Shield Charge incorrect

Think about what? Why would brutes burn be based off blasters when tankers had fiery aura already?

ah your are using the tank SC as your basis ok. It looks like they used the brute version of L-rod as the base point.

I'm not sure they would arbitrarily decide that tank SC is the base point, that would mean the brute version gets lowered a bit. They would probably pick the lowest version as that of brutes again which would put the scrapper version up to 200 with l-rod. Then you run into the position of whether or not SC should be as good as L-rod. I dunno, I don't have an answer for you.

I certainly never said or suggested that the psuedo-pets shouldn't be AT specific, in fact I've ******* at the devs to do it for a long time across various different AT's. All I said was that SC is pretty far down the list if they start actually doing their jobs at some point.

That said with the way L-rod was been redone we now run into the valid complaint that the brute version should respect their damage caps rather than +300%. It makes the brute version decidedly worse off that it should be relative to the scrapper version.

Burn is the same pet no matter which AT uses it. Blasters and tankers had Burn since launch. Maybe Burn has been doing too much damage on tankers for a long time? You could be right though, maybe the tanker value is the base, in which case blasters and scrappers could get a buffed Burn.

In which case the Brute version base should still be lowered, because Brutes have lower base damage than tankers. But Fulcrum Shifted Burn on a tanker, scrapper, brute, or blaster is already pretty obscene, so I doubt we will see such a change.

Cause we melee types can so easily fulcrum shift ourselves...

Yes, i alllocated the increase from the tanker to the scrapper just like LR was.

For exact in game values:

LR:

Tanks: 141.47
Scraps: 200.20

SC:

Tanks: 133.46
Scraps: 133.46

Proper scrapper damage for SC: 188.86

I am not the one asking for higher damage caps on Burn.

Err... somehow, I doubt it.

OOps, sorry i hit the wrong key XD i edited the correct value in. And yes, as seen they can differentiate on a power that works like that between the tank and scrapper ATs, so no reason they can't fix shield charge for scraps.

And my ice blast and AR defenders hope they don't. As a defender it is nice to have some powers that actually do a decent amount of damage thanks to the pseudo pets (ice storm, blizzard, ignite).

So yea, your hope is my defender character's dread.

Your nice bug, which you're lucky to have now, versus our bugged/improper damage, that is rightfully due? Be happy while you have it, but you can't be trying to say you're side is right in the matter. If you want more damage for your defenders, start a thread in the defender forum.

This fix for shield charge on scrappers is a correct fix, that they just need to change for us scrappers.

Rightfully due? That doesn't seem a bit melodramatic to you?

Maybe it was decided that scrapper Shields is good enough as is and the armor set doesn't need even more damage? AAO is adjusted upward for scrappers, perhaps they kept Shield Charge with the lower damage on purpose?

Perhaps it is simply an oversight, but its awfully presumptuous to say scrapper Shield Defense is rightfully due a buff.

Maybe scrapper Blazing Aura in Fiery Aura should have been based off the blaster version instead of the tanker version?

Its not rightfully due a "buff" its rightfully due its correct base values. Not presumptuous its correct. Otherwise every value in shields might as well be the same value as the tanker version.

Why? One is from a mitigation set the other is from offensive set.

The more I dig into the numbers in this game, the more I'm forced to agree with Windenergy.

If a given value breaks the rules set up by the rest of a powerset or set of powersets, it's broken and needs to be fixed.

The devs know and agree with this. Otherwise, brute claws would have been left the way it was during beta rather than being corrected.

To expand that a bit: ALL attacks made by a scrapper should crit and be based off of the scrapper AT modifier just like ALL attacks made by a brute get benefit from fury unless the attack in question is specifically tagged to ignore enhancements and buffs.

This isn't the case now. It should be.

Of course the argument against this is that the calculation rules are just guidelines and shouldn't lock set development into rigid structures as that would make everything feel the same.

I disagree with that counter argument, of course, because not following the rules and going off of feeling is what got the powers so hosed in the first place.

I do not necessarily disagree with this, I just don't think I'd use the terminology "rightfully due". I also do not believe Shield Charge is a cut and dry case.

Well, I am not sure I'd agree with that. I never had a problem with the armor sets not critting. Death Shroud, Consume, Burn, etc. seem fine to me without criticals. Yes, I know Fury affects a lot (but also not all) of those powers. I know Gauntlet is included in tanker primaries and secondaries. None of those things means Criticals must be included as well. I do agree that the scrapper damage mod should be probably be used in most cases, but its also not a big deal generally, and I do not think its as cut and dry as its being made out to be.

This is not a primary attack power. This is a power from a secondary, a mitigation set as you said earlier. They haven't always followed "rules" or they have a different set of rules. They don't even necessarily fit into neat rules. Death Shroud, Blazing Aura, and Lightning Field all have the same radius, cost the same endurance, but have slightly different effects. I doubt we want to make a rule that states -3 endurance/energy damage = 1.3 damage/fire damage = its negative energy.

I am OK with rules, but I do have problems when the rules can't be applied cleanly, but people then use the rules to argue for something they favor as if it was clean and clear cut.

I think blaster Blazing Aura should be adjusted to reflect its higher end cost than the other versions (or it should be made to follow the rules and match the other versions end cost and damage scale). But I would never say that /Fire Manipulation is rightfully due that change. I think Consume should be on a reasonable recharge to match Power Sink and Energy Abosorption, but the terms "must be changed", "need to follow rule X", and "rightfully due" get my hackles up. (Not that you could tell. )

Patch Notes on Test

Nice.

AS i mentioned before the new scrapper number should be 188.86 damage. However if they are modifying the power to tankers to give it a slight increase as well, in comparison shield charge will probably have the same 200.20 damage that LR has, and the tanker shield charge will most likely match its LR version of around 141.?? damage.

*high fives Bill*

Just checked, Windenergy has the right numbers.

Normally, that wouldn't be a problem due to Fury... except for that sticky issue of psuedo pets only having a 400% dmg cap. So a Scrapper's BU + Shield Charge (95% dmg enhancement) > Brute's Shield Charge damage capped at 400%.

[edit: By 'normally,' I mean for all non-psuedo pet damage powers.]

ummm.. dude... you miss the memo or somethin?

I wonder how much work that would actually take since all NPCs have a 400% dmg cap. Not sure if they'd have to make new NPC ranks for each different damage cap (400%, 500%, 850%) or what.

Thanks from a scrapper who uses shield charge as one of her primary attacks.