Stretching For Soft Cap


Arcanaville

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyPerfect View Post
To what lengths does one generally have to go in order to achieve the Defense soft cap to <insert position(s) of your choice> in a build? How many spare powers do you end up taking, how many set mules do you employ, and how much performance on a per-power basis do you sacrifice in order to get the bonuses you need?
I am likely to take Combat Jumping or Hover anyway, so it just makes sense to slot either power for defense if I'm building toward softcap. If softcap is the goal, then Weave is likely a must-have as well, though I would be happier not to need it.

Manuevers is more rare for me. I like the team buff aspect, but it is usually a very small benefit for a lot of endurance. Like any other defense bonus, though, stack enough of it and you can really achieve something. I expect this to become a staple of incarnate content leagues.

I'm more likely to pick up Tactics and slot with a full set of Gaussian's. The exotic resists in the power are nice, as well as the set bonuses.

Tough gets slotted based on how slot-starved I am. If I'm going for softcap, then Tough or some other resist power will get the Steadfast 3% Unique. If I have slots left to spend, then I might slot it for additional bonuses, assuming I couldn't get better bonuses elsewhere. I'm happy just using it to mule the Steadfast in some cases.

When I pick powers to mule IOs, I usually pick powers that can slot LotG 7.5 IOs. The Concealment pool is perfect for this. If you spend a lot of slots getting defense bonuses, then these one-slot wonders can really help keep your attack chain moving.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonofSpam View Post
Your only DEF toggles are Ninja Reflexes, Danger Sense, Hide and Weave? No Stealth?
Correct.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SonofSpam View Post
You might want to consider making room for Stealth in there somewhere. While Hide alone will make you completely invisible to any NPC that doesn't just totally ignore any amount of stealth, Hide + Stealth + a Stealth IO is the only way to cap your stealth against other players.
This is definitely useful information, but I don't intend to go anywhere near PvP until the devs clean off all of their crap that they left on it over the years.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SonofSpam View Post
Would you mind elaborating as to specifically which sets you used to softcap your build?
I'm very apprehensive about this because it's a really good way to get people to say "but if you take these other powers and slot things up this certain way, you can do better." I want to avoid making it that kind of thread.

I'm also pulling Melee Defense off of a click power, which will surely be looked down on by the min/maxing crowd, but hopefully it won't derail things.

Though the sets I'm using are as follows:
  • 4 x Red Fortune (6) = 10% Ranged among other things
  • 2 x Scirocco's Dervish (5) = 6.26% AoE
  • 1 x Aegis (5) = 4.695% AoE
  • Steadfast Protection Unique = 3% Melee, Ranged, AoE
  • If I feel like grinding, Gladiator's Armor Unique = 3% Melee, Raned, AoE
And the powers themselves, assuming +13.33% (20% * 2/3) Enhancement from Nerve Paragon:
  • Hide = 2.61% Melee, Ranged, AoE
  • Ninja Reflexes = 23.71% Melee
  • Danger Sense = 23.71% Ranged, AoE
  • Weave = 6.41% Melee, Ranged, AoE
  • Parry = 17% Melee per application; can perma stack 3 times (51%)
  • If I activate it, Hover = 2.61% Melee, Ranged, AoE
Totals with 0 Parry: 35.73% Melee, 45.73% Ranged, 46.69% AoE
Totals with 1 Parry: 52.73% Melee, 45.73% Ranged, 46.69% AoE
Totals with Gladiator's Armor and Hover: 58.34% Melee, 51.34 Ranged, 52.3% AoE

There are plenty of slots to go around should I have decided to push another 10% for passive Melee protection, but that's really overkill in practice because Parry's got a 3 second base recharge as it is.

I could also technically add Maneuvers and Combat Jumping to the mix for more Defense, but I'm reserving the rest of my build for more familiar territory and taking powers I like for the sake of liking them (such as Shuriken ♥).


 

Posted

I think there's a fairly widespread misconception among people who don't build for DEF that soft-capping often requires loony-toon build sacrifices or contortions. I've found that that's almost never true, as long as your goals are reasonable.

For instance, if you're playing a Blaster, then soft-capping either Smash/Lethal or ranged DEF should be fairly easy (from a build-resource standpoint, not necessarily from an influence-cost standpoint). If you're willing to take Scorpion Shield, then Smash/Lethal/Energy is usually pretty easy to soft cap. You can potentially soft-cap to Smash/Lethal/Energy and Ranged DEF on the same Blaster build, but in that case you probably are going to have to make at least a few unpalatable trade offs -- if only because Targeted AoE sets don't offer useful DEF bonuses.

Whatever extra +recharge or +damage you could have gotten by not soft-capping Smash/Lethal or Ranged DEF usually isn't a big deal. In some cases, the offensive difference is less than negligible. On a Blaster, you generally have the least access to large DEF bonuses, but on the upside you also generally don't have a lot of must-have powers. Blaster Secondaries are rife with skippables.

Most every other AT build is both easier and harder to soft cap for that reason. One position or two (linked) types is almost always pretty easy to do with a little time spent in Mids', though. If you play a melee-centric character (either armored or squishy), going for 32.5% DEF to multiple positions (to put yourself one small luck from the cap) is also an attractive, and usually readily achievable, option. Or even ~20% DEF (two small lucks from the cap) to several vectors might float your boat, especially if you employ Inspiration combining binds/macros. Again, it all comes down to having plausible and playstyle-appropriate build goals, but as of now, the IO system heavily favors DEF over almost every other type of bonus, and so it's almost never true that gaining X performance boost from DEF requires as many resources as does gaining an equivalent or even similar performance boost in other areas.

If, like the OP, you're trying to soft cap a build that already starts with massive DEF bonuses, then you shouldn't have to make any noticeable trade offs at all. Maybe one or two areas of over- or under-slotting this-or-that power, but with respect to theme and gameplay, there shouldn't be any significant, difficult decisions you have to make.

Apologies for rambling. Good topic.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy_Kamakaze View Post
Nice build

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyPerfect View Post
Semantically equivalent. Depends on interpretation.
Not in the slightest.

"I can buy that game with only a £5 note." means that a £5 note is sufficient to buy the game, but it is quite plausible that a £10 note would be accepted as well.

"I can buy that game only with a £5 note." means that the only thing that would be accepted is a £5 note, a £5 note is outright necessary for the purpose. Five £1 coins wouldn't be accepted, and neither would a £10 note. The only option is a £5 note exactly.

The difference in meaning is quite significant.


Main Hero: Mazey - level 50 + 1 fire/fire/fire blaster.
Main Villain: Chained Bot - level 50 + 1 Robot/FF Mastermind.

BattleEngine - "And the prize for the most level headed response ever goes to Mazey"

 

Posted

"I can buy that game with only a £5 note; not a £1 note or a £10 note." Quite a bit different meaning using "with only" in that sentence. Does it adhere to the uncompromising and rigid regulations of word ordering in the English language? Or is it something up with which we can put?


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyPerfect View Post
"I can buy that game with only a £5 note; not a £1 note or a £10 note." Quite a bit different meaning using "with only" in that sentence.
Actually, it doesn't. It still means "all it takes to buy that game is a five pound note." The extra clause only adds the following additional: "for some unspecified reason neither a one pound note nor a ten pound note is sufficient."

"I can buy that game only with a £5 note; not a £1 note or a £10 note."

- The only thing capable of buying that game is a five pound note: for clarity I'm reminding you that neither a one pound note nor a ten pound note will work. No other option will work, whether I mentioned them or not.

"I can buy that game with only a £5 note; not a £1 note or a £10 note."

- All it takes to buy that game is a five pound note. Its still possible a twenty pound note will work, or five one pound notes work. For some reason, neither a single one pound note nor a ten pound note will work. Other options I haven't mentioned may still work.

Basically, the difference between "only with" and "with only" is the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient." You can argue that people colloquially interchange the meaning of those two phrases, but its not ambiguous what their correct syntactical meaning is. If I used both in an instruction, I would expect (as in demand, not anticipate) that instruction to be followed correctly every single time.


[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]

In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)

 

Posted

I can buy that game with only with a £5 note.