff.
EA will last 23.07 seconds
Stone will last 22.36 seconds.
So stone having to rest every 40 seconds doesn't matter. At all times both sets will every 22-23 seconds. With stone lasting longer when it uses earth's embrace for the 40% and 40% hpbuff, as well as the higher regen from the hp buff.
Edited to fix defense math.
Dirges
That's assuming 100 smashing damage per second. at 50 smashing damage per second the 'up time' rises to about 120 seconds for both. (a little bit closer to reality since you have to run between fights, and you will most likely be killing a minion or two)
yes, in a high-damage-saturation environment some other sets take the lead. frankly, I think one of the reasons they put cloak into /ea so it wouldn't be in a high-damage saturation environment. solo, my incoming dps seldom crests about 60 DPS at level 50, total. In a team, I can't get enough aggro to realistically break 60 dps on a regular basis.
Admittedly, during the alpha, you can easily crack 400 DPS, but over the next 4-6 seconds you have almost NO incoming damage at all, stabilizing it at around 60 for me in a full-out fight against invincible difficulty foes (primarily longbow)
I don't expect /ea to 'tank'.
One, 100 damage a second seems a bit low to me, especially on teams. Plus 100 was nice and round, that was why I used it.
Two, you are taking 60 dps with slotted shields? That makes 100 sound low doesn't it?
Also the math for 50 dps is.
After shields
ea 35.61
stone 39.77
With regen, BTW does your rooted regen include base. I havent had a chance to log in a chack yet?
ea 29.35
stone 27.27
Total dps
ea 51. 07
stone 54.97
BTW if you are going to use spawn distance as a way to increase survivability, doesn't that work for stones end as well?
Dirges
No, because stone can take aggro from additional spawns standing 12 feet away from the fight (and it will) while /ea only typically takes aggro from the group it is fighting.
I was assuming 'raw' dps (prior to shields and/or resistance)
in a typical spawn I will usually have between 1-3 minions shooting at me (at around 20 dps each at level 50. Minions can hit hard but they hit SLOW) 1-2 luts (at about 50 dps each, so if I take two lut spawns at one time I CAN break 100 dps, but it's not 'average') and a boss and 1 minion at between 80-120 dps (depending on the spawn)(although certain bosses can break almost 200 dps at times) which averages out, over the course of a mission, to about 60 dps incoming at all times as long as I have 'brute lock' and keep running from spawn to spawn.
The 'real' dps of these guys is potentially much higher, but I am only really concerned about xp/min, and so travel times between spawns are a factor of their dps.
for stone, you can factor travel time, which reduces the dps, but when you do that you ALSO have to factor in the tremendous slowing of rooted as well as the inability to click travel powers during 'long stretches' like lab maps, unless you want to turn off rooted (very risky, and you will have to factor in rooted's recharge and activation time. 4 seconds recharge and .5 seconds activation might not SEEM like much, but it's enough time to cost you some damage in fury and to take several seconds per fight out of the equation. When an average fight lasts less than 20 seconds, rooted's recharge and activation can take a real chunk out of your xp/min.)
edit- yes, you should probably factor in at least a 30% time factor when stone isn't attacking, dropping their end use from 3.25 down to 1.25. Unless you turn off rooted (to 1.04 end/sec) which will decrease the travel time factor and correspondingly decrease the 'endurance recovery between fights' time. Of course, you might also consider adding in the travel power factor using fly as a baseline power (1 end/sec) to decrease the actual travel time factor, and that would actually work in stone's favor by increasing it's xp/hour while correspondingly increasing it's endurance 'downtime'.....
Gah. My head hurts. In simple, if you have good endurance, turning off rooted between fights and blitzing to the next increases your xp/hour. If you don't have really good end, it will actively decrease your exp/hour due to endurance downtime.
In the 'no enhancements' scenario, flying from fight to fight would actually HURT the stone armor brute without granite, although it's less of a hurt than it would be if you didn't factor in fury loss. there's also the fact that stone armor scales BETTER the more opponents you have, while /ea scales WORSE the more opponents you have... the breakpoint being around 5 opponents. less than that and /ea does better, more than that and stone armor does better, due to dps breakpoints versus endurance.
I guess the only thing I can really come up with is 'ea solos gud. stone armor solos bad. stone armor works better on teams, /ea is better for soloing'....a fact with which I am certain everybody by now is well conversed.
It kinda brings home one fact though, big time:
if you are gboing to take an aoe-centric set, stone armor will serve you typically better than /ea.
if you are going with a single-target set, /ea will serve you better.
If you are going with an end/heavy set, /ea is better, and with an end/light set, stone is better.
I am working on my own 'exp/hour' spreadsheet which differs radically from arcana's in attempting to simulate downtime, average aggro, and soloing performance instead of 'raw' mitigation in an endurance-free environment, but what has thrown me off is the nature of aoe attacks and aoe-based defense. some of them are capped at 3 opponents, some at 5, some at 2, some at 10, and some at 17 (taunt) so finding the 'REAL' end/damage assessment on a lot of attack powers under 'average' circumstances is a total chore.
[ QUOTE ]
I do my own work, thank you, Arcanaville's conclusions are incomplete. They are not wrong, they are just done in a 'perfect world' where everyone has endless endurance and revolve around an 'immortality line' that is relatively inadequate compared to 'incoming damage stopped'
[/ QUOTE ]
What conclusions are those, specifically, that you think are incomplete?
If I was going to factor in endurance into survivability calculations - and I have, several times - then:
[ QUOTE ]
Total end/turn expenditure for /ea: 1.14 end/sec without adding in attacks. with brawl, it's about 2.04 end/sec. It will run out of end in 270.3 seconds. recovery time for both with all toggles turned off can be assumed to be 60 seconds
total end/turn expenditure for stone: 1.25 end/sec without attacks. with brawl, it's about 2.25 end/sec. That means that it will run out of end in around 210 seconds. Recovery time for both with all toggles turned off can be assumed to be 60 seconds
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd probably consider that even if I was going to compare without stamina (not unreasonable) I'd consider it a superior strategy to rest for 17 seconds every 135 seconds, rather than stand around for 60 seconds every 270 seconds (which would be completely unreasonable). In fact, I'd probably incorporate such calculations into any calculations I present that presumed to incorporate endurance into survivability or sustainability.
This would significantly reduce the maximum impact of enhanced recovery on maximum sustainable activity limits, which would be overestimated without factoring in Rest.
[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 ]
yes, in a high-damage-saturation environment some other sets take the lead. frankly, I think one of the reasons they put cloak into /ea so it wouldn't be in a high-damage saturation environment. .
[/ QUOTE ]
And how is taking low damaged supposed to help with Fury generation? really they should have released it as /Ice if the intent was to stay out of combat or take less hits.
You consentrated far too much on the Endurance that you lost sight of being a Brute. EA is gimped for Brutes for this reason; If a Brute cant take a hit then it has no place in the Brute sets, sneak around sapping end like a cross between a Staker and a Sapper, really thats about the size of it.
Only when the mob has no end can you really stick around and fight, but you havnt generated much fury prancing about like a Stalker now have you :P
EA for Stalkers however is brilliant, you can stick around and fight like a Scrapper at times provided they cant fight back lol. But if any thing lands a hit you feel it heh, ahh the way it should be. 
It maybe that I am fighting ruthless instead of relentless, but my average spawn is 5 minions and a lut. Well over 100 dps. When I get home, I need to run some test with my regen scrapper.
Dirges
[ QUOTE ]
I'd probably consider that even if I was going to compare without stamina (not unreasonable) I'd consider it a superior strategy to rest for 17 seconds every 135 seconds, rather than stand around for 60 seconds every 270 seconds (which would be completely unreasonable). In fact, I'd probably incorporate such calculations into any calculations I present that presumed to incorporate endurance into survivability or sustainability.
This would significantly reduce the maximum impact of enhanced recovery on maximum sustainable activity limits, which would be overestimated without factoring in Rest.
[/ QUOTE ]
sure it would. And rest's actual recharge would have to be factored in as well, as would travel time between spawns. But that wasn't the point of the comparison. The point of comparison was actual mitigation of continuous incoming damage, and left such factors as travel time between spawns, rest time, lulls in activity, and such out of the argument.
now, admittedly, my calculations are incomplete as hell also, because I simply don't KNOW some of these averages...they are mission-dependent to an incredible degree.
How long does it take someone to travel between spawns? How much recovery will they regain while they are doing so? Is the between-spawns recovery time valuable to stone armor?
Part of what I think is the problem is that people don't really understand that my entire comparison was more-or-less a joke. I was trying to point out that comparing anything in a vacuum is a bit pointless, and is a lot like quoting the (book)... you can prove ANYTHING by quoting one or the other passages.
THE ONLY WAY to really see how a set performs when adding in such random calculations as mob# dependent mitigation, endurance modification, stealth is to take a random sampling of players with a broad variety of primaries and a broad variety of slotting options, say 100 people, and see how they perform at various levels as far as xp/minute and drops/minute.
Any other attempt to 'compare' secondary sets is more or less pointless, since, as another poster commented, 'numbers cannot show the whole picture'. Knowing how many railroad ties are on a railroad track, the stress points of steel, the average weight, speed, and frequency of trains that pass on the tracks and the local weather conditions will NOT allow you to calculate where and when the track is going to break... there are too many other factors involved to even give you a reliable ballpark figure.
Primaries can be compared based on sheer dps as well, but that won't give the complete picture either. How do you rate foot stomp's knockdown and huge radius? or war mace's chances for stun? They can add huge amounts of mitigation, but is that mitigation worth a reduced dps?
The only people that can have a clear understanding of xp/min are the ones that can do the datamining, and the only clear statement we have to that effect is a nebulous statement by castle comparing invulnerability and energy aura... and for all we know, that might have been a personal opinion, not supported by datamining or any other statistics.
[ QUOTE ]
Damage Mitigation = 1 - ((1-Resistance) * (0.5-Defense) / 0.5)
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the right formula. If you multiply it out, you'll get
2*Def + Res - 2*Def*Res
I believe FrostWeaver just use 2*Def + Res. It's not quite clear what she used in her table because there is probably a mistake in a couple numbers. 2*Def + Res is just adding up the mitigation. -2*Def*Res is needed because the resistance is not mitigating all the attacks, but only the attacks that go through your defense. The extra term will take that into account.
However, the correction is only a few percent at most for this case. So, it won't change the numbers in the table qualitatively.
[ QUOTE ]
Is there a reason that you're giving numbers without any enhancements whatsoever? The Devs may not be balancing with IOs in mind, but they sure as hell are doing so with SOs in mind.
[/ QUOTE ]
Practically, enh should be taken into account. For this comparison for example, no end reduction enh in the powers, and no slotting in earth embrace don't really represent a realistic build. Unless it's low level, I don't remember playing a melee toon that I need to keep on resting.