[ QUOTE ]
There's also no evidence to the contrary so it's just as valid as any conceptualization of yours, especially since I'm already admitting to using a supposition based on lack of manipulation as a basis of normalcy.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, we have been told that this is the general approach to how they do things. I may not know the numbers, but my understanding of the general approach is not supposition. It was generally explained in the discussions on the changes buffing Blasters.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once again, you're using a vague argument ("acceptable target") without ever giving a definition for it and using it as a counterargument for my own. You're simply inhibiting any potential debate by refusing to actual give a concrete definition for what you think the appropriate term would be.
[/ QUOTE ]
The reason that ranges are used for balance is because it would be too difficult to account for disparate functions. Scrappers and Brutes don't have significant enough disparate functions between the two of them to make numerical comparisons unnecessary.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree that their similarity dictates that their balance should be calculated in this way. There are still too many variables. For example for the time being, they still have significantly dissimilar primary powersets. Even under the supposition that they will eventually have the same powersets, they still do not operate in the same ways. Finally, the devs still aren't likely to balance their performance at their respective caps. One reason for this is that, in general, the way we approach the caps is linear. Setting a balance in the middle of our operating ranges may mean we are at different places at the extrema.
[ QUOTE ]
Would it be a compelling argument to bring up human psychology and the strong tendency for people to choose the most powerful of multiple tools available to them if the differences are readily obvious and the functions are identical? Ask a random person on the street whether sun screen with SPF 35 or SPF 40 is better. They'll tell you SPF 40. If the two sun screens were available for the identical price and from the same company, they'd also buy the SPF 40. It's a basic tenet of psychology and has a strong enough correlation to be consider an effect unto itself.
[/ QUOTE ]
And yet, people play Defenders and Tankers both. It does not matter if more people prefer the other options. It only matters that a healthy number of people choose all of them. I don't know for sure what the minimum for "healthy" percentage is, but it seems to me that all the AT except Stalkers, Dominators and maybe Tankers had them last we were given data. Notably, Stalkers were buffed since then and Dominators are being buffed soon. Both buffs affect the ATs in the middle and the extremes of the AT's operating range with respect to caps, except for near-recharge-capped Doms and possibly for Regen Stalkers (who did not recieve the full proportional buff the other powersets did).
If that observed pattern is correct, Tankers are due for a buff, not Scrappers.
[ QUOTE ]
There will be a shift from Scrapper to Brute. I assure you there will be, especially among the power gaming crowd. I'd rather the reason to switch between the 2 ATs be play style and concept choices rather than the fact that Scrappers are demonstrably inferior.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you are far too concerned with this. I think your focus on numerical analysis is too great. I think you overestimate how many people will do this, and how important it is that some will do so.
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I never said it would ever be a dominant factor. But it will be a factor in the decision. It shouldn't be.
[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. I disagree because I believe the following statement is false.
[ QUOTE ]
Brutes are demonstrably better in all functional respects than Scrappers.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is a fallacy. Yes, they are demonstrably tougher, because they have more HP. Yes, they are deomonstrably better to buff, because they have higher DR and damage cap * AT damage mods. That is not "deomonstrably better" in "all functional respects".
Remember when I said that I play both ATs but prefer Scrappers? That's relevant. I don't find having to build fury "demonstrably better", even though I don't find it hard to do. I find it a task I have to keep up with, something I must be aware of in my tactics and strategy, and how I interact with a team. I have no such concerns with a Scrapper. I simply am what I am, and I never have to worry about stoking my inherent to keep my performance where I want it. There's a difference between this and claiming doing so is hard. I find a Scrapper superior because it takes no effort to maintain its baseline. In exchange I get a far flatter baseline. When discussing comparisons in two ATs who both do more damage than is required, I'm perfectly satisfied with that.
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with datamining is that it's notoriously unreliable. Datamining has shown that Scrappers are the most played AT on CoX, but, if you actually go and check who is online, you'll find more controllers than anything else. The reason that datamining is used is because it is solid and confirmable data.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll be the first to claim I distrust the devs to use their datamining correctly, but I have a big problem with the assertion that they got something this fundamental that wrong. I'm curious what evidence you have to support that claim.
[ QUOTE ]
You can state, without question, that this many Scrappers have been made since CoX went live. You cannot, however, say how many of them are still active or even played regularly.
[/ QUOTE ]
The devs recently posted exactly about that. They told us that though more Scrappers were created, people tended to player their Defenders and Controllers longer and to higher levels.
[ QUOTE ]
Datamining is in no way the wonder tool you make it out to be. The devs have even stated that datamining is simply a necessary sin.
[/ QUOTE ]
I never made it out to be a wonder tool. I made it out to be a better tool than your approach. There's a difference. Please be careful with the strawmen. Also, I'm curious where that was said by the devs, as I don't remember that quote.
[ QUOTE ]
How do you (not the devs) define "healthy" in this context? A certain minimum percentage of created or played characters of the AT? A certain amount of play time across all character? I'm very curious as to where you as a player, exclusively within the confines of this debate, would define it, especially since you're so gung-ho at determining intent and need for rebalancing in any way (which is by no means a requirement for any rebalancing).
[/ QUOTE ]
Bear in mind that this is said in the absence of thorough analysis of what's being discussed. I'll take a stab at it, though. There are 14 ATs. Perfect parity would suggest that each made up 7.14% of the population. However, the level gating of the EATs keeps them from being as common as the others. Let's say all 4 EATs count as 1 "core" AT. That's 11 ATs, or 9.1% distribution for parity. As a guess, in a world where we were past the statistical freakout of GR's release and we assume everyone who plays CoH/V buy's GR, I would say that anything under 4% of ATs online at a time, averaged over something like a week, would be indicitive of a problem with keeping an AT from being sufficiently attractive.
Of course there are all sorts of crazy assumptions in that number. Not everyone will buy GR. It will be a long time before the proportions settle into visible patterns. But you asked me to produce a number, so I did.
[ QUOTE ]
The only time you will actually get Controllers replacing Tankers and Defenders is when you get enough Controllers to create redundant overlap and are not fighting enemies that are not mez protected (AVs, Cimerorans, etc).
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know who you play with or don't, but this is false. Truly, provably false. My nearly daily play experience shows it to be false.
[ QUOTE ]
I'll concede that the two effects are related, but neither is going to replace the other completely.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, you seem to miss out on the whole "we're better than we need to be" part of the equation. If you kill fast, are incredibly hard to kill, and can toss a bit of crowd control around, you don't need aggro management. And I'm sorry, but lol needing a Tanker for AVs.
[ QUOTE ]
You wrote...
[ QUOTE ]
I do not believe that a significant part of the playerbase will behave in the way you describe, because if they did, there would already be fewer Defenders than there are now.
[/ QUOTE ]
The implication of this bolded statement is that there is already a smaller than expected number of Defenders than their should be, if all things were equal. The semantics of your statement suggest that the uncommon would be even less common under the effects of the condition. That's where I was getting it from.
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't intend to imply that, but I see where you are getting it, though. Yes, there are fewer Defenders than Controllers, and my semantics were meant to acknowledge that. My point is that Defenders are still very common despite being less commmon than Controllers. When they become rare, I'll accept that the imbalance is creating an issue.
[ QUOTE ]
First off, it's only common for teams to be as buffed to the gills as you imply when the teams are specifically built for such.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, false.
[ QUOTE ]
Most teams are not, in fact, hyper optimized like this.
[/ QUOTE ]
I won't disagree with this part, though. However, I my understanding is that we're talking about things at the upper end of performance. This is how a team at the upper end operates in my experience, consistently.
[ QUOTE ]
The only support set that could feasibly protect this well under normal team make up is FF/* and that's simply because it can layer huge quantities of +def which will contribute more to a group's survival than -dam or +res.
[/ QUOTE ]
Um.. no. Mix in Cold, Thermal, Sonic, Villain Epics, and the occasional Kin and you're absolutely good to go.
[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, it takes a lot more control than you imply to make up for the aggro control that a Tanker has thanks to the low uptimes of Controller AoE mez powers. Under SO circumstances, it would take multiple Controllers cycling through their controls as quickly as possible to make up for the aggro that a single Tanker could maintain.
[/ QUOTE ]
How did we get from Brutes running at constant 90% Fury and the 90% DR cap to SO circumstances?
Do you really think that people running at SO power levels are going to discriminate on what ATs they bring? Unless they're doing something like running an "All SO STF" or something?
[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, as an addendum to your "Tankers are completely superfluous" comment, every AT is completely superfluous. There is no "required" AT, though, for some challenges, there are required "roles" (tank, support, damage) that need to be fulfilled in order to achieve it (STF for one). Trying to make it look like Tankers are unique in their capacity for easy replacement is an argument destined for failure.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if it's you or me, but you clearly are not following my argument. First, I never once made the claim that Tankers were unique in that. They are just a stellar example. The actual point was that they are still played, still common. You can wander into Wentworths or Portal Court on any given day and expect to find some there.
[ QUOTE ]
Which is an issue of buff contribution and force multiplication more than it is any innate weakness in the design of the Tanker, Scrapper, or Blaster ATs. Scrappers and Blasters could easily be just as threatened by buff compilation as Tankers are. Defenders and Controllers have been demonstrating this since the beginning of the game, though, before ED it was less important because everyone was already performing near cap capability. Teams of 8 Defenders are some of the classic super teams (and still are).
[/ QUOTE ]
And people still play Tankers. [color=yellow]People will not stop playing Scrappers because they can play Brutes. Playing a Scrapper is still going to be compelling.
[ QUOTE ]
Dominators and Stalkers were never 10% of the villain side population. In fact, IIRC, Stalkers were actually the most populous AT red side
[/ QUOTE ]
They weren't even close. They and Dominators were bottom of the barrel. IIRC. The most populous ATs were Brutes, Doms and MMs.
[ QUOTE ]
Their population numbers were fine so they shouldn't have been fixed. Dominators would be in the same boat as well, but they're getting their damage increased. Funny that.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, they were both bottom of the barrel.
[ QUOTE ]
To use a couple metaphors, you'd prefer to see sea levels rise 12 feet before doing anything to solve global warming. You'd want a species to become fully endangered (and probably in dire risk of extinction) before putting forth any effort to rescue the species. That's the difference.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, the difference is that you see a hint of a problem and have decided that it will be one. I see a hint of a problem, and don't think that's enough to incur the cost of change to correct a possible problem.
However, I laud your effort to paint me in a negative light by choosing examples that make me look unreasonable.
[ QUOTE ]
I see imbalance and want it to be addressed because a serious problem could arise. You'd rather let it sit and become a serious problem before doing anything to fix it, just in case it didn't become one, even though you do admit that it could easily become one.
[/ QUOTE ]
The word "easily" is yours, not mine.
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I do understand the significance of those numbers. It's pretty obvious. It's the difference between requiring 14 minion equivalences shooting at you for 22 seconds to kill you and requiring 17 on a softcapped */SR. It's the difference between 60 hp/sec and 75 hp/sec regeneration on a */WP. It's an extra 2 seconds of reaction time when you've got 75 dps penetrating your preferred method of mitigation. That's pretty significant.
[/ QUOTE ]
Way to miss the point completely. You accuse me of having no numbers, yet you have no idea how those statistics will translate into player AT migration. None. Zero. Zip. Despite that you're asking for change on that basis. Scrappers < Brutes, thus people will play Brutes more, and we must fix that before it happens.
[ QUOTE ]
If it's inappropriate to compare 2 ATs then why are you so adamant concerning the Tanker-Controller comparison?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because they illustrate the point. People complain about this "problem" all the time, and yet people play Tankers. Plenty of people play Tankers. They're not a vanishing breed, despite how "unneccesary" they are.
And you think that meaningful numbers of people will migrate from Scrappers to Brutes on the basis of how many more seconds a Brute can live at SR's soft cap?
[ QUOTE ]
As to the inability to bring forth any numbers or even solid definitions because, as you point out, we're not devs, the devs are also omnipotent. It's methods like these that Arcanaville (who I know has Castle's ear and has a significant effect upon his final considerations) uses to point out inequities. The numbers are useful and are used. You're assuming that just because the devs don't show calculations like this, even though they're one of the best tools at their disposal for determining differences that they aren't done.
[/ QUOTE ]
Arcanaville has on multiple occasions told us that the devs explicitly have minimal interest in these sorts of analyses, exactly because they are not representative of real gameplay. If I am not mixing up posters, she has stated that she has largely ceased to use these sorts of analysis to make cases with the devs for this reason. I'd be happy for her to clarify.
I want to post something out of sequence here.
[ QUOTE ]
Interestingly, I doubt any AT would get examined by your definition (and not the easy, cop-out "dev metrics" definition that doesn't even answer the question).
[/ QUOTE ]
As we've discussed this, you've taken an increasingly hostile approach with me, and I'm getting tired of it. I'm sorry you don't like that I can appeal to a methodology different than yours without being able to specify its boundaries. You can take the ad-homenim claim that doing so is a "cop out" and stick it.
Blue
American Steele: 50 BS/Inv
Nightfall: 50 DDD
Sable Slayer: 50 DM/Rgn
Fortune's Shadow: 50 Dark/Psi
WinterStrike: 47 Ice/Dev
Quantum Well: 43 Inv/EM
Twilit Destiny: 43 MA/DA
Red
Shadowslip: 50 DDC
Final Rest: 50 MA/Rgn
Abyssal Frost: 50 Ice/Dark
Golden Ember: 50 SM/FA
you both need to take that stuff to pm's.
I'm already working on Take 2.
The problem with removing gloom from the available powers for brutes is the fact that it is available.
The problem with leaving it in is that it appears to me to be somewhat overpowered and can easily be used as quite the impressive crutch filler. Like aid self. 
But I AM going to yank it for my second take on this study. I'm not going to allow ANY pool powers.
The slotting for every attack will be level 50 basic IOs with 1acc/1end-red/1rec-red/3dam
Chains will be created only using the attacks from the set. If that means using those nasty tier1 attacks we all hate, so be it.
That'll be part one of take 2.
Part 2 of take 2 will be porting all remaining non-ported sets from one side to the other.
Be well, people of CoH.
[ QUOTE ]
Werner!!!
You really need to clean up your mail box.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, is that why I was getting some blessed relief? (OK, OK, I'll fix it. Maybe tomorrow. )
[ QUOTE ]
A heck with this...
I'm heading out to work so here...
[/ QUOTE ]
Looks very similar to my DPS template and the first Claws build that I calculated at 227 DPS, and you're putting out 228 DPS. You have a little more survivability, a little less recharge, and threw in Conserve Power. Maybe I should toss in Conserve Power. Maybe I should shoot for sustainable endurance use as one of my criteria on the DPS builds I'm comparing.
For reference, here's the current template I'm using.
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>| Copy & Paste this data into Mids' Hero Designer to view the build |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|MxDz;1418;706;1412;HEX;|
|78DAA59349531A4114C77B8411641510716711A3888C58D99 7328720298D1802C45|
|3128B600B2835500C56B492433E404E594FB965FD08A99CF2 C12CF296C64A25C74C|
|C1FFD7FDFABD7E7FBA99C249CE23C4CBDB42F3DD69552D6BA F5CEB563B1DD975556|
|4AD61B65BEDFAE968FE61663DDFAE1D5B99F53224351C4288 B141E25E41B6A434A0|
|FA99153D0FE6E481342D69948F715692072D7922ADC0A6D99 05D69F68CC1C0556CB|
|75B46B923E5BE8786F966CF9496E555937AA3D734EB7E9A6D CBEABEEC5A8D6627BC|
|D169D68C5CB57B84B97B85AAD593DDD309B095826F13FDD1D 3870F3CA280118D22B|
|A70C1604D0CB9197E82DDCBF01126C2841DA8D25495C655C3 5C35CCE94E4E77F21E|
|41AEBA0F5536AED26C4E182C8AA44E48C08AAE56F4B4C0641 7A3052B0E32D8D71D8|
|B4318F22C315204DF3261224D983AA4AA43A81AE1DFA98F70 C8754098AA13668E18|
|B7000E9B98FB05D521A143999B6D087786321C10F22A67DE2 D32EBDBA55FA3C18A9|
|F7BD8FD5BD47DF41E639B102C10523B041BA407D44681080C 66456C9DBBDB6129A4|
|4E33C4A739C6A739C6A739CEA739CEA7B9C2A75982AAB0321 B66B34E0845D44691D|
|7D476EE0321F98670E12DE31DE33DE101544D2A67937C2D29 BE9620AC4CAB16D371|
|6A1180D0AC6A31CBB6E6D8728C2DC7D8729CBDC6D96B08AAA 2AA2AFA89BAC6BF111|
|63F33BE1096BF1232DF0915A84AA8AA043799E726F3BCFB3C F74AFAFE3C1713AA16|
|D4DD2FACF0EE06DFC42A6135CB58639CD2D5BFB009B1A46E7 329C76636189B84B53|
|CE32EE139A4A7557AFA2A85562EB2F74B8CCB9C7E8550064F 863A48E34CE0E51721|
|9455A12CFFD767EC7FBF9DDBFF448A76F5BA4244A348D47EF E06FFD7F3C333D867A|
|4E402ADA01441B45D1C3D42798CD32738AAE2E8294A0DA7FD 9F9E8153FF3534741D|
|E506CA4D945798E47083B8513C285E141F8A1F65142584328 E3285F211A5FF1B712|
|3F42C|
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|</pre><hr />
"That's because Werner can't do maths." - BunnyAnomaly
"Four hours in, and I was no longer making mistakes, no longer detoggling. I was a machine." - Werner
Videos of Other Stupid Scrapper Tricks
QR
Awesome list. It's definately useful.
My only complaint though is that a few of the chains are flawed. I didn't look through all of them, as most were fine.
But, for instance, removing Chop from BA, under the exact same conditions, provides a DPS of 190.40.
Also giving claws a chain of FU->Slash->Evisc->Focus provides a DPS of 203.04
And unless I just absolutely suck at excel, I'm using the same spreadsheet you provided. But this is just a slight suggestion to personally ensure each chain is as effective as possible, and thus nothing is ranked incorrectly because someone submitted a crappy chain.
Also, not sure if someone else pointed it out (tl;dr flamewar) but the damage of Sweeping Strike on the speadsheet is 1.7. But according to City of Data, it's 1.92. After changing the info, it changes the DPS from 168.30 to 176.62 for brutes. Doesnt sound like much but that enables it to pass quite a few other sets. And out of curiosity, How much of a difference would a DB chain of BF->AS->VS->SS+attack vitals make on it's DPS? The DPS itself drops fairly dramatically, but I can't find the values of the attack vital damage ticks which may or may not increase its DPS without the combo.
Man you guys are doing it real big with the numbers and words in here.
Scrappers still have powersets that brutes do not and vice versa, maybe keeping some exclusive would help.
�The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion."
@Mr. Magnifico
<QR>
Re: Gloom
It ranks very high in the DPA for Brute attacks, just behind Incinerate. Most of the "heavy hitting" attacks (Seismic Smash, Clobber, Energy Transfer, Knockout Blow) have a higher DPA, but it is better than most of the attacks available to Brutes.
Re: Dual Blades
I have no idea where you got the 1.92 from unless you're including the Attack Vitals DoT for Sweeping Strike. City of Data says it's 1.70. But Blinding Feint, then the Attack Vitals combo (Ablative, Vengeful, Sweeping) is a decent DPS chain that doesn't require a great deal of recharge. I'm not sure it's optimal, but when I was running a Stone Melee vs Dual Blades comparison in another thread it was the better of the two DB chains posted (although still lower than Stone Melee).
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.
|
I decided to do the math on Night Widows using the same numbers just to see how they compare. They score 220 DPS, placing them just below 10 target DM and a nice alternative for those who wants a more damage Claws toon. No Focus or Shockwave though, which are kinda set defining to me. They also have limited options to increase their damage. No -res IOs and no Shield Defense. Cheap Assault though. Here's the downside: 5.61 EPS.
but with the widow natural higher +Recovery doesn't it balance it ?
Widows have 4.8% higher recovery rate and that chain costs 7.9% more endurance than the highest of the Brutes chain. Scrappers and Brutes can also get secondaries with added end recovery, Widows cannot.
[ QUOTE ]
Widows have 4.8% higher recovery rate and that chain costs 7.9% more endurance than the highest of the Brutes chain. Scrappers and Brutes can also get secondaries with added end recovery, Widows cannot.
[/ QUOTE ]
It kinda seems like the endurance use on our powers were balanced around our inherent, which actually hurts quite a bit. My fortunata build, which does less damage then the widow chain came out at about 235 dps on paper, with procs. Only problem is even with the miracle, numina, performance shifter, and panacea IOs it runs out of endurance in 2 mins 31 seconds of continuous attacking.
I had settled on switching out the procs in all the powers except dominate for more end reduction slotting. Switching out the procs for mako acc/end/rech or acc/dmg/rech/end dd amazing things for the end usage. On paper the dps dropped slightly to 228, but the time that I could maintain it jumped to 7 minutes 12 seconds. Generally during that time i'd have to use aid self at least once, which also increases the time the chain can be maintaned.
Here's some math from the build i'm currently using. First the one with procs, second without. Also one thing to note, every 90 seconds we lose basically 1 chain because of mind link. EPS includes inherent recovery, performance shifter, numina's, miracle, panacea, and taking in to account switching aim into the chain for dominate when its up, and mind link.
Fortunata Attack Chain
W/ Assault + Procs
Follow up = (50.72)*(1+.9749+2*.3+.15) + 14.36 = 152.57
Lunge = (123.67)*(1+.8992+3*.3+.15) + (35.3+14.36) = 414.39
Strike = (95.49)*(1+.9829+2*.3+.15) + 14.36 = 275.32
Dominate = (77.17)*(1+.8992+2*.3+.15) + (35.3*2) = 275.04
DPS = 235.13
EPS = 4.57
Endurance Usage = (4.62+5.06+5.43+7.12)/4.752 = 4.68
EUPS = 5.31
TEDPS = -.74
Continuous Attack Time = 2 minutes 32 seconds
Fortunata Attack Chain
W/ Assault
Follow up = (50.72)*(1+.9749+2*.3+.15) = 138.21
Lunge = (123.67)*(1+.967+3*.3+.15) + 35.3 = 408.41
Strike = (95.49)*(1+.9749+2*.3+.15) = 260.2
Dominate = (77.17)*(1+.8992+2*.3+.15) + (35.3*2) = 275.04
Endurance Usage = (4.15+3.97+5.43+6.25)/4.752 = 4.17
DPS = 227.66
EUPS = 4.83
EPS = 4.57
TEPS = -.26
Continuous Attack Time = 7 minutes 12 seconds
*Did not account mind link usage into DPS only EPS
Doesn't Dominate cause redraw?
[ QUOTE ]
It kinda seems like the endurance use on our powers were balanced around our inherent, which actually hurts quite a bit. My fortunata build, which does less damage then the widow chain came out at about 235 dps on paper, with procs. Only problem is even with the miracle, numina, performance shifter, and panacea IOs it runs out of endurance in 2 mins 31 seconds of continuous attacking.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, endurance efficiency is based exclusively around scalars. Higher scalars equate to higher efficiency because damage varies but the endurance cost doesn't (for the same powers across multiple ATs). Scrappers have a 1.215 "real" melee damage scalar (1.125 base scalar *1.08 crit contribution) and the VEATs have a 1.0 melee damage scalar. Because the Scrapper scalar is 21.5% higher, their DPE is roughly 21.5% higher.
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't Dominate cause redraw?
[/ QUOTE ]Redraw does affect DPS now? Gah.
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't Dominate cause redraw?
[/ QUOTE ]
Dominate and Aim both cause redraw, which is why I use Aim in the place of dominate when its up. How much of an effect this has on the attack chain time, I can't say. But I just did a trial with that second build, since I reslotted it last night I wanted to test how it would do.
2 things. One the end usage is higher then i thought, it ran low on endurance before the 7 minute mark. Not sure where I messed up there. Had to turn off tt:l the whole fight, and use tt:a when I was above 35% end. Second thing, because strike increases the attack chain time, I don't get the benefit of the 3rd stack of follow-up on lunge. Kinda sucks, so i'll have to redo my dps calculations.
Oh btw the AV I was testing on... Ghost Widow. And I beat her!!!! I suppose a good amount of that was luck, one soul storm does more damage then I have hit points, but heck I'll take it. I know a lot of scrappers have a hard time with her, who thought a widow could do it.
I took screenshots of it, but I didn't have the UI Toggled on 
I know most people around here are like "pics or it didn't happen" so i'll try a few more times today and post the appropriate proof if I get lucky again
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't Dominate cause redraw?
[/ QUOTE ]Redraw does affect DPS now? Gah.
[/ QUOTE ]
Except for Spines which didn't, IIRC, get a redo of animations to remove the baked in redraw.
Moonlighter
50s include MA/SD, MA/SR, DP/Elec, Claw/Inv, Kat/Dark, Kat/Fire, Spine/Regen, Dark/SD
First Arc: Tequila Sunrise, #168563
[ QUOTE ]
Oh btw the AV I was testing on... Ghost Widow. And I beat her!!!! I suppose a good amount of that was luck, one soul storm does more damage then I have hit points, but heck I'll take it. I know a lot of scrappers have a hard time with her, who thought a widow could do it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fortunatas are obviously totally more powerful than scrappers in every possible way, and the devs need to fix that before GoRo hits!
<runs away cackling madly>
[ QUOTE ]
I know most people around here are like "pics or it didn't happen" so i'll try a few more times today and post the appropriate proof if I get lucky again
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I think most people in the scrapper forum believe what other people say they accomplished unless it sounds completely implausible. Yeah, we like to post pics and videos, but I think it's more because we beaming with pride than that this forum has a "pics or it didn't happen" mentality. Anyway, grats! She's a hard one. I haven't beaten her in about 40 attempts. 
"That's because Werner can't do maths." - BunnyAnomaly
"Four hours in, and I was no longer making mistakes, no longer detoggling. I was a machine." - Werner
Videos of Other Stupid Scrapper Tricks
[ QUOTE ]
Blinding Feint, then the Attack Vitals combo (Ablative, Vengeful, Sweeping) is a decent DPS chain that doesn't require a great deal of recharge. I'm not sure it's optimal...
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not. Blinding Feint -> Ablating Strike -> Sweeping Strike -> Ablating Strike tears it apart, at least at +280% recharge and properly-slotted. But Blinding Feint -> Attack Vitals is the best fairly-easily-achieved DB DPS chain. It's the one I'm using in practice, and I slap a Power Slice on the end when Hasten is down.
"That's because Werner can't do maths." - BunnyAnomaly
"Four hours in, and I was no longer making mistakes, no longer detoggling. I was a machine." - Werner
Videos of Other Stupid Scrapper Tricks
*ASSISTANCE NEEDED*
Folks, how does one figure out optimal attack chains?
We saw that allowing the pause for Headsplitter/Hack/Disembowel/pause/Hack was better than going HS/Hack/Dis/Slice.
What methodology can I use besides flat out trial and error to get the best chains possible using only single target attacks (and cones of <90degrees) for all the melee primaries with each power only getting 42.4?
I'm not asking for the chains themselves, but rather a methodology that could then be used across the board for all attack sets.
Be well, people of CoH.
I don't have any foolproof method. I stick all the primary attacks and sometimes pool attacks into the spreadsheet, and make notes about the secondary effects, AoE and so on. Then I try to assemble the pieces and see what I can come up with. You'll want the buffing powers like Follow Up. You'll want to look at the highest DPA attacks. You'll want to look at anything that can take an Achilles' Heel or Fury of the Gladiator.
Often, after a bit of playing, it will become pretty obvious what the best chain is and why it is. In other cases, there may be a few contenders, and you'll have to sort through them in more detail.
"That's because Werner can't do maths." - BunnyAnomaly
"Four hours in, and I was no longer making mistakes, no longer detoggling. I was a machine." - Werner
Videos of Other Stupid Scrapper Tricks
I do this as well. Also, between identical DPA attacks I pick the one with the quickest animation, as the DPA will be higher with procs.
I've actually got a more concrete method, but I'm a bit busy atm. I'll post it when I get 30 minutes to go over it.
I just look for the 3 highest DPA and try to fit it in a chain...
[ QUOTE ]
I've actually got a more concrete method, but I'm a bit busy atm. I'll post it when I get 30 minutes to go over it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, please.
My methodology in actual play consists of "what's the best DPA attack that's recharged?" followed immediately by "do I have one that's a lot better that will be ready while the other one is animating?" and roll with that. I'll also mess with the chain all the time based on mob resistance (if I have split damage types), slows on my character, various debuffs, and survivability concerns (for example, if I have 15+ EBs attacking me on an ITF I'm not going to stand there and worry about my chain on the General, I'm going to shuffle around to mess with the stupid mob AI - that mobility is why my WP Brute survives as much or more than my Granite Brute).
I really don't bother with attack chains for anything other than these exercises because enough variables get thrown into the mix during actual play that I don't keep track of them - there's simply no point.
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.
|
I can't believe I'm backing up DM here...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what the op has shown us is that - perhaps - the buffs to dark melee were just a little too good.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, not really. Those numbers show DM when hitting 10 targets with Soul Drain. For a set that so few AoEs, it seems right where it should be. The environment where maxed out Soul Drain is possible is where AoE sets would shun single target attack chains.
[/ QUOTE ]
But what Des said...