[ QUOTE ]
Scourge isn't part of base damage and you can only estimate the scourge increase by increasing the damage by 17.52% AFTER res debuffs have been calculated out. 17.52% is the avg. damage increase an attack with scourge has over an attack without scourge done against a target of any hp count.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was not doing a DPS comparison, or did you not figure that out? I was doing a MAXIMUM damage possible in a single use comparison. DPS calculations or for those to do who care to get the headache from bothering. I was demonstrating just how the damage scaling actually works. Not working on dps calculations. Because showing just how the damage actually works out on a Same Power comparison I was hoping might enlightening you to some basic facts. Such as the fact that corrupters are INTENDED to do HIGH damage.
And there is very much information on exactly how much damage scourge does. It's average damage contribution to an attack chain is something for others to figure out. For the purpose of what I was showing, applying scourge is binary. Either you apply the damage or not. If you apply the scourge damage, you apply the listed damage to the total damage before buffs and debuffs are factored in.
You will notice I just gave with and without scourge damage. That's because there is no "multiply by 17%" for scourge. Either it does the damage, or it doesn't. The game it's self will tell you the average damage factoring all things in. I wasn't working on average. I was working on best case "all damage components go off".
[ QUOTE ]
Blasters bring an avg of 40% dmg for themselves through defiance.
[/ QUOTE ]
Geez you can't even grasp a simple comment stated multiple times. I did NOT include blaster's defiance for a reason. Because it is NOT really a controllable variable. Is this an alpha strike? If so you don't have that damage buff. If not, what attacks were used to set up for it? Because different attacks will buff damage by different amounts. Don't add an 'average of 40%' to this, because there is nothing saying "Yes this hypothetical situation includes a large fight that's been going on". I included controllable and quantifiable buff sources which always preform the same way. Defiance doesn't always preform the same way, and you have to be attacking first before you get the buff anyway.
[ QUOTE ]
completely wrong on the formula as well. You completely excluded (41.71+83.42) from the 20% damage buff and then of course you got the resistance value wrong and wrongfully added an extra 41.71 in for scourge.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I didn't wrongly add in an extra 41.71 for scourge. That IS the damage scourge does for thunderous blast if unslotted. So if scourge goes off, that is always the amount that is added to the attack. Either you get the extra damage, or you don't. If doing a damage calculation to include scourge for how much the power can potentially do, you must add in the damage scourge does and not a multiplier based on 'average scourge performance'. And since the odds of using Thunderous Blast twice against most enemies is pretty much non-existent, it's pretty safe to say that you must either include it or not.
Did you notice something bout the math formula I used? The stuff in brackets is solved first. THEN you go from left to right so it's the answer to the first bracket PLUS the answer in the second bracket, THEN multiply for the damage buff. I'm trying not to be rude, but your starting to sound like you don't remember how to do complex math problems.
Your info on how to calculate the average buff for defiance still doesn't apply to the examples I was showing for a pretty big reason which I keep pointing out. It is dependant on having been attacking already. This is why I also showed the without scourge calculation.
Oh, and if I can't remember the exact value of something I didn't write down on a piece of paper while the servers are down, pardon me for not having perfect memory. Forgive me if I'm incapable of double checking information on the fly when my source is unavailable. I'm sorry, but we can't all be gods like you so obviously must be. Nor can we all understand City of Data's sometimes confusing format like OBVIOUS gods such as yourself can. Forgive us mere mortals who must suffer with the limits of their own capabilities.
And if you can't figure it out, that paragraph is what's called being sarcastic.
Scourge is what allows corrupters to fulfill their role as a high damage ranged archtype when combined with their buff/debuff secondaries. And you'll notice that corrupter secondaries aren't really focused on pure defense. Even the more defensive of them contain offensive debuffs. Defenders aren't intended to be a high damage archtype though. They can potentially achieve near blaster levels of damage when built right though. Near, but not quite blaster levels of damage. Defenders are intended to do just that, defend a team.
In all honesty, I'm not worried about any given archetype stealing the role of any other archetypes. If I were, I'd be more concerned with blasters losing ther 'team spot' to corrupters. And it may be moot anyway. We don't know what the level requirement for the new zone Going Rogue will have is going to be.
Wouldn't it be a kick in the pants if it required being level 50? Then all the "I'm deleting all my defenders and rerolling them as corrupters to bring hero side" people would be stuck leveling as villains.
"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern." Lord Acton
Madam Enigma's History
Remember what I said in the thread earlier folks. Madam_Enigma is a "believer" not a "thinker".
Bah, thinking is overrated.
[ QUOTE ]
Remember what I said in the thread earlier folks. Madam_Enigma is a "believer" not a "thinker".
[/ QUOTE ]
If by 'believer' you mean "is capable of looking at information, reading what the developer's intentions are, and then forming decisions based on available information", then I must be a believer.
Although, I'm wondering what your possibly meaning by "not a thinker". So let's see just what the definition of thinking is. thinking is.
[ QUOTE ]
to have a conscious mind, to some extent of reasoning, remembering experiences, making rational decisions, etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm, I remember experiences and make rational decisions more often then irrational ones. I also have a conscious mind.
[ QUOTE ]
to employ one's mind rationally and objectively in evaluating or dealing with a given situation: Think carefully before you begin.
[/ QUOTE ]
Interestingly. I've been trying to use logic and reason in this very thread. I've looked at the points made by people such as Turbo who have one opinion, and then have been writing responses to explain my opinions and the reasons behind them. I've used hard numbers, in game experiences, and analytical capabilities. Yet I've been denounced twice now as a "believer, not a thinker".
[ QUOTE ]
to have a certain thing as the subject of one's thoughts: I was thinking about you. We could think of nothing else.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm, here too is an interesting aspect of the definition. I've been trying to debate an issue, or rather a non-issue so it must be something on my thoughts. Implying that I'm thinking.
[ QUOTE ]
to call something to one's conscious mind: I couldn't think of his phone number.
[/ QUOTE ]
Multiple times in this very thread I've recounted things that I remember. I've drawn upon experiences in this and other MMO's, and thus proven I am capable of calling up information from my subconscious to my conscious mind.
[ QUOTE ]
to consider something as a possible action, choice, etc.: She thought about cutting her hair.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm, yet another interesting one. Because I HAVE considered the various suggestions. I don't come to the conclusion they are needed, or would be helpful. But I have considered them.
[ QUOTE ]
to invent or conceive of something: We thought of a new plan.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yet another definition of thinking which applies to me. I am a writer. I mostly write short stories for myself and my friends. However in my sig is a link to something I have written. I also am game mastering an RPG campaign, thus am constantly having to conceive of things.
[ QUOTE ]
to have consideration or regard for someone: Think of others first.
[/ QUOTE ]
Amazing isn't it? The very fact I'm taking the time to reply to this blatant insult means I have some sort of consideration for you Turbo. Right now, it's disgust.
[ QUOTE ]
to esteem a person or thing as indicated: to think badly of someone.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm, now it's really starting to cut to the quick. To esteem a person or thing as indicated? Well, right now I do think you are being narrow minded and rude Turbo.
[ QUOTE ]
to have a belief or opinion as indicated: I think so.
[/ QUOTE ]
Amazing again! I have the opinion that defender damage is just fine and doesn't need any 'fix', thus again proving I am a thinker. I am capable of having beliefs and opinions.
[ QUOTE ]
(of a device or machine, esp. a computer) to use artificial intelligence to perform an activity analogous to human thought.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, this one doesn't apply to me since I'm a flesh and blood person.
[ QUOTE ]
verb (used with object)
11. to have or form in the mind as an idea, conception, etc.
12. to consider for evaluation or for possible action upon: Think the deal over.
13. to regard as specified: He thought me unkind.
14. to believe to be true of someone or something: to think evil of the neighbors.
15. to analyze or evolve rationally: to think the problem out.
16. to have as a plan or intention: I thought that I would go.
17. to anticipate or expect: I did not think to find you here.
adjective
18. of or pertaining to thinking or thought.
[/ QUOTE ]
More and more as I go down the list I see things that apply to me. I guess that this makes me a "thinker"
To be fair, let's look at the definition of 'believer' too.
[ QUOTE ]
be·lieve (b-lv)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v.tr.
1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.
v.intr.
1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
2. To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
3. To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
4. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well what do you know, the two aren't mutually exclusive. For example, I believe that there must be some sort of supreme being. However I think that no religion has the full truth. I came to this decision after rational thought and research, coupled with belief.
Turbo_Ski, do us all a favor and stop insulting anyone who has opinions not your own.
"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern." Lord Acton
Madam Enigma's History
How about you start basing your opinions on factual data instead of belief. Just like how you believe defender's Aim is greater than blaster's Aim in value when blasters have 62.5% damage buff and defenders only have 50% damage buff or how you believe that */Rad corruptors have -20% res on enervating field when it's actually -22.5%.
*grabs some nachos and takes a seat*
This is better than Lost in Translation!
Then again, MOST things are better than that...
*Wonders how this go so far away from forcefields*
I suppose this happens to all forums that catch a lot of responses.
I appreciate PKs attempt to keep this arguments civil with humor, even though it seems to have failed.
Agree to disagree and move on. you both seem to be taking different circumstances in to account.
[ QUOTE ]
Remember what I said in the thread earlier folks. Madam_Enigma is a "believer" not a "thinker".
[/ QUOTE ]
Does Turbo_ski get a badge for being the first Ad Hominem in the thread?
Wondering if Godwin's Law will have to be invoked at some point.
[ QUOTE ]
How about you start basing your opinions on factual data instead of belief. Just like how you believe defender's Aim is greater than blaster's Aim in value when blasters have 62.5% damage buff and defenders only have 50% damage buff or how you believe that */Rad corruptors have -20% res on enervating field when it's actually -22.5%.
[/ QUOTE ]
How about you start basing your insults on actual information? For one thing, I did NOT include AIM before because for one thing, I didn't have the exact numbers for it available. Nor could I get them since the servers were down. And your going on still about me messing up my math a tad the second time I ran the numbers without being able to double check the values... When you yourself keep doing YOUR math wrong? Pot, meet kettle.
You've been claiming that I"m basing my opinions off of pure belief. In other words you think I'm just pulling things out of a fantasy world. No, I'm basing my opinions AND beliefs off experiences. I've been trying to demonstrate the numbers to illustrate various things, you keep claiming I'm "not a thinker".
I guess it's easier for you to dismiss someone's opinions as fantasy when they aren't using the information supplied them by the developers, but just relaying experiences. Probably because you feel that if someone doesn't record videos of their playtime and post them on youtube, they didn't play?
Here's a tip for you Turbo, I have actually gotten booted from teams while playing defenders because the blasters felt I was doing too much damage. They didn't like the idea of a 'support' type who could defeat enemies as well as they could. And that's using a secondary most people consider gimped due to it being lethal damage.
The developers have stated repeatedly they feel that defenders are the most balanced archetype. They also have said in the past that for an archetype to get buffs when it's not under preforming there would have to be a trade off. As such, what will you decide all us defenders want to trade to get higher damage? Because it looks to me like you and Fulmens are the only ones really campaigning for a damage buff.
So tell us what have you decided that us lowly defenders who can see how and why the class is balanced will have to give up to get the damage boost you want? Because what I'm gathering from your replies is this attitude on your behalf.
"I am Turbo_Ski and I know best. Defenders do too low of damage in my opinion, and my opinion is the only one that matters. Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a Believer, and if they try using any sort of reason they can't be thinking. If they were thinking they would naturally see how brilliant I am and that I can't be wrong."
Yes Turbo, that's how you come across. Your coming across the same way over in the keld forums while you espouse your belief that SoA are intrinsically superior to kelds in every way.
By the way, I'll point out something else while I'm at it your holy of holys. I find your logic of "Because the power gives X percentage of a buff to each team member I should add the buff given to each seperate team member together for the total buff" to be flawed. The flaw lies in the fact that you are adding the buffs together as if it's one large buff. It's not. By your logic Group Fly would be the best travel power out there because you would add the travel speeds of each person affected by it together for the total flight speed it gives. By this logic team teleport is more powerful then it is because you multiply the teleport range by how many people are being teleported. The leadership toggles are an aura. The value for the aura is always the same no matter how many are effected by it.
Or do you also add up the defense values and mez protection values of everyone being affected by dispersion bubble into a large lump sum to decide if it's being effective enough to run?
"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern." Lord Acton
Madam Enigma's History
Nice 
EDIT:
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a tip for you Turbo, I have actually gotten booted from teams while playing defenders because the blasters felt I was doing too much damage. They didn't like the idea of a 'support' type who could defeat enemies as well as they could. And that's using a secondary most people consider gimped due to it being lethal damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
You really DO have the worst PuG histories as somebody pointed out earlier 
[ QUOTE ]
How about you start basing your insults on actual information? For one thing, I did NOT include AIM before because for one thing, I didn't have the exact numbers for it available. Nor could I get them since the servers were down. And your going on still about me messing up my math a tad the second time I ran the numbers without being able to double check the values... When you yourself keep doing YOUR math wrong? Pot, meet kettle.
[/ QUOTE ]
You say my numbers are wrong, but fail to bring any reasoning why it's wrong. My math agrees with City of Data, In-game numbers, Mids Hero Designer, and wonderslug's damage spreadsheet.
[ QUOTE ]
You've been claiming that I"m basing my opinions off of pure belief. In other words you think I'm just pulling things out of a fantasy world. No, I'm basing my opinions AND beliefs off experiences. I've been trying to demonstrate the numbers to illustrate various things, you keep claiming I'm "not a thinker".
[/ QUOTE ]
And yet you claim to have never played a corruptor past lvl 12, but believe you have the experience to actually thoughtfully contribute to a discussion about the imbalance of defender and corruptor numbers. You then make it painfully obvious you have no clue how the math works and when you claim to have used 6 calculators to check your work, it makes it rather obvious you don't know what a spreadsheet is.
[ QUOTE ]
I guess it's easier for you to dismiss someone's opinions as fantasy when they aren't using the information supplied them by the developers, but just relaying experiences. Probably because you feel that if someone doesn't record videos of their playtime and post them on youtube, they didn't play?
[/ QUOTE ]
Who is living in a fantasy world now? By the way you still haven't proven any of my math actually wrong with in-game data or proven yours was right.
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a tip for you Turbo, I have actually gotten booted from teams while playing defenders because the blasters felt I was doing too much damage. They didn't like the idea of a 'support' type who could defeat enemies as well as they could. And that's using a secondary most people consider gimped due to it being lethal damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's amazing how you can make up the most ridiculous anecdotes on the spot like that. It's really hilarious.
[ QUOTE ]
The developers have stated repeatedly they feel that defenders are the most balanced archetype. They also have said in the past that for an archetype to get buffs when it's not under preforming there would have to be a trade off. As such, what will you decide all us defenders want to trade to get higher damage? Because it looks to me like you and Fulmens are the only ones really campaigning for a damage buff.
[/ QUOTE ]
First off, how about to cite exactly where any developer has said "defenders are the most balanced archetype.", because I have a very hard time believing Castle would ever say that.
Oh and Fulmen's has "Renowned~Guide Contributor" underneath his name, yes clearly he must not know anything about game mechanics or the numbers behind them. /sarcasm
[ QUOTE ]
So tell us what have you decided that us lowly defenders who can see how and why the class is balanced will have to give up to get the damage boost you want? Because what I'm gathering from your replies is this attitude on your behalf.
"I am Turbo_Ski and I know best. Defenders do too low of damage in my opinion, and my opinion is the only one that matters. Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a Believer, and if they try using any sort of reason they can't be thinking. If they were thinking they would naturally see how brilliant I am and that I can't be wrong."
Yes Turbo, that's how you come across. Your coming across the same way over in the keld forums while you espouse your belief that SoA are intrinsically superior to kelds in every way.
[/ QUOTE ]
Funny how you interpret stuff like to take something as simple as "Generally Khelds < SoAs in teams" and interpret it into "SoAs are superior in every way". Seems to be happening a lot in this thread as well.
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, I'll point out something else while I'm at it your holy of holys. I find your logic of "Because the power gives X percentage of a buff to each team member I should add the buff given to each seperate team member together for the total buff" to be flawed. The flaw lies in the fact that you are adding the buffs together as if it's one large buff. It's not. By your logic Group Fly would be the best travel power out there because you would add the travel speeds of each person affected by it together for the total flight speed it gives. By this logic team teleport is more powerful then it is because you multiply the teleport range by how many people are being teleported. The leadership toggles are an aura. The value for the aura is always the same no matter how many are effected by it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Really, you think a 140% self only damage buff better for a team than an aura that gives 15% dmg, 15% def, and 15% tohit to everyone in the team. Yeah, your logic there is very flawed.
Epic thread is epic.
[ QUOTE ]
Epic thread is epic.
[/ QUOTE ]
Madam_Enigma reminds me of Bad_Influence just a lot less entertaining.
I was going the say the same about you, but with blonde rather then red hair and the lack of emo face paint. :/
[ QUOTE ]
I was going the say the same about you, but with blonde rather then red hair and the lack of emo face paint. :/
[/ QUOTE ]
funny, I don't make up ridiculous anecdotes to support my point.
Nah, but you do a good job of insulting others that don't agree with you.
[ QUOTE ]
Nice
EDIT:
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a tip for you Turbo, I have actually gotten booted from teams while playing defenders because the blasters felt I was doing too much damage. They didn't like the idea of a 'support' type who could defeat enemies as well as they could. And that's using a secondary most people consider gimped due to it being lethal damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
You really DO have the worst PuG histories as somebody pointed out earlier
[/ QUOTE ]
I can believe it. Most of the time, I find that if the Defender is doing ANY damage, people think it's too much. Seems we're supposed to focus only on buffing and healing.
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a tip for you Turbo, I have actually gotten booted from teams while playing defenders because the blasters felt I was doing too much damage. They didn't like the idea of a 'support' type who could defeat enemies as well as they could. And that's using a secondary most people consider gimped due to it being lethal damage.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wait, your defense here is that some terrible PuG leader who doesn't doesn't know how to play kicked you from their team, thus defender damage is fine? This is ludicrous. They're the same player who would kick you for spamming that fuzzy green stuff everywhere as a RAD, or begs you to stop bubbling them because they can't see their costume.
I had a shield/ss tank on an ITF I was running. Almost every group he would Shield Charge+Footstomp, destroying everything in sight, leaving barely anything for the scraps. You know what I did? As team leader, I said "THAT was SICK!!!!" then gave him more speed boost and fulcrum shift.
And, did you just knock Dispersion bubble? I'm really confused.
But to get relevant, the important thing that must be said is that your analysis is wrong. It is wrong regardless of the numbers you use because you are considering only a very narrow slice of behavior that any given AT is capable of, instead of taking a holistic approach that considers all factors. You can't make any kind of meaningful statement about AT balance based upon what they can do just once give specific conditions, you need to consider how they perform over time, ask Turbo has attempted to do. (I can't validate her approach or refute it because I'm too lazy to look up the numbers and do the math) This is in fact how all game balance needs to be performed.
Do you think the devs look at Scourge and say "well if it triggers, its x, and if it don't its y", then nod their heads and say "that oughta do it!".
No, they model it, consider its trigger percentages, factor in its value per power, consider attack chains, consider different groups, varying HP lvls, teamsize, buffs, until they have a composite understanding of how the power behaves. That's the only way to even begin balancing such a power. Then you add back all other factors, such as damage cap, enhances, candy, buffs, etc. etc.
Anyrate, Madam, this argument has become horribly derailed. Instead of being worried about Turbo's opinion of herself, you should seriously consider whether the figures you were calculating, regardless of the accuracy of your numbers, have any meaningful relevance to the question of "Is Defender damage underpowered, or fine?" because fundamentally it does not. Defender damage needs to be a consideration of how they perform over time. A single activation of a single power is not a meaningful indicator.
So far afield from force fields. We've wandered into dark places, let's all take a deep breath people.
-Mod8-
If you are using Latin in your post you are probably trolling
Have a question? Try the PlayNC Knowledge Base
[ QUOTE ]
I got those numbers by copy/pasting strait from the game, so are you saying the game is lying about the numbers? Let's do some basic math. Shall we?
41.71 smashing+83.42 energy=125.13 damage every time you use the attack. You will agree this is proper math right? Because if not, then your saying that the six calculators I used to recheck it are lying.
Then there is a high chance (at 50) for 41.71 energy damage. 41.71+125.13=166.84
Next there is a fifty/fifty chance for 41.71 damage. 166.84+41.71=208.55 damage.
But that's not 'best case' is it? Then there's scourge. So for maximum possible damage with a corrupter you must include scourge damage too, right? That's another 41.71 damage. So 208.55+41.71 is what? That's right, 250.26 damage best case (scourge goes off, both damage chances go off). So in a complete vacuum it does 250.26 damage maximum.
[/ QUOTE ]
Scourge isn't part of base damage and you can only estimate the scourge increase by increasing the damage by 17.52% AFTER res debuffs have been calculated out. 17.52% is the avg. damage increase an attack with scourge has over an attack without scourge done against a target of any hp count.
[ QUOTE ]
Now since this is a corrupter and we're assuming a rad/electric defender, a electric/rad corrupter, and a electric/* blaster let's include the damage boosts rad can get reliably solo. That's +20% damage from AM and a -20% resistance debuff. Note I am not including enhancements. That's because we have no way of knowing if the person chose to slot for damage, accuacy, recharge, or what. Maybe they underslotted damage to get more end drain? We don't know.
[/ QUOTE ]
*/Rad corruptors bring +20% dmg and -22.5% res.
Rad/* defenders bring +25% dmg and -30% res.
Blasters bring an avg of 40% dmg for themselves through defiance.
Jeez you can't even get the starting numbers straight.
[ QUOTE ]
For best case situation this corrupter already just did 250.26 damage unenhanced, but with AM it would be 300.312 damage total. Assuming no resistances of course. This damage is then modified by the enemy's resistance (or lack there of). Since they presumably had no resistance to start, let's give the full corrupter resistance debuff of 20%.
The math so far would be as follows:
(41.71+83.42)+(41.71+41.71+41.71)*1.2=X
X*1.2=Y
Y=360.3744
[/ QUOTE ]
completely wrong on the formula as well. You completely excluded (41.71+83.42) from the 20% damage buff and then of course you got the resistance value wrong and wrongfully added an extra 41.71 in for scourge.
[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of blasters, maybe I should have included Aim in my calculations. I didn't though. If I did, I'd have to use it in my calculations for all 3 archetypes. By omitting Aim I removed one variable to reduce math clutter.. Nor did I include the buff from Defiance since there's no way of knowing which attacks were used before casting Thunderous Blast. If it's the alpha strike (which nukes I've noticed usually are) then there is no defiance buff most likely.
[/ QUOTE ]
Aim is available to all the ATs, but the buff modifier is actually higher for blasters than defenders. In addition blasters get buildup from their secondary as well. If you really want to bring up a mechanic that gives blasters a 162.5% dmg buff and only 50% dmg buff for defenders, then I assure you the gap between blaster and defender damage will only widen.
Defiance's average buff can be calculated by measuring the series of common blast attack chains against their activation times, buff values, and buff durations. For example:
Voltaic Sentinel -> charged bolt -> lightning bolt -> Ball Lightning -> charged bolt -> lightning bolt
yields a 57.9% of a buff with 4.19 seconds left of buff to cast the 3.7 second cast of Thunderous Blast. taking into account user error and ignorance, 40% of a buff is a pretty safe estimate of a defiance buff.
[ QUOTE ]
But of course if this is an alpha strike, the corrupter doesn't get scourge damage do they? This means base damage+enhancement bonus+AM bonus. That comes out to 488.007 damage for the corrupter before resistance debuffs are factored in. 66 damage isn't that large of a margin.
[/ QUOTE ]
When talking about overall damage of an AT, whether said attack is an alpha strike or not is irrelevant. All 3 ATs have prep time involved to buff their damage up, defenders and corruptors have to apply their debuffs first and blasters have to build up defiance. If you counted every attack as an alpha strike then you're completely removing buff/debuff that requires prep time. Scourge falls into this same category as defiance, which as I said before comes out to be a 17.52% damage buff for overall damage over time for corruptors.
Also there is always a chance that a target could be below 50% health before the nuke goes off since 3.7 seconds is plenty of time for allies to deal damage. Because of this you can't omit scourge's potential to increase damage ever.
[ QUOTE ]
Factoring in Aim alters things even more. Defenders remember get higher damage buff values from powers then blasters or corrupters. So adding Aim in will close the gap a bit.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong.
Electrical Blast - Aim damage buff values
Corruptor: 42.5%
Defender: 50%
Blaster: 62.5%
[ QUOTE ]
Remember, because defenders get the highest values for most buffs and debuffs, using those damage buffs and resistance debuffs can easily close the gap in damage. This is why TA came with the -res values for Acid Arrow and Disruption Arrow reduced to 20% each for defenders. When they were 30% each it was too powerful due to them being stackable without slotting.
[/ QUOTE ]
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that TA has Oil Slick which is like old school burn on steroids and the fact that Disruption Arrow can stack on itself. It wasn't because -60% resistance all the time was too powerful, it was the mechanics of the set as a whole that was too powerful for such a value.