"Godmode" powers?

Having bought all my KCs recently, they're more like 20-50m each. And you only need 4, as opposed to 6 for ToD. 20-50 x 4 = 80-200m; 20 x 6 = 120m, so yeah it's not that much more expensive. And saves on slots.

You're not a different playstyle, you're a worse. There's no advantage to not having Invincibility. Maybe if you were comparing a /Dark to a /Kin you'd have a point. But you're comparing Invuln to Invuln with less mitigation. We're not comparing apples to oranges. We're comparing an apple to half an apple.

And for the record, most Energy and Fire powers have S/L components.

Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU Dispari has more than enough credability, and certainly doesn't need to borrow any from you.

I know that a lot of Nrg and Fire power have s/l components, but not all have it.

I'm worse? Then i guess we should do a little PvP or each try soloing the same AV. =)
( and since i'm not a different playstyle, that means you already knew that was what i was talking about, not farms)


edit: I checked the price and for lvl 35 IOs, the worst ToD is the proc, at 10mil. The two worst KC were 40mil and 60 mil. =P

Gonna have to agree with Fleeting Whisper on this one.

If you skip Invincibility you'd be better off with Electric Armor.

Every single Energy Blast and Energy Melee attack has a smash component. Meaning beefing up your S/L would allow you to dodge every Energy attack there is.

Cremate, Fire Ball, and Inferno have smash components. Fire Sword, Fire Sword Circle, and Greater Fire Sword have a lethal component. So maybe about 50-66% of the fire attacks would still go through.

But I don't understand your argument anyway because if you actually cared about Fire damage like you say, you would have Invincibility, because it gives you defense against Fire attacks.

Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU Dispari has more than enough credability, and certainly doesn't need to borrow any from you.

Since you love Fiery Melee. Scorch and Incinerate are pure fire damage. Oh, and incinerate is the best damage per activation time power of fiery melee. =)

Yeah, but i already made my point that M is easier to boost then s/l/nrg/neg/cold/fire. Invincibility only gives ~7-8% with one enemy. For my build, if you factor in IOs and all the other powers, Melee is higher then the small fire def i'd have other-wise. (specialy if i fallow your s/l approche)

Why should they?

*raises hand*
*checks AT*

Aw crap, scrapper. You know, that AT with (mentioning what is relevant to this conversation) a much lower HP cap and lower base HP.

Invincibility helps there just as in any other situation, the biggest buff you get is from one enemy in range (~7% slotted). Now the thing is, this isn't even a challenge. Seriously. That you consider it to be a potential one should tell you how much stronger you could be if you picked Invincibility and built for typed defenses (because Invul also has Tough Hide, so you're starting off with 13% S/L/F/C/E/N with one target in range, as opposed to 0% M/R/A).

KC is definitely a costly set, there's no denying that. Part of it is because S/L defense is so good and more and more people are becoming aware of that. Most attacks have a S/L component ; especially for melee attacks, there's only a few that don't check for S/L defense.

Now I'm not saying all this to belittle you, your character is your own and you can build it as you wish. However, I believe if you care about efficiency at all, skipping Invinc and going for melee defense is wasting a lot of effort and money that could be invested in S/L defense for much better results.

I think my own situation mirrors yours to an extent, because up until a month ago my build strategy for invuls and WPs was to get equal defenses to S/L/F/C/E/N. I just couldn't get, understand, admit, whatever, that focusing on S/L defense would yield higher performance. I'll argue I had a point - getting everything to 32.5%+ so everything would softcap with one luck, to cover all situations ; but once I tried just going for the S/L softcap, there's no looking back.

I'd encourage you to give it a shot on a dual build, or, if your dual build is used, on the Test server. As for KCs being too costly for Live, you can use Smashing Haymaker as a cheap placeholder ; half the defense for 1% of the price. Rectified reticle in a tohit buff power, reactive armor in toggles, CJ, Invinc, Tough Hide, Weave.

To illustrate, here's a SS/Inv build with 40% S/L defense with one target in range. Defense would be softcapped with 5 targets in range or kinetic combat sets instead of smashing haymaker. It also happens to have 25% F/C, 31% E/N. There's no real sacrifices involved in my opinion, 2 slots are left on attacks to improve accuracy, damage, endurance and recharge as needed, there's 7 power picks left (3 of which would most likely be Fitness, 1 for a travel power eventually... leaving 3 to get other stuff).

Aww...i was hoping you hadn't tried it. =P Now i only need to find a team that don't mind sitting it out.

Another point for skipping invincibility was the endurance cost. With SS, hasten and spamming KO as much as i can, i just couldn't keep up. So while i could try changing to add it, i'd need to change almost all my slotting. =( Same reason i don't get a dual build. I'm not rich (i'm not even finished on her) so i'd have to use only normal or really cheap IOs on the second build. And no matter how i build it, it won't be near as powerfull as the fully IOed one.


I do know it's not THE optimal way to build it. I've seen what you did with your DM/invuln. =P
But i also know i'm far for that budget and i prefer 1 vs 1 fight. So while i'll probably never be able to solo more then 2 AVs (still at one for now), i'd probably have a lot of trouble trying to even solo one if i changed my build entirely.

P.S. Thanks for respecting my choice. It's nice to see someome who accept that not everyone will build the same way, whatever the reason might be. =)

edit: Oh, and thanks for the build. I'll check it later when i'm not playing. =)

Because critter AI makes sure they're firing off optimized attack chains. Oh, wait...

Of course Melee defense is easier to raise than a combination of Smashing, Lethal, Energy, Negative, Cold, and Fire defense. You're comparing raising one defense type using IOs to raising 6 (or, since they're all pairsed with respect to IOs, 3). Try comparing "raising Melee Defense" to "Raising Smashing and Lethal Defense" and you'll come up much better, since it's actually a reasonable comparison to make.

Scrapper Invincibility gives 4.5% defense for the first enemy, unenhanced (7.02% with 56% enhancement).
Investment: One power.
Result: 4.5% defense to S/L/F/C/E/N (this covers all but some psionic attacks)

Investment: One power, 3 slots.
Result: 7.02% defense to S/L/F/C/E/N

The BEST Melee defense set bonus (either in absolute strength, or in strength per slots invested) available grants 3.75%, and requires 6 slots.
Investment: 6 slots.
Result: 3.75% defense to M (this covers approximately 1/3 of attacks)

AoE defense from set bonuses suffers the same problem. Ranged defense from set bonuses is a little bit better if you've got access to a Confuse power (Coercive Persuasion grants 5% def for 6 slots), or if you've got both Sniper and Knockback attack(s) (Explosive Strike and Sting of the Manticore both offer 1.88% def for 3 slots each, for a total of 3.76% in 6 slots). Any special defense IOs offer defense for all 10 Defense types, so aren't part of the argument.

And if you look at Tankers (which get 6% defense from Invincibility with one enemy and no enhancements), the disparity is even larger.

Fully saturated Invincibility, of course, makes set bonuses look somewhat laughable (11.25% unenhanced for Scrappers, 17.55% enhanced for Scrappers, 15% unenhanced for Tankers, 23.4% enhanced for Tankers) in terms of cost-for-benefit.

Don't forget that due to small bugs in the server/client architecture and the way the powers system works, Invincibility can sometimes nearly double in effectiveness for short periods of time (18.75-29.25% for Scrappers, 25-39% for Tankers). If it has any effect at all, it will only help against a single attack, but it's a factor in Invincibility's favor that set bonuses do not have.

Very untrue. It is so much easier to build for types. Again as it was explained to you, for most melee defense bonuses you need 6 slots, for S/L you only need four, it maybe more expensive, but that is only due to the nature that they are high in demand and 50's can't farm them.

As for F/C Aegis gives you 3.13% for 3 slots not only that but it is a resistance set can't get any easier.

1. That doesn't conflict with getting S/L
2. Almost all of Inv is resistance based getting 5 of them would not be an issue

Range is probably the only position easier to build for than E/N

but depending on your epic you could get some pretty high E/N with no sacrifice.

Overall it is so much easier building for types.

It's a subjective anaswer, you can't say it's untrue. For you it might be easier to slot 4 IOs that costed around 250 mil. For me, it's way easier and quicker to slots 6 IOs that costed around 60 mil.
Some people might think 6 slots is a waste, but that's what i always do for my attacks, even if i only use SOs.

And you keep comparing M to s/l, then M to f/c then M to e/n.

My statement was that M is easier to get then s/l/f/c/e/n, wich i'd very like to be proven wrong about. =P

exemple: To get a bonus on M, you need 6 slots in an attack or resist power.
To get a bonus to s/l, you need 4 slots, and f/c 3 slots. So that's already 7 slots (5 paid, exactly like for M), and e/n isn't boosted yet.

And you won't be proven wrong about that statement because it's true. Similarly, buying a house is easier than buying a house, a boat, and a car.

Melee Defense set bonuses are paired with Smashing and Lethal Defense bonuses. Ranged and AoE Defense bonuses are similarly paired with E/N and F/C. Saying "M is easier to get then[sic] s/l/f/c/e/n" is exactly equivalent to saying "M is easier to get than M, R, and A".

Of course Melee Defense is easier to gather than the collection of S/L/F/C/N/E; you're comparing gathering one bonus to gathering three.

I know that, but that's exactly what Da_Captain quoted about my post, saying it was untrue. =P

Invincibility costs 0.21 endurance per second, before enhancements. If your build otherwise has exactly sustainable endurance, Invincibility will make you go from full to zero in about eight minutes (longer with accolades). Hopefully you can manage to find a lull or a blue inspiration in that time. But using IOs, it would realistically be slotted with at least 50% endurance reduction, cutting the cost to 0.14 and the drain time to almost 12 minutes. The endurance cost of a slotted toggle is pretty negligible compared to the amount you spend on attacks. Yes, you'd probably have to change your slotting, but that's a very weak excuse.

It gives 7% to all typed defenses, with only one enemy in range. Even if we totally ignore the exotic defense and just compare the S/L to melee defense, you'd need two Touch of Death sets to give that much defense, running you a nontrivial price and taking up all the slots in two attacks. Or you could get three Titanium Coating sets, taking up six slots in three resist powers. Or you could take Invincibility, give it four slots, use common IOs totalling under a million influence, and have the same amount of defense. Plus F/C/E/N defense and a to hit bonus. It can even take a LotG unique if you're really feeling fancy.

If the build is tight on power picks, Resist Energies/Elements are much more skippable than Invincibility and Tough Hide.

It's untrue to the extent that he went ahead and assumed you meant S/L vs M. Because comparing JUST M to every damage type is pointless.

If you only make one build work for M, and the other build work for S/L/F/C/N/E, then the second build has way more mitigation, but is obviously going to take more work. If you only slot for M, there are tons of attacks that are still going to slip through and hit you. If you take an IOed out Blaster and a Blaster with no enhancements of any sort and then say "The second one is cheaper. Prove me wrong!" you're obviously right, but there's no point in arguing that fact. We can all tell that the second one is cheaper, but we can also all tell that the second one is far weaker as a result.

For the sake of this argument, we're comparing building an Invuln set for positional or typed. The argument is that building for S/L is pretty easy, while the opposing view is that building for positional is better. So if you're going to compare each side of the coin, you should be comparing a build that has only M, and one that has only S/L.

Of course, if you take one build and only slot for M, and take another build and only slot for S/L, the second build is going to end up with more mitigation because you can dodge all attacks that have any S/L component regardless of their position. As pointed out, the percentage of attacks that have some S/L component is higher than the percentage of melee attacks in the game. And most melee-heavy units, like Tsoo, Warriors, Trolls, or Cims, are packing S/L melee.

Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU Dispari has more than enough credability, and certainly doesn't need to borrow any from you.

If you can get a better bonus for less slots, why not? Or else you are defeating you own purpose.

Two things

1.) I compared M to s/l, I compared AoE to f/c, and I compared range to e/n because they each come from the same set, and I was showing you how it was easier to build for s/l/f/c than it is to build for melee and AoE. I said Range and e/n are pretty even.

2.) You can build for all the M defense you want but you still have 2 other postions you need to cover, whereas with typed such as s/l you cover all aspect of it a Melee s/l, range s/l, and AoE s/l

but guess what, while you just have M covered, I have the M, R, and AoE aspect of s/l/f/c, thus with one extra slot I am far superior to you.

I'm not. You value more slots, i value more the cost. If i say it's easier, that means with MY standards, not yours.


If you aren't comparing the same thing as me, then don't come saying what i said is untrue. I stated M vs s/l/f/c/e/n , i made absolutly not comments on M vs s/l alone, and never mentioned R and AOE

As for being superior to be, you still have to prove that in game, doing the kind of things i do. Because from the beginning, i mentionned for my playstyle. You're free on virtue with an SS/invuln or DM/invuln? =P

Because people keep quoting me. That's twice already i though this topic was over, then noticing a few days later that someone wanted to quote me again.

I've already explained more then enouh why i want M. If people could stop telling me i'm wrong about what i said ( M vs s/l/f/c/e/n) then trying to explain to me for the 5th time that M goes with s/l, R goes with e/n and Aoe goes with f/c.... If i didn't knew that already, your explication would have been more then enough, i didn't need 3-4 other peoples repeating the same exact thing you said. =p

The biggest difference between them both is that in this game money is an easy unlimited resource, you can earn 2 bil spend it and earn it again, however, slots my friend are limited and I am getting more defense for my money in the long run. Me saving 2 slots on 3 powers is a total of 6 extra slots I can use elsewhere for more defense.




If you aren't comparing the same thing as me, then don't come saying what i said is untrue. I stated M vs s/l/f/c/e/n , i made absolutly not comments on M vs s/l alone, and never mentioned R and AOE

I don't have any brutes, just tanks/scraps, I have a Inv/SS tank, but I am sure as far as survivablity goes, he has no trouble. So far I tested him on +2/x8 solo with bosses just to see what he could do. Surviving is little issue, it is killing that is his current problem.

But why did you even say it in the first place? Why would you even bother comparing building for only M vs building for EVERYTHING?

Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU Dispari has more than enough credability, and certainly doesn't need to borrow any from you.

The original version of MoG had a -90% max health and +75% res (technically, slightly lower, but slottable to the cap if you wanted) which did not balance out. That was eventually corrected to -75% health and +75% res which did basically balance out, except for psi. Separate from that, it had a heal to full and negated regeneration. The regen you lost was stronger than the heal to full was eventually, but there was a break even point. On top of all of this, MoG had +Def. The net result of all of this was that someone using MoG was stronger than someone that wasn't, in most non-psi situations, for the first 60 seconds after the activation of MoG. Then somewhere between 60s and 90s (there were some ambiguities in the calculation) the player that didn't use MoG - assuming they were still alive - would have a net survivability that was higher.

In other words, MoG gave you better burst survivability at the expense of lower sustained survivability. You could say it gave you the option of frontloading protection (something Regen normally cannot do very well) at a cost of some regeneration. That's not intrinsicly bad, but in my opinion the cost was a bit too high for this option and a large percentage of players didn't view this option as a net positive. Basically, MoG was a little bit broken and a lot image-challenged.


On the subject of SoW, the reason why Castle hasn't applied the SoW design to other godmode powers is actually pretty simple: he doesn't want to. SoW had a very specific design challenge. Castle wanted the strength of the power to be intermediate, not massive, because he wanted Willpower's performance over time to be more steady than other sets - that's one of its intended fortes (remember: the powerset was originally envisioned to be an all-passive powerset). That means SoW's intrinsic strength needed to be lower than other tier9s like unstoppable. But that meant it needed to have better uptime to make its overall value similar to powers like Elude and Unstoppable.

But *that* meant it was in danger of being slottable to be perma, and Castle did not want Willpower to be perma-SoW all the time. He wanted SoW to have *good* uptime without being perma. There's no way to do that with the current tier9 design rules. So Castle engineered the power so it would have good uptime but not be slottable for recharge. That way it did not need to obey the tier9 "recharge > 6x duration" rule.

None of this applies to Elude or Unstoppable (or other similar tier9s) which is why Castle is so confident in saying that the SoW design wouldn't likely be ported to other tier9s. It won't, because those powers simply don't need it. They are *intended* to be "ultra high, but infrequent." SoW isn't intended to be: its intended to be "around a lot, just not all the time."

The only reason Castle hedges that statement is the simple fact is MMOs evolve. One day, someone might decide that Elude *should* be an "intermediate strength, up a lot, non-perma" power. If that happens, logically it would almost certainly adopt the SoW treatment. But until that happens, there's no mandate for Elude and Unstoppable to conform to SoW. SoW isn't the "new way" tier9s should be designed. Its just *another* way tier9s can be designed, if that's what the devs intend for the powerset.

Like i said, i want to fight EBs/AVs, in one-on-one duel. Most of them will only use melee attacks (and aoe), or maybe use something like Indigo's little dart....that does ridiculously no damage. Not every AVs have aoe, and for those who do, it's often one of there less dangerous attack.

Another thing to take into account, some melee attacks are purely exotic.
Siphon Life for exemple. And out of all the attack an enemy have, that's the one i don't want to connect. Because in one shot, he heals almost everything i've done....or more.
Some firey melee attacks are purely fire. And one of them is the best DPS attack. While the enemy won't always try to use it, it's still an very good attack that recharge fast.

So again, it's all about what i do with the character. I NEVER said that M was better to aim then s/l, on a purely mathematical point. However, considering the costs, slots, MY playstyle, it's the choice i've made for MY character.


Except that i won't be getting any more defence from only 2 slots in a melee attack. And no, i'm not 4-slotting my attacks. I need good acc/dam/rech/end and possibly a proc.

Wich is probably part of the misunderstanding. You play a inuvln/SS tanker. Maybe you can be with less slots in your attacks, but not my brute. Damage is the priority after all.

Also...the problem is asuming i can get 2 bils easily. I hate farming, don't really enjoy BMing and by the time i have a huge amound of inf, i'm more likely to have already reached 50 and started a new alt.



Also... for both of you, even without invincibility, i manage to run myself out of endurance because of rage-hasten as well as spamming kO Blow( best DPS) and aoes since i still have holes in my attack chain, and they are pretty quick. So, maybe if you manage to give me a build that's completly substainnable end-wise, with invisibility, while keeping spamming KO,rage and hasten (and the occasionnaly unstoppable crash), i'd try it. =P