My eyes are opened!

And as I noted on C: specific build options are endless.

But I noted how much more efficient the scrapper is even if's running an additional 42% Toggle Endurance Budget, that is likely what you are asking about. Only now you rephraced it to turning toggles off.

But lets assume the tanker can turn off half of his toggles to get an endurance advantage:

The Scrapper kills 1.09 EBs in 32.47 seconds.
The Tanker chips away 80% of the EB's HP before running out of end after 37.18 seconds. Turning half the toggles off only bought him 4.7 seconds of activity.

The tanker would have to kill all his toggles off (at witch point the tanker is easier to kill than the toggled up scrapper) and still not kill that EB, he would be stuck at 93% after 43.48 seconds. All this while the scrapper running all toggles killed the EB with a bit of endurance to spare and all his toggles up.


... I am loving this calculator btw, will see if i can share the toy somehow, perhaps make a Javascript version or something.

It's that number of possibilities that standardization is meant to accomodate.

What I'm looking to achieve is a better degree of balance between the sets and ATs. There's been some good analysis here. It's not really what I started the thread about, but kudos to all. It's interesting to say the least.

[ QUOTE ]
It's that number of possibilities that standardization is meant to accomodate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Except that there's a standard now (endurance to damage scalar), you just don't like it.

If you don't like the AT modifiers, talk about them. Don't talk about "standardization" by changing how each and every power is defined as it applies to those modifiers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle it has gone from unconscionable to downright appalling that we have no way of measuring our characters' wetness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brillig It's hard to beat the entertainment value of Whackjob Wednesdays.

[ QUOTE ]
Except that there's a standard now (endurance to damage scalar), you just don't like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only a standard if no one has ways to do more damage for free (beyond modifiers) effectively increasing the ratio.

As it stands only two ATs dont have those means, and one actually does but only if the team is dying.

[ QUOTE ]
There is a huge difference here, though, specially about tankers: they are no couch potatoes, they are meant to actually be able to fight longer by virtue of surviving for longer periods of time. This is the only virtue they have coming to them in solo play and it's meaningless due to not having the endurance to back it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they are meant to be able to take more damage. Not fight longer. And they do take more damage because for the same amount of end they get more benefit out of toggle mitigation. They get more benefit out of passives. They get more benefit out of just being tanks due to higher hit points.

[ QUOTE ]
The tanker will not finish the race the scrapper starts, he wont have enough endurance.

[/ QUOTE ]

The tank will finish. He just takes longer. Why does the tank have to fight at the same pace as the scrapper when he has the mitigation to let him take longer to finish the race?

[ QUOTE ]
The tank will finish. He just takes longer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not guessing. Without additional endurance sources the tanker will run out of endurance or be stuck fighting weaker foes.

[ QUOTE ]
Why does the tank have to fight at the same pace as the scrapper when he has the mitigation to let him take longer to finish the race?

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is not about fighting at the same pace, I am not asking for them to fight any faster only the endurance to be able to fight longer to finish the same encounters. Again, not guesses this is pure math accounting for boss/eb regeneration.

Then I'm not following your math. As long as the tank's damage output exceeds the enemy's regen rate, and his mitigation is greater than the incoming damage, he could let himself regain endurance with base recovery and use nothing but brawl.

It's like you're ignoring that base recovery and mitigation exist.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The tank will finish. He just takes longer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not guessing. Without additional endurance sources the tanker will run out of endurance or be stuck fighting weaker foes.

[ QUOTE ]
Why does the tank have to fight at the same pace as the scrapper when he has the mitigation to let him take longer to finish the race?

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is not about fighting at the same pace, I am not asking for them to fight any faster only the endurance to be able to fight longer to finish the same encounters. Again, not guesses this is pure math accounting for boss/eb regeneration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then shouldn't Scrappers and everyone else get an increase in their regeneration and resistance to allow them to survive fights that are going to last longer?

It's the same argument. A tanker has a much higher immortality and survivability curve set than any other AT in the game thanks to higher base mitigation values and higher base hp. They've got to pay for that somehow and having a lower dps but greater DPE doesn't balance out.

As to the metaphorical couch potato to marathon runner analogy, it's hyperbole. I don't believe that Billz was attempting to say that Tankers are completely bad at dealing damage. He was trying to say that the person who is less equipped for that specific challenge (the Tanker is less equipped for dealing damage than the Scrapper is) should be, by their very definition less efficient. That's part of what makes that a primary function of the AT (and no, damage is not the primary function of the Tanker AT).

The other thing that you're doing is paying attention exclusively to solo considerations. On a team (which should be the primary location of comparison anyway), the mitigation difference is much more significant. A Tanker is capable of surviving aggro that no other AT (with the exception of a buffed Brute) can match. Their mitigation capabilities are wasted when they're not on large teams in challenging circumstances.

You're also ignoring inspiration contribution, which, when talking about soloing EBs, should be taken into consideration. In the Scrapper/Tanker, situation, assuming it's an EB that will actually require the Tanker's greater mitigation capability (elsewise it's pointless because if we're only including situations in which the Scrapper's defenses are perfectly adequate, you're not including any of the situations in which the Tanker has the advantage), the Scrapper is going to have to use green, purple, and orange inspirations to account for the lower mitigation and the Tanker is going to increase his damage and endurance efficiency by popping reds and blues.

I'm still trying to figure out a place wherein you can actually say that this is a problem, anyways. You keep coming up with situations in which you can discount the advantages of the Tanker to make the offensive deficit seem out of proportion with the vast increase to personal survivability. For someone who likes to think of themselves as considering everything within their calculations and concepts, you're continually ignoring the contributions of the higher hp and superior damage mitigation capabilities that work in a multiplicative manner that are designed as the offset to their lower endurance efficiency in attacks.

PS. Didn't I specifically tell you that 40% +end was too high because you weren't incorporating the additional recovery to go with the greater pool of endurance? Vindication is most gratifying.

[ QUOTE ]
Then shouldn't Scrappers and everyone else get an increase in their regeneration and resistance to allow them to survive fights that are going to last longer?

[/ QUOTE ]

No but ironically most ATs do get the tools needed to survive, too. From holds to "team" buffs and debuffs that affect self. If so desired, defenders get just as much resist and defense from pools as tankers do!

The only AT that gets next to no tools is the blaster yet he is given two tools:

Range, that allows him to be exposed to less damage (all critters have less ranged attacks and these are always weaker than their melee attacks)

Damage: enough damage to make sure the fight does not last longer.

Soloing the AT, though, was intended to be hard from the start and require a lot of skill. It holds true.

Tankers, though where from day one described as an AT that would solo effectively but slowly, and I don't ask for a change on the slow part, only on the effectively part.

[ QUOTE ]
As to the metaphorical couch potato to marathon runner analogy, it's hyperbole.

[/ QUOTE ]

Off course it's hyperbole. The right analogy would be a body builder racing a marathon versus a marathon runner. It would had been a perfect analogy that way. The couch potato would not even get to the race before getting tired.

[ QUOTE ]
The other thing that you're doing is paying attention exclusively to solo considerations. On a team (which should be the primary location of comparison anyway),

[/ QUOTE ]

Because in teams, endurance efficiency means nothing, only the ability to kill fast means something and it's something the tanker does not aquire from improved endurance efficiency.

[ QUOTE ]
You're also ignoring inspiration contribution

[/ QUOTE ]

There is where any argument ends. Inspirations are not part of any balancing and are not available on demand. This argument is a dead end.

[ QUOTE ]
You keep coming up with situations in which you can discount the advantages of the Tanker to make the offensive deficit seem out of proportion with the vast increase to personal survivability

[/ QUOTE ]

Witch means next to nothing solo. You said it yourself, its all wasted. Heck using your own logic: the scrapper gets enough survival bonus to survive any solo challenge in the game, in solo play, his secondary is just as effective as his primary. I am not even asking for the tanker secondary to be as effective as the scrappers, the notion of endurance efficiency does not even land in that realm, it just allows the tanker to keep going until he does what the scrapper finished 50% faster.

[ QUOTE ]
For someone who likes to think of themselves as considering everything within their calculations and concepts, you're continually ignoring the contributions of the higher hp and superior damage mitigation capabilities that work in a multiplicative manner that are designed as the offset to their lower endurance efficiency in attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean those things that bring nothing to solo play because they are only useful in teams? Precisely the teams where endurance efficiency will mean nothing?

[ QUOTE ]
Then I'm not following your math. As long as the tank's damage output exceeds the enemy's regen rate, and his mitigation is greater than the incoming damage, he could let himself regain endurance with base recovery and use nothing but brawl.

It's like you're ignoring that base recovery and mitigation exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once I sit back on my laptop where I have all the code I'll post you the full methodology.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The other thing that you're doing is paying attention exclusively to solo considerations. On a team (which should be the primary location of comparison anyway),

[/ QUOTE ]

Because in teams, endurance efficiency means nothing, only the ability to kill fast means something and it's something the tanker does not aquire from improved endurance efficiency.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd disagree that it means nothing. Endurance efficiency means less, but it, by no means, shouldn't be a consideration at all. The only time it's going to be pointless is when there are plenteous +recov buffs being thrown around, which isn't every team anyway.

However, the important thing to bring up is that Tankers are not designed to be particularly effective soloers. They are designed to be aggro magnets that can survive holding all of that aggro. We can tell this because Tankers have so much mitigation that it's largely redundant while solo, and an inherent power that grants no benefit while solo (they're already attacking you). They have lower damage (and thusly lower DPE efficiency because the scalar balance metric used considers the 2 to be part and parcel) to make up for the mitigation capabilities that are only useful on team.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're also ignoring inspiration contribution

[/ QUOTE ]

There is where any argument ends. Inspirations are not part of any balancing and are not available on demand. This argument is a dead end.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it's not. You just don't want to consider it. If you're a Tanker and you're prepared, you're going to bring in some blue inspirations. They're not available on demand while in a mission, but every player is capable of getting the same allotment at every level before he or she begins a mission thanks to the numerous inspiration vendors scattered throughout the city.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You keep coming up with situations in which you can discount the advantages of the Tanker to make the offensive deficit seem out of proportion with the vast increase to personal survivability

[/ QUOTE ]

Witch means next to nothing solo. You said it yourself, its all wasted. Heck using your own logic: the scrapper gets enough survival bonus to survive any solo challenge in the game, in solo play, his secondary is just as effective as his primary. I am not even asking for the tanker secondary to be as effective as the scrappers, the notion of endurance efficiency does not even land in that realm, it just allows the tanker to keep going until he does what the scrapper finished 50% faster.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to tell me that a Tanker is going to be having more problems than a Blaster when soloing on the same difficulty (and, according to you, soloing is fighting Bosses and EBs rather than minions and Lts) thanks exclusively to the ability to deal less damage with a full endurance bar, then I'm going to ask if you've ever actually solo'd on a Blaster. It's nowhere near as easy as it is for a Tanker because of the lack of mitigation techniques. The Blaster is going to either be bringing in inspirations or waiting 3 minutes after most fights just to use Rest again (which is another thing you neglected to include, especially).

Ahh... Rest. It's a wonderful little power that most people ignore (except Arcanaville, who is simply the deific manifestation of universal inclusion, though I do think she counts it a bit high). It's going to provide pretty much all of the additional recovery you need when soloing because the enemies aren't coming at you in some uncontrollable manner. You choose to continue running at them even though your blue bar is low. When solo, you're not going to face 2 bosses in one group at any time, unless you're specifically choosing to collect them as such, which is your own damn fault.

As to the EB issue, the only time you're going to fight them is when you are specifically warned. If you choose to forgo that warning, it's your own fault, especially if you're not bringing every tool available to you to bear because another AT that is uniquely suited to the task doesn't have to.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For someone who likes to think of themselves as considering everything within their calculations and concepts, you're continually ignoring the contributions of the higher hp and superior damage mitigation capabilities that work in a multiplicative manner that are designed as the offset to their lower endurance efficiency in attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean those things that bring nothing to solo play because they are only useful in teams? Precisely the teams where endurance efficiency will mean nothing?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you want to provide a buff to an AT for solo situations whenever it's an AT that only actually finds itself meaningfully challenged when on a team? Are you being serious? You're specifically looking for a situation in which the AT is not ideally suited and using it as a reason to receive a substantial buff for all situations.

The other big problem you've got is that you're comparing Tanker performance to the performance of an AT designed specifically for solo play (just enough capability given over to personal survival with everything else dumped into damage; that's optimization). Scrappers are, for good reasons, considered the perfect soloing AT. Compare Tanker performance to Blasters if you want something more accurate, especially if you're willing to actually consider that personal survivability contributions matter whenever you're solo and don't have team members there to back you up. You'd probably find a greater degree of parity than you'd be comfortable with though.

[ QUOTE ]
Then I'm not following your math. As long as the tank's damage output exceeds the enemy's regen rate, and his mitigation is greater than the incoming damage, he could let himself regain endurance with base recovery and use nothing but brawl.

It's like you're ignoring that base recovery and mitigation exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK BillZBubba, here we go:

First of all a disclaimer: While typing this i found a minor accuracy error in my calculations. Nothing huge but something that will make certain numbers look different.

First of all, we have to determine how fast we are attacking. If we are on a .92 damage per second bottleneck, thats as fast as we can go.

This means we burn 4.78 end per second.
With stamina 3 slotted, everyone recovers 2.48 endurance per second.

For now, I'll ignore toggle usage, so this is a net loss of 2.30 endurance per second.

Now we simply divide to find that with such an end consumption endurance is exhausted after exactly 43.48 seconds.

Now, things fluctuate by level but relatively speaking they remain the same. Still we need an HP table for critters to fight. For now, I'll stick to EBs, not due to goals but because it's easier to deal with a single foe instead of the 14 minions the scrapper can kill with the end the tanker only kills 9.

We already know how much DS per second we can toss out: .92.

For the scrapper, accounting for average crit rate, this means 76.22 damage per second.
For the tanker, it means 49.27 damage per second.

Keep in note, both are going to last the same amount of time dealing those different levels of DPS.


Now, things are different across levels so we got to pick a specific level. Let's pick a level where stamina is fully slotted but is still low level enough: 25.

At this level the EB has 2112.80 HP. He regenerates 13% of this per minute, or 4.58 hp per second. This means the net damage dealt is:

Scrapper: 71.64
Tanker: 44.69

Over a period of 43.48 seconds, the respective ATs can deal a net total (dealt - regenerated) of:
Scrapper: 3114.84
Tanker: 1943.27

If you divide this by the EB base HP it means that the scrapper killed one EB and was 47% done with the next. The tanker only got to 92% before it was forced to seek endurance from some external source.

I can recalculate everything again with toggles running, for the consistency of previous examples, .78 end per second.

Cutting to the chase, this ends in the scrapper killing 1.1 EBs and the tanker only going 69% through one.

This does not stick at EBs, other ranks are also yielding a much longer race for the scrapper in much shorter time the tanker can't match even in a slower race (with .78 from toggles

Scrapper/Tank
Minnions Defeated: 9.97/6.74
Lts Defeated: 5.19/3.33
Bosses Defeated: 2.49/1.58
EBs Defeated: 1.10/0.69
AVs Defeated(chipped really): 18%/8%

The change I propose would simply give the tanker the time he needs to do the same killing, he still would have to do it as slowly as he would had before. Even with such a change the tanker would be done when the scrapper is half way done with his next round of combat.

If you are interested in playing with the calculator, I can set it up in Google Docs for you to mess with, can't really make it fully public because I can't restrict people to only specific cell changes and I had already been forced to deal with hourly rollbacks due to users deleting everything.

Umbral, I'm not really interested in convincing you specifically about the merits of such a change. At this time all I care to dissmiss is the false statement that the tanker can kill the same things that the scraper can given enough time.

I'm replying to Bill because he appeared to care for my evidence.

The only thing I do have to say to your post right now, though is that yes, I have played blasters. Fire Fire to be precise, arguably the most dangerous to play solo. I used to dismiss "ranged as a form of defense" until I played that guy. In certain situations, range made this blaster more survivable than my tanker, and no, that's no hyperbole. Staying at range (via hover or smart immobs) can keep you at arms reach from some devastating attacks to witch your specific tanker may have holes.

Whoever denies that range can be an effective defense either does not play blasters AND melee ATs regularly, or simply happens to always play in teams.

Side note: relying on range as a form of defense happens to be endurance free. When 100% of your end can go to damage, you end up killing much more than you can with a scrapper. I admit that was a shocking discovery.

Starsman,

You need to take you little calculator and...

...rewrite it to include incoming damage, health, and damage mitigation, to name a few things. Then you might actually see that a Tank will last a lot longer against an EB than a Blaster will. Both of which (note the correct spelling), are team oriented ATs. Whereas the Scrapper is a solo oriented AT. Of course the Scrapper will be more efficient vs most everything solo. That is the way its designed.

However, you take 3 scrappers and put them in a race against a Tank, and Defender, and a Blaster and see what happens. Again, you might be surprised.

In short, and many people have stated this already, Endurance is not the only factor used for balance.

I think what's being suggested is that once Endurance is gone, the Tanker can last longer and therefore has more ability to recover endurance and continue fighting. Am I getting this correctly?

After spending the afternoon on my Defender, I'm curious to know how they measure up to Stars' calculator...

Assuming the same dps bottleneck: Defenders manage to kill
1.70 Bosses

I think from now on I'll just use the minion and lt examples since everyone is so focused on the EB data point. I wont include those again in the results.

For comparison:

Minnions Defeated:
Blaster 14.35
Scrapper 9.97
Tanker 6.74
Defender 7.32

Lts Defeated
Blaster 7.14
Scrapper: 5.19
Tanker: 3.33
Defender 3.61


Why the defender kills more with that end than tanks? Because he is not running shields. Also that's not accounting for the primary, certain defender primaries boost endurance and/or damage or may debuff foe resistance, etc etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Umbral, I'm not really interested in convincing you specifically about the merits of such a change. At this time all I care to dissmiss is the false statement that the tanker can kill the same things that the scraper can given enough time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was stating that was what you were trying to do. I still don't see the point. And the reason why you should care about convincing me is that I'm probably going to be a much easier person to convince than Castle is, especially considering all of the repercussions of your proposed change (lowered effect of end drains, lowered comparative benefit of +end, other balance considerations that you'd just ignore).

[ QUOTE ]
I'm replying to Bill because he appeared to care for my evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm amused that you think I don't care for the evidence. I care for it. I just don't think it's valid because you're ignoring a number of other variables in an attempt to make your entire argument appear artificially valid.

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing I do have to say to your post right now, though is that yes, I have played blasters. Fire Fire to be precise, arguably the most dangerous to play solo. I used to dismiss "ranged as a form of defense" until I played that guy. In certain situations, range made this blaster more survivable than my tanker, and no, that's no hyperbole. Staying at range (via hover or smart immobs) can keep you at arms reach from some devastating attacks to witch your specific tanker may have holes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're assuming that I don't argee with the "range as defense" argument. Excellent way to read something into my statements that I never said.

The argument that you're using here (that, if you use immobilizations and range, you can become more survivable than a tanker whenever s/he is fighting a target that s/he is weak to), it fundamentally flawed in a couple respects. First off, Tankers have 55% more hp than Blasters, which, isn't really going to outweigh ranged attacks doing 80% of the damage of melee attacks for NPCs unless you're talking about some very specific outlier situations that are capable of ignoring the significantly higher resistance and defense values of a Tanker. The only possible disparity would be in the Tanker having to be exposed to danger a longer period of time than the Blaster thanks to the Blaster's higher damage (close to 40% longer) but you've got to keep in mind that all of that immobilization is going to eat into damage dealt and increase the time it takes to defeat your targets. However much time it adds to the fight is dependent on the individual attack string and how many foes are present, so it's not going to be as easy to quantify. Of course, we're talking about an extreme outlier case in which a Tanker with a complete defensive hole is forced to fight these targets. Interestingly enough, that's the only time that the "Range as an equivalent defense" argument becomes valid.

[ QUOTE ]
Whoever denies that range can be an effective defense either does not play blasters AND melee ATs regularly, or simply happens to always play in teams.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strangely enough, I do play both varieties of AT (in fact, I regularly play all ATs blue side) both solo and on teams and agree that it's a viable defensive mechanism, but I've found that it doesn't come remotely close to outweighing or even being equivalent to the defensive advantages of having a power set devoted to personal survival. You're assuming they do. They don't. This is why Blasters aren't Tankers.

[ QUOTE ]
Side note: relying on range as a form of defense happens to be endurance free. When 100% of your end can go to damage, you end up killing much more than you can with a scrapper. I admit that was a shocking discovery.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, relying on range as a form of defense is not endurance free. You've either got to rely on mez effects or flight powers, neither of which are free, in order to do so. Thank you for being wrong, and, before you attempt to tell me that the mez effects are incorporated into the cost of attacks and don't have an additional cost associated, you're forgetting that they're going to extend the duration of the combat because you're not using all of your endurance for damage.

You're still completely ignoring that the tank has the mitigation to allow him to slow his attacks down, thus allowing more time for his recovery to do its thing.

If the tank can withstand more damage longer, he can take longer to defeat the enemy and end up with the same amount of endurance after it's all said and done that the scrapper ended up with.

Taking longer to defeat the enemy means he has more time to recover endurance.

And if I only need to exceed 4.58 dam per second, I don't think that's going to be a big deal.

So until you can show me that the tank's increased mitigation and decreased damage somehow do not fairly correlate to the scrapper's increased damage and decreased mitigation, I will unable to accept any change you put forth that will buff tanks.

The need to slow down, however, is a disadvantage not shared by the scrapper. That's a sign of imbalance. This is also why I don't like the argument that Defenders have an advantage in buffing others, and that they pay for that by not having much offense or personal defense. Being able to buff others is not an advantage when solo. Thus, a solo Defennder is more disadvantaged than other classes, and that isn't fair.

The same applies to Tankers relative to Scrappers in this case.

[ QUOTE ]
The need to slow down, however, is a disadvantage not shared by the scrapper. That's a sign of imbalance. This is also why I don't like the argument that Defenders have an advantage in buffing others, and that they pay for that by not having much offense or personal defense. Being able to buff others is not an advantage when solo. Thus, a solo Defennder is more disadvantaged than other classes, and that isn't fair.

The same applies to Tankers relative to Scrappers in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

The need to slow down is an incorporated benefit of operating in the optimal situation for one's AT/build. There's a reason that Fire/Kin controllers are great at steamrolling through 6 man spawns but slow down significantly when presented with bosses and other hard targets. They're built to plow through large numbers of reasonably soft targets, just like Tankers are designed to get beat in the face and draw aggro from their teammates so that their teammates take as little damage as possible. Dealing damage isn't as critically important to them as the ability to take damage is.

Close your eyes and get back to having fun instead of trying to fix non existant problems.

This is a discussion forum. If all you have to contribute is "shut up" in not so many words, then you're not contributing anything.

We'd be delighted to hear your actual thoughts on the subject of discussion. If you have none, don't waste everyone's time telling us to shut up. We're enjoying the discussion. If you're not, don't read it. No one if forcing you to.

[ QUOTE ]
This is a discussion forum. If all you have to contribute is "shut up" in not so many words, then you're not contributing anything.

We'd be delighted to hear your actual thoughts on the subject of discussion. If you have none, don't waste everyone's time telling us to shut up. We're enjoying the discussion. If you're not, don't read it. No one if forcing you to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this quote just a bit hypocritical?

QR.

The arguments for change are pretty funny in the sense that they are neglecting everything but damage and endurance, and even just endurance in an all out attacking scenario.

It's been pointed out but I'll just reiterate:

To starsman:
By your logic and calculations, a blaster has the easiest time taking down any enemy due to their high damage. We all know this isn't the case as incoming damage will kill them depending on the strength of the enemy. You also can't ignore the fact that the Tanker doesn't have to spam his attacks constantly to kill an EB, as Billz pointed out all they have to do is overcome the regeneration rate of the enemy while recovering endurance.

If you don't think survivability takes a factor into time taken to kill an enemy then you've got an argument with too many assumptions to be viable. Comparing X only to Y and disregarding the rest of the alphabet is just silly, and that's why the Devs disregard this kind of debate.

And just to keep typing, since I'm bored:

The scrapper's job is to do good damage while being able to survive on his/her own. A tanker's job is to take the aggro and protect his/her party members while surviving and dishing out some damage. A defender's role is to provide support in the form of buffs, debuffs and ranged damage. A blaster's role is to provide lots and lots of good ol' fashioned ranged and melee damage with little ability to protect themself. The list goes on all the way through CoV AT's as well.

Each AT has a different role to play and executes their roles separately. Saying a defender or tanker should be able to kill as efficiently as the classes designed for this intent is illogical. By that same logic a scrapper and blaster should be able to provide buffs and debuffs as efficiently as defenders, mitigate crowd control as efficiently as tankers, provide mob control as efficiently as controllers, etc.

If you want to call for a buff to defenders and tankers then find another argument other than "They don't kill as efficiently as the damage classes."

<QR>

To be slightly less polite about it than others have been - stop ignoring facts to try to pretend there's a problem that doesn't exist.

Closing your eyes, handwaving any facts that disagree (ie, not all ATs have to maintain the exact same DPS to defeat a specific encounter, merely enough to exceed a mob's regeneration) in order to deludedly pursue a totally invalid point (that somehow if you get low on endurance during a fight you can't possibly slow down ) shows that you don't have a clue and should just sit down, shut up, and go back to playing the game, or else prove why everything you're just handwaving off is irrelevant.

I haven't seen anything more convincing than "I want more damage for my endurance without having to slot for it". Guess what? I want purple IOs to rain down on my character's heads. They're both about as likely to happen.

Obvious blind stupidity doesn't prove a point, it shows that you simply don't have one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PleaseRecycle it has gone from unconscionable to downright appalling that we have no way of measuring our characters' wetness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brillig It's hard to beat the entertainment value of Whackjob Wednesdays.