i wasnt saying the ability to stack enrage but the ability to maintain it like that of 2 gun mojo, more powers like this would make other sets useing enrage a non issue.
i agree that might should have the best ways of gaining stacks of enrage but that doesnt mean other sets cant refresh it
and i assure you i understand how brawler and avenger work but the negatives on avenger make it gimped, is it playable yes but that doesnt mean its good.
I will explain the problem you guys have with avenger, you just dont understand the concept behind a non survivor class, you are too focused on solo play. Avenger isnt supposed to beat a guardian or a protector, or even a sentinel in survival, its supposed to do more dmg, which it does. You can be ranged and be a guardian, what do you think the point of guardian is? Avenger is not the ranged role, it is the ranged ATTACKER role. It is better at ranged attacks than anyone, and as good at melee attacks as anyone but a melee specialist. realize this, an avenger with quarry will do more dmg with enrage with haymaker than a defiance or invulnerable user. IT IS OFFENSE, it is not designed to survive easily and take a beating, it supposed to get hit once in awhile and either anticpate or avoid attacks. There is no brawler equivalent for ranged users right now.
A brawler is the classic class of a close fighter that can take a little punishment
An Avenger is the classic class of the Ranger, who doesnt have the best defense but excels in ranged combat and can hold thier own in melee.
If you do not like those choices, you need to ask for some new class, a ranged brawler who can tank a lil but has enhanced ranged attacks (which as i say it doesnt even sound logical) but really you can just be a guardian, for medium survivabilty, and as high ranged damage as anyone besides a ranged specialist.
I think you've missed the point here. You obviously haven't played with Avenger role outside of the Powerhouse. In Practice there is almost nothing that an Avenger Role character can do to defeat a Brawler character, and they can't even begin to chip the defenses of a Defiance/IDF user. This "Ranger" class you speak of from other games has other tricks up their sleeve that keep enemies at a distance. They have snares, roots, some minor crowd control capabilities, and sometimes have stealth depending on the game. Mostly, the excel by keeping enemies at a distance. But those options don't exist in this game, where Brawler's have only a 2-3 second cooldown on their Lunge, which remove your travel power and roots you in place, and when their attacks all snare you, slowing your movement and stopping you from being able to kite. Rangers in other games don't have those kinds of problems because they keep enemies away. But here the Avenger Role has non of that. Avenger only has damage at the cost of everything else. Avenger has no way of penetrating defense or stopping escape the way a Brawler does, has no way to keep an opponent locked down the way a Sentinel does, doesn't have a tenth of the survivability a Protector does and doesn't have the resistance against crowd control EVERY SINGLE OTHER ROLE HAS. It only has damage, and not enough to overcome the defenses of non-Offensive Passive and no way to avoid taking damage. In reality, it has no distinct advantage over any other role, the fact that you can now get more damage from Guardian Role than Avenger is a sign of a huge problem with the role, and that it needs to be looked at.
The problem here is your complete failure to see any perspective beyond Trinity-style team play. But even in Trinity-style team play, a Guardian role character can still outdamage and outsurvive and out crowd control an Avenger Role character, all at the same time - a point you completely fail to acknowledge in these rants of yours.
Thing is if you don't want to aknowledge my arguments for whatever reason, the suggestions by WillBlack and Kenpo look at your complaints both from the PvE and PvP side.
Which is the same as i've been doing, but meh.
/snip
In short, offensive passives would benefit most by adding defensive options, as Quarry already does.
Nerfing Enrage and Focus would be detrimental for the pace of the game, artificially prolonging battles that will be won anyway in PvP. And making tanks in PvP into bricks.
Tanks at least fire off shells, bricks just stand there. Nerf =/= balance.
Now this is much better.
I agree with most of what is in this post and in the spirit of objectivity, i am willing to accept that enrage is does not need a nerf if the facts show that that's whats best for the game. what you have here is a well thought out argument but not necessarily cold and unmovable facts. but maybe you can still change my mind.
Lets say that all offensive passives got the quarry treatment and avenger role got tweaked. I can only accept that enrage does not get nerfed if offensive passives get buffed to the point that enrage/focus can no longer match damage buffs number for number with offensive passives. Restated, if offensive passives get a survivability buff and offensive passives are put in a league of damage that enrage can never touch then it can be said that we are both on the same page.
I guess you can say my thing is that passives should always be the largest buff of its kind.
Now can you please explain to me how it would be so game breaking if enrage was only able to produce say..80% of the damage buff that a passive can? from where im sitting that's still a lot of damage. And please don't lean too heavily on the "you have to take certain stats to make enrage work" argument because i have built enrage toons and honestly, it is not that big of an inconvenience (and i am not a build guru by any stretch). As far as i can tell, the stats are really only a means to an end from a game play perspective and giving up stats i like for superior performance only hurts me if my theme is heavily tied to my stats.
If i knew that enrage doing any less damage that an offensive passive would be game breaking then i would be on the "don't nerf enrage train".
EDIT: Damit! i said i was going to stay out of this conversation!!:mad:
If they'd survive and win, with nothing really being different why are you so ardent in defending the current level of damage buffs that Enrage and Focus give?
It's a good thing that your read the rest of my post with comprehension.
In fact, it's such a good thing that i'll just quote myself again to answer your question. Again.
That suggestion has a detrimental effect in PvP, which was explained in numerous posts, not only by me, but also by others.
It was also repeatedly stated that offensive passives will remain as squishy as before, thereby making their damage boost moot in scenarios where that extra damage would be most useful.(PvP and solo play)
Offensive passives could use a slight damage boost, if only to be able to penetrate the layered defenses of PvP tanks(and to stop the trend of Dragon Wrath as the only really effective power against those tanks).
But adding slight defensive bonuses would be more beneficial for for offensive passives in general.
Making them more effective in PvE, giving them a chance to actually survive bigger battles solo in PvE and maybe win in a 1 on 1 vs a defensive passive toon. Because currently, if they're not also heavily using CC effects, they stand no chance in a direct battle against a defensive passive toon. Even if they are using CC effects, all it takes is one slight error and the defensive passive toon can squish them.
For an example of what i mean, refer to Quarry, since it is an already existing offensive passive with several defensive boosts.
They'd still survive, just taking longer to win.
Offensive passives would be as inferior as before, and everyone will get real bored, real fast.
P.S.
Offensive passives alredy have Defensive Toggle and clicky powers available. See IDF, Masterful Dodge, Evasive Maneuvers and many others.
Adding more seperate defensive powers would just enable layered tank players in PvP and PvE to become even more unkillable.
Offensive passives alredy have Defensive Toggle and clicky powers available. See IDF, Masterful Dodge, Evasive Maneuvers and many others.
Adding more seperate defensive powers would just enable layered tank players in PvP and PvE to become even more unkillable.
I wanted to touch on this as well. I have to agree with G0dSlay3r on this point. Defense is already starting to get out of hand and i don't think that we need more defensive toggles. Offensive passives need the survivability every one else is fine.
- If Enrage stacking were less than an offensive passive, you now have an offensive option that requires more work and requirements to achieve less than what you can get from another option and it doesn't solve any issues with the offensive passive
The cost v. reword of enrage seems to be the linchpin of your argument. You seem to feel that if enrage is not equal to an offensive passive then it is not worth the power/point/stat investment. I feel that enrage would still be worth the investment if it was slightly less powerful then an offensive passive. We will probably never agree on this point but that doesn't necessarily make either one of us wrong.
other than to sate people's personal opinion of what a passive should be and how powerful a passive should be with respect to other abilities. That personal opinion has no bearing on game balance and mechanics. Don't explain how you feel, explain what it's breaking.
Take your own advice.
Balance (like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder and inherently subjective and unstable. We both have fundamentally different views on how to balance this equation but the optimal solution is largely determined by your view on the issue above. So far, all you have presented are subjective observations and not facts. (and certainly not numbers)
Show how the Enrage toons are steam rolling PVE better than other builds and I'll point to Falchoin's support build, enrageless videos and give you an O RLY look.
LOL show me a build that cant steam roll PVE. What does this have to do with the cost V. effectiveness of enrage argument? I thought we were talking about how defensive enrage toons perform v. offensive toons relatively not how enrage or non enrage toons perform in by themselves in a vacuum in pve. how does the fact that non enrage build can steam role pve prove that reducing enrage below offinsive passives would be game breaking. If any thing it proves that if enrage was nerfed that you would still be able to steam role as you did before.
Point to how Enrage is breaking PvP and I'll show you vids of Enrageless builds using Ego Hold and Lunge lockdowns along with Dragon's Wrath and give you another O RLY look.
Enrage, Ego storm, Stun lunges and Dragons wrath are are all considered overpowered in the pvp community. Dragons wrath is just plain overpowered in any setting. How does listing a bunch of cheese powers that ppl hate in pvp make defense stacking damage tanks not a problem. how does this prove that reduseing enrage damage below offensive passive levels would be game breaking?
Tell me about Enrage powered spike damage and I'll point you to people achieveing 70-105% crit chance to go along with 50% crit severity. Making Enrage worse doesn't make offensive passives better. Making offensive passives better doesn't justify making enrage worse if the goal was simply better offensive passives.
I didnt even know you could do that and have never seen it but is sounds broken. At any rate how does this prove that if you reduced enrage [insert the rest]
-Offensive Passive, Rank 3. You can do this and be done with worrying about it by Level 9 and ride it all the way to 40 without it ever failing you or requring anything else from you. How easy is it to perma enrage by Level 9? That's yet another disparity.
in this lv range all you really need is a good AOE in my experience, you don't really need a passive until around lv 20 any way. this goes back to the cost v, investment of enrage but doesn't prove that enrage needs to exceed offensive passives in order to be an effective power
I was looking for real game breaking examples like:
If enrage is reduced below offensive passives then i will no longer be able to solo content
If enrage is reduced below offensive passives then i will no longer be able to build a tank properly or hold agro
If enrage is reduced below offensive passives then then i will no longer be able to complete high lv lair content
If enrage is reduced below offensive passives then tanks will have no value in teams.
If enrage is reduced below offensive passives then i will no longer be able to build an effective pvp toon
If enrage is reduced below offensive passives then [insert math eqation]
Of course none of these things are true but if they were, then it would be game breaking.
If you disagree with me then that's fine but don't quote my question and then pretend that you have answered it by throwing a bunch of loosely related opinions at me. It really shouldn't take a wall of text to answer my question and if the question cant be answered in a conclusive way then just accept that your opinion on the matter is one of many and not some kind of scientifically provable fact.
EDIT: My question in post #256 still stands if there are any takers.
They are not. We spend the same point for a passive that we do for other powers.
The point is that you cannot stack passives, whereas you can stack other buffs. If Enrage disabled your passive slot, it would be balanced and maybe underpowered with its current potency. Same for form toggles.
I dont have any video capture set up off hand. But it really isnt exciting, its pretty gay for an avenger toon, and requires lots of blocking, waiting regenerating, etc. I may look for some software, but no.... i am not proud of this fake tank avenger....
And Will i have played with Avenger outside of PvE. Survivability should not be your measuring stick of Avenger, and yes i have played Avenger AND teamed up with Avenger outside of the powerhouse, but not with as many different abilities, and not as many styles of Avenger play. I got a force heavy toon and a munitions heavy toon.
Btw Avenger has access to a host of CC skills, and with resistances working the way they do, the fact that a brawlers skills place snare on avengers has its disadvantages, in build resistances when you may not want to. What CC exactly is it the avenger cant get? i see snares, stuns, and holds a plenty in ranged frameworks. But really im not saying Avenger is the spit in PvP because if your alone, unless your trying to snipe and run, taking hits is as important as doing dmg. but you can select your role, so when you need to be a survivor, then use a different role.
and yes, there are advantages to range, using corners, getting to set your big attack up. getting CC advantage. and there are ways to neutralize this.
ok i dug out some old capture crap i had, Avenger killing everything in the hard room, i went with a fire build this time because it has more easy dots, though i will say this build is made to get beat up, its energy efficiency without getting hit by a lot of targets is crap, but it has the str and enrage mechanics, it shows why enrage is a choice with various options, not necessarily the best bet, because if i had more ego, id get more per block, if i had more end i could spam more, if i had dex, etc. Melee toons pay the same tax using enrage.
I would call this build more of a survivor class than what an Avenger should do, but thats what your building, when you plan on running past every mob in the room, gathering them up, and trying to fight them all at once, when there is no advantage to doing so, since most attacks are limited to 5 or 7 mobs at once. If i was building something to clear the room smartly, id probably have gone with a more "avenger" build.
I asked because I'm genuinely interested in seeing what you had cooked up. Sue me, I like seeing videos of other players power combinations and playstyles. If you're interested ,X-fire supports CO and is free to boot. It'll record your gameplay and isn't "too" system taxing.
The point is that you cannot stack passives, whereas you can stack other buffs. If Enrage disabled your passive slot, it would be balanced and maybe underpowered with its current potency. Same for form toggles.
Wait, what? Seriously, what cesspool fiery pit of hell did that thought even come from?
Let's put your idea in a realistic context.
Passives are perma-active. You can't deactivate them. You stack anything you want on top of them.
Defensive passive + defensive buffs
Defensive passive + offensive buffs
Defensive passive + offensive/defensive buff mix
(same goes for Offensive passives)
So yeah, your idea is that you couldn't stack Enrage with any passive. Enrage is an offensive buff. Should we do the same with the next offensive buff power or power combination that starts getting used widely?
While we're on offensive buffs, it's clearly logical that we should do the same with defensive buffs, since there would be virtually nothing but DW or similar powers that could break through layered defenses.
So where does it all lead? Squishies will be even more squishy, and tanks will be squishier tanks while doing miserable damage.
I really wish people would look at things from all aspects before spouting random suggestions.
That means looking at it from both a PvE and PvP perspective. They are not seperate things and changes affect both sections.
It also means that any drastic change will pull up a number of more drastic changes behind it.
...Oh, I see what you did there. Refute a differing opinion based on the same facts (nigh impossible), nicely done. (No sarcasm, sincere) ...
And that's the crux of the matter. What each person perceives as balance is subjective. In a way, all we've done is proven that point since we're all reasonably intelligent, have access to the same information yet arrive at different conclusions. You may weigh Enrage maintenance and the required stats heavily, while I do not. Does this mean one of us is wrong? No.
Not quite. My point is that since maintaining enrage costs more in game than a single power pick it should give me more than that single power pick. Balance includes give and get. To give more and get less is not balance.
im not sure how this statement is any different than the my statement that you quoted and the makes me think that we are not quite understanding each other but in any case, this is the point that we disagree on and this point is also subjective.
I don't know much about tanking but you seem to be implying that you cant tank properly without 8 stacks enrage. I don't buy that, but we can to to one of the other forums and start a thread to see if in fact it is exceedingly difficult or impossible to tank without 8 stacks of enrage.
You have thus far not explained how cutting down enrage/focus improves the situation for offensive passives and you have thus far not explained why an offensive passive with proveable higher requirements and consistency than enrage stacking should have the higher damage beyond your feeling that a passive should do so just because it's labeled "passive".
question1 If you go back and read you will see that i am basically on board with what G0dSlay3r said in post #246 the only difference is that i feel that the less damage is available outside of offensive passives the less damage you have to pile on offensive passives to compensate. I'm hesitant to buff offensive passives too much because i feel that the damage in this game is already exceedingly high and as a consequence the challenge suffers. I never said that nerfing enrage alone would fix anything.
Question2 You answered the question for me at the end of the statement. I repeat that this is a subjective issue. You don't agree? fine. That doesn't mean your right, it just means that we disagree. It is my opinion that when passives are the main thing that defines your role in combat then its ez for every one to jell together on a team and thus improves the teaming experience. This may be largely because Im still carrying baggage from COX (where roles are clearly defined) but i don't think that's a bad thing (cox was well known for its teaming experience).
And that's the crux of the matter. What each person perceives as balance is subjective. In a way, all we've done is proven that point since we're all reasonably intelligent, have access to the same information yet arrive at different conclusions. You may weigh Enrage maintenance and the required stats heavily, while I do not. Does this mean one of us is wrong? No.
I don't know much about tanking but you seem to be implying that you cant tank properly without 8 stacks enrage. I don't buy that, but we can to to one of the other forums and start a thread to see if in fact it is exceedingly difficult or impossible to tank without 8 stacks of enrage.
It's easier to Tank without Enrage, because taunts are far more effective at generting threat than damage. Most Tanks that I know have Enrage, so that they don't Solo extremely solowly, but fighting bosses, they rarely, if ever, use it.
I'm hesitant to buff offensive passives too much because i feel that the damage in this game is already exceedingly high and as a consequence the challenge suffers. I never said that nerfing enrage alone would fix anything.
I'm quoting this part, because I'd like you to do some analysis based on this statement. Just go into the Powerhouse with a friend (or I'll come with you if you want), and see what happens when you use Bullet Beatdown with an offensive Passive that boosts it in Brawler Role with 8 stacks of Focus, Loack and Load and over 35% crit rate and over 80% severity, and take it against someone using Invuln or Defiance with Beatdown as their attack. Try to kill them.
The point of that exercise isn't about PvP, it's to show how ridiculous defensive stacking can get compared to offensive stacking. In the above setup, the Defensive Passive+Beatdown user will defeat that Bullet Beatdown user with all those buffs stacked on. And that's just one passive compared to pretty much every offensive buff a number of offensive buffs. The fact that the Defensive Player has access to all the same extra buffs isn't exactly the problem, it's that the Offensive Player is starting further behind.
If do tests like these, it may show you where the other point of view is coming from.
And that's the crux of the matter. What each person perceives as balance is subjective. In a way, all we've done is proven that point since we're all reasonably intelligent, have access to the same information yet arrive at different conclusions. You may weigh Enrage maintenance and the required stats heavily, while I do not. Does this mean one of us is wrong? No.
Agree to disagree.
The point becomes moot when several people agree on one approach, but others disagree while having seperate approaches or ideas for each opinion.
Thereby, it wasn't a perception of just one person, but several.
Many people here agreed that the real handicap with offensive passives is not lack of damage, but severe lack of survivability that makes using a combo like offensive passive + enrage largely ineffective when compared to defensive passive + enrage.
Many people have also agreed that Enrage/Focus is a an offensive mechanic, but can't be directly compared to offensive passives due to different requirements and uses. Enrage does not replace, it complements a passive.
Those that disagreed have stated their opinions, but each of them had different ideas and approaches.
There was also a distinct lack of foresight in those approaches, along with a lack of a general aspect, sometimes focusing just on the PvE section of the game while ignoring the effect on PvP altogether.
Yes, we can agree to disagree. We already do. But that by itself means nothing.
So yeah, your idea is that you couldn't stack Enrage with any passive. Enrage is an offensive buff. Should we do the same with the next offensive buff power or power combination that starts getting used widely?
There are precisely two offensive buffs that can provide a constant damage bonus on a par with an offensive passive: Enrage and Focus. Aggressor and Aspects come close but are usually marginally weaker than an offensive passive. Everything else is either fairly small numbers (generally around 20%) or has well under 100% utilization (e.g. sheathes; R3 gives 60% for 18 seconds per 90, or maybe per 60 for a SS:Int build -- i.e. 20-30% of the time).
The difference in damage for taunt attacks with or without Enrage is almost negligible.
When you're a real dedicated tank, your main purpose is to buld and maintain threat while staying alive.
Keeping track of Enrage/Focus during all that doesn't have too much of an effect, and might distract you enough to make a mistake and get killed.
Just an example. Mathematically, yes, Enrage + taunt is more affective. Practically, it's easier to just taunt away without worrying about building Enrage of Focus.
There are precisely two offensive buffs that can provide a constant damage bonus on a par with an offensive passive: Enrage and Focus. Aggressor and Aspects come close but are usually marginally weaker than an offensive passive. Everything else is either fairly small numbers (generally around 20%) or has well under 100% utilization (e.g. sheathes; R3 gives 60% for 18 seconds per 90, or maybe per 60 for a SS:Int build -- i.e. 20-30% of the time).
Aggressor can give up to 30% melee damage boost at Rank 3, which is on par with some offensive passives.
Also, Enrage can give a damage bonus on par or superior to a passive. But that just gets us back to the beginning: you need to heavily invest in STR to get a damage bonus on par or superior to offensive passives.
Along with INT and CON for builds that have no Enrage stack building attacks.
Like i said. It is a damage buff, but it's not comparable to offensive passives.
And that's the crux of the matter. What each person perceives as balance is subjective. In a way, all we've done is proven that point since we're all reasonably intelligent, have access to the same information yet arrive at different conclusions. You may weigh Enrage maintenance and the required stats heavily, while I do not. Does this mean one of us is wrong? No.
Agree to disagree.
See in trying to understand where you are coming from, i see two issues.
1) you think that charachters who take a defensive passive should do less damage than they currently do. or rather in comparison to offensive charachters, they are too close in your op.
2) You think enrage/focus is the core of this issue.
as to 1. how much more dmg do you think an offensive charachter should be able to achieve than a defensive passive user. because using the same skills, SS and setups, an offensive role charachter with an offensive passive will do probably some were in the family of 40% more damage. this is not to base, this is straight up after everything is factored.
Protector Force cascade rank 2. = 4,698k from tooltip description with 8 stacks of enrage
Avenger Force cascade rank 2 = 6.581k 8 stacks
from tooltip.
is that not big enough difference? with no enrage tooltip dmg goes to 64% more damage, total after everything.
force cascade 2994 protector no enrage
force cascade 4920 avenger no enrage
do you really think someones dmg should be that gimped for having a defensive passive? all offensive skills being 60 % less effective than an offensive charachter? flat damage reductions would impact them even more. 40% isnt enough? can you imagine how long it would take a defensive passive user to solo the same content? keep in mind tooltip doesnt include damage mitigation
Keep in mind with this whole defense issue, defensive passives are hax. with high offence i can clear a bunch of mobs in the time it takes my unbreakable to last
Just an example. Mathematically, yes, Enrage + taunt is more affective. Practically, it's easier to just taunt away without worrying about building Enrage of Focus.
Depends. Form of the Tempest and Form of the Master are pretty self-sustaining while tanking (FotM is hard to sustain if you aren't tanking), and it's really not that hard to maintain enrage while tanking (fairly straightforward bind, plus you get 4 stacks per use if you're running Defiance). I've certainly seen highly effective tanks who use Enrage while tanking.
as to 1. how much more dmg do you think an offensive charachter should be able to achieve than a defensive passive user because using the same skills, SS and setups, an offensive role charachter with an offensive passive will do probably some were in the family of 40% more damage. this is not to base, this is straight up after everything is factored.
Protector Force cascade rank 2. = 4,698k from tooltip description with 8 stacks of enrage
Avenger Force cascade rank 2 = 6.581k 8 stacks
Don't know the stats you've got, but I'll assume 260 Con and blue gear. The Avenger build has about 8k hp and +25% mitigation, so he'll take 3,758 from the Protector FC, or 47% of his HP, and because of his reduce healing, needs 4,509 points of healing to break even. The Protector build has about 10k hp and +122% mitigation, so he'll take 2,964 from the Avenger FC, or 30% of his HP, and only needs 2,964 points of healing to break even.
Which is better, taking 30% of health, or taking 47%? There's non-zero value to killing things faster, but with healing being what it is, there's also non-zero value to more efficient healing, so we'll call those two equal, and thus either the Avenger should be doing 10,000 damage (45% of health on the Protector, needs 4,504 points of healing to mitigate) or the Protector should be doing 3,100 damage (31% on the Avenger, requires 2,976 points of healing to mitigate).
The point becomes moot when several people agree on one approach, but others disagree while having seperate approaches or ideas for each opinion.
Thereby, it wasn't a perception of just one person, but several. ...
That is a very dangerous line of thinking. Simply because other people say the same thing does not make it the best idea.
I really think that you should stop quoting post parts out of context and going wide.
That statement is linked to a very specific discussion and backed up by very specific facts.
I really think that you should stop quoting post parts out of context and going wide.
That statement is linked to a very specific discussion and backed up by very specific facts.
Nice try though.
The classic brush off. Out of other arguments you attempt to make mine seem worthless. I'm touched!
because using the same skills, SS and setups, an offensive role charachter with an offensive passive will do probably some were in the family of 40% more damage. this is not to base, this is straight up after everything is factored.
Don't know the stats you've got, but I'll assume 260 Con and blue gear. The Avenger build has about 8k hp and +25% mitigation, so he'll take 3,758 from the Protector FC, or 47% of his HP, and because of his reduce healing, needs 4,509 points of healing to break even. The Protector build has about 10k hp and +122% mitigation, so he'll take 2,964 from the Avenger FC, or 30% of his HP, and only needs 2,964 points of healing to break even.
Which is better, taking 30% of health, or taking 47%? There's non-zero value to killing things faster, but with healing being what it is, there's also non-zero value to more efficient healing, so we'll call those two equal, and thus either the Avenger should be doing 10,000 damage (45% of health on the Protector, needs 4,504 points of healing to mitigate) or the Protector should be doing 3,100 damage (31% on the Avenger, requires 2,976 points of healing to mitigate).
this is an ineresting analysis, and versus each other, the avenger is in a losing battle. But this is solo vs solo analysis, with a defensive healer, or a tank by his side, the avenger is going to kill the same target much faster. IE when your in certain situations, the Avenger will prove more usefull, in other situations, such as in such a head to head battle the protector would have the advantage.
So, its a different class with different utility. In solo pvp all things the same, hes going to lose, but consider if we upped a avenger's dmg to get 47% of something with 122% mitigation what would that force cascade have to do, 5k which translates to like what 12k base? so it would be 2.5 times as effective dmg wise as a defensive passive user? not to mention, anyone except a fully spec con tank would die in 1 hit. PvE wise youd either need to make the mobs with such high hp, anyone with a defensive passive would find leveling to take about 2.5 times as long? And in situations where Avenger shines right now, it would widen the gap even further? I dont know man, Its definetly a valid perspective, but followed to its logical conclusion you get a game that would probably suck a lot.
also that only looks at the defiance style tank. the invulnerable, regeneration and dodge tanks would have tottally different equations.
so maybe the problem is, the defiance tank, but changing that... would make a lot of people very upset.
this is an ineresting analysis, and versus each other, the avenger is in a losing battle. But this is solo vs solo analysis, with a defensive healer, or a tank by his side, the avenger is going to kill the same target much faster.
Actually, that's not clearly true. Tank-Avenger or Healer-Avenger generally outperforms Avenger-Avenger, but Tank-Tank or Tank-Healer can outperform any of those -- Tank-Tank or Tank-Healer mean the tank can focus on DPS without worrying about holding threat, which is a large damage bonus, and healing a tank is just more efficient than healing an avenger, so the healer gets more DPS (or else the tank doesn't block when the Avenger would be force to, pushing the tank's DPS up to match the Avenger).
So, its a different class with different utility. In solo pvp all things the same, hes going to lose, but consider if we upped a avenger's dmg to get 47% of something with 122% mitigation what would that force cascade have to do, 5k which translates to like what 12k base?
A bit over 10k. In practice, a mere doubling of damage would be sufficient. And no, the problem isn't defiance tanks, LR and Invuln tanks are just as tough they just require more math.
Actually, that's not clearly true. Tank-Avenger or Healer-Avenger generally outperforms Avenger-Avenger, but Tank-Tank or Tank-Healer can outperform any of those -- Tank-Tank or Tank-Healer mean the tank can focus on DPS without worrying about holding threat, which is a large damage bonus, and healing a tank is just more efficient than healing an avenger, so the healer gets more DPS (or else the tank doesn't block when the Avenger would be force to, pushing the tank's DPS up to match the Avenger).
A bit over 10k. In practice, a mere doubling of damage would be sufficient. And no, the problem isn't defiance tanks, LR and Invuln tanks are just as tough they just require more math.
From a pve perspective damage is only one way to contribute. And the degree to which it helps cannot be weighed equally between the Tank, Healer, and DPS characters.
Let's say the tank can do a lot of damage, so what? If they lose threat, the group could wipe or the healer could die forcing everyone in the group to block more, bringing down their damage output. A more complete measure of the contribution of a team member is:
Total team dps with teammate A - Total team dps without teammate A = Contribution of teammate A
That does not mean dps of teammate A, it just means how much damage does their activity in the group afford the group to deal. Whether they are a healer, tank, or DPS.
Given that the dps of a given character is not universally important, it doesn't make sense to balance the game around it.
Edit: Vixy would agree that it's easier to roll up and play a decent tank than it is to do the same for an offensive character, however you'll find that in very high end play where all team members are min maxing to be most effective, the offensive characters do a lot more damage than the tanks.
Total team dps with teammate A - Total team dps without teammate A = Contribution of teammate A
Agreed. Since adding an Avenger adds a protection requirement that is mostly absent lacking an Avenger (healers don't generally pull boss threat, other tanks don't need protecting), an Avenger's DPS contribution is lower than it looks on paper.
Actually, that's not clearly true. Tank-Avenger or Healer-Avenger generally outperforms Avenger-Avenger, but Tank-Tank or Tank-Healer can outperform any of those -- Tank-Tank or Tank-Healer mean the tank can focus on DPS without worrying about holding threat, which is a large damage bonus, and healing a tank is just more efficient than healing an avenger, so the healer gets more DPS (or else the tank doesn't block when the Avenger would be force to, pushing the tank's DPS up to match the Avenger).
A bit over 10k. In practice, a mere doubling of damage would be sufficient. And no, the problem isn't defiance tanks, LR and Invuln tanks are just as tough they just require more math.
I doubt those two match ups would go that way, and really giving any class that much power would still unbalance the game insanely. It would translate to avenger 1 shots anyone except a super tank. which can happen now, but it requires way more set up.
even assuming a tank good go all out and attack all the time, assuming the avenger could go out and attack all the time.
lets call the tanks dps 100 with enrage
assuming for all the same skills and frequency the avenger would be currently 140 with enrage
the tanking guys dmg would go down, say to 60
tank tank, you have 60 +100 dps
tank Avenger you have 60+140 dps
160 vs 200
the bigger your group, the less valuable each tank is, and the more valuable each dps is. especially an avenger who can avoid most aoe, and can therefore dps more, as well requires less upkeep.
Sure avenger gives up ease in soloing and defense, but it will be more useful than a second tank, though in this game, the 2nd tank wont be a complete waste. double that damage, and in pve that avenger will be worth almost 2 defensive passive users.
If this bonus comes from the role itself, it will also make guardians laughable.
the fact is if your tank is really good, for any situation you only need 1 of him.
The largest defensive benefits come from passives. Therefore in order to "maintain the status quo" either offensive passives need to be buffed beyond Enrage and Focus -or- there need to be defensive powers that can be maintained similar to Enrage and Focus that are at least on par with defensive passives.
This is why I brought up the asymmetry between defense stacking (handling higher difficulty content) vs offense stacking (moving through content faster). It's true that giving up a defensive passive for an offensive one means giving up on the biggest potential source of defense for a second or third biggest source of offense, but I don't immediately see this as a problem, because defense and offense are difficult to directly compare in PvE.
I would love to see more defensive powers that can be maintained similarly to enrage and focus. I think these kinds of powers (similar to defensive combo's defiant stack, or telekinetic eruption's lingering form) have the potential to solve all the issues with avenger role, if they were just more common and available to more themes. Toggles like IDF are another good way to go. Unfortunately I can see that giving us more defense stacking without restriction will hurt game balance a lot more than the buffs or nerfs to offense would.
Your statement assumes that success is inevitable if defense is high enough no matter how low the damage. While true for most PvE encounters, it's not always the case. Teleiosaurus requires a certain damage threshold or you will not be able to kill her due to health regeneration. Your assumption also falls flat regarding PvP as most freeform toons will have some sort of self healing.
True, there are a few boss fights where team damage output matters, and that's also something I'd like to see more often in the game, I just meant that the "you must be at least this tall to ride the ride" signs in the CO themepark are nearly always based on defense, aside from those few exceptions of regenerating foes.
Due to the additive nature of Enrage, Focus and passive damage buffs there is little reason to use an offensive passive with Enrage or Focus. Why give up so little extra damage for so much defense?
I can say why I do it sometimes, which is that an offensive passive (stacked with enrage or focus) is the only way to reach the highest levels of damage, and in a sense that's priceless (in PvP, because it allows for defeating players through spike damage who would otherwise never be defeated, in PvE, because for better or for worse most competitive pve in this game is a winner-takes-all dps contest). It reminds me of holding threat on tako's deathlord with invulnerability and enrage but coming in second place to your fiery form + focus build. Since then I tend to use offensive builds when aiming to win that OM.
I like to think I'm not so hard-headed that only my opinion matters and everyone else is wrong. I agree that just nerfing Enrage and Focus while leaving other related issues alone will create just as many, if not more, problems than before. However, I still feel that Enrage and Focus are over-performing and leaving offensive passives users without a niche (unless that niche is *really* high damage until they die and click respawn... over and over).
I think we agree that the problem is that there isn't enough of a reason to use an offensive passive instead of a defensive or support passive. But my problem with avenger characters is not that I find their extra damage lacking, playing an avenger I actively appreciate the 30-40% larger damage numbers. Instead I think the problem is expecting too much of a damage advantage based on the huge loss of survivability.
Nerfing protector damage without changing avenger makes the roles more interdependent and promotes trinity play, while buffing avenger defense without changing protector makes the roles more independent. I want to see more teaming in CO, but I'm opposed to promoting / forcing team play through trinity-style interdependence, that's why I want tanks to continue doing high damage and would boost avenger's defenses.
I think that adding more toggle defenses like IDF is a horrible idea. I can't imagine that a toggle defense that stacked up to 50-60% would be good for the game.
I think that content benchmarks should put greater stipulations on DPS. Dimensional Destroyer is a good example, and there need to be more situations like him where DPS is critical. I'd like to see more bosses on enrage timers, forcing the team to output x dps or fail. I'd also like to see fights like Luther, only way more extreme - forcing healers to really emphasize keeping the Key alive, for instance.
Fights in CO by and large need to be measured in other ways than tanking efficiency, but right now they're just not.
Of course, like everyone else, I definitely think Avenger needs a buff. Most of all, I think the heal debuff and CC resistance need to be removed. I also thing Avenger should have +CC strength rather than -CC strength, and a bonus to energy strength/equilibrium and possibly max end. Something like Brawler, where your attacks pierce defenses, would be cool but possibly too good. I don't think the max hp should be removed, regardless.
I think that content benchmarks should put greater stipulations on DPS. Dimensional Destroyer is a good example, and there need to be more situations like him where DPS is critical. I'd like to see more bosses on enrage timers, forcing the team to output x dps or fail. I'd also like to see fights like Luther, only way more extreme - forcing healers to really emphasize keeping the Key alive, for instance.
Not only did you pick out the single most horrible(both by bugs and design) fight in the entire game, but also continued with the pure DPS aspect of offensives.
So, let's take Dimensional Destroyer as an example. You run a newly buffed offensive passive for that extra DPS that should take him down in that mode.
But you don't have a trinity stiled team. You know, dedicated tank, dedicated healer, dedicated dps.
There's a couple of DPS builds, maybe a healer, but the rest are just plain self-sustainable builds.
Your squishy offensive passive toon would generate the most threat through raw damage, you'll get attacked by Destroyer which would kill your DPS due to the need for healing/blocking, or you'd just get pretty much stomped into oblivion. Rendering the damage bonus from that newly buffed offensive passive useless.
Of course, the situation changes if you had a dedicated tank. Theoretically.
It's also theoretically possible that the tank would still lose aggro every once in a while due to the raw damage of the buffed offensive passive toon. Also, if an Enrage/Focus nerf occured as some players are asking, the tanks damage output would fall even more and there would be even more difficulty keeping aggro if another player heavily outclasses them in damage.
You'd get tank build that can last through a fight with a big boss, but the only difference is the artificial prolongation of that fight due to decreased damage bonuses from Focus/Enrage.
Squishies will still remain squishies on offensive passives. Nothing changes.
Let's take a certain build as a a practical example.
Sword Cyclone, Dragon's Wrath with crit chance buff powers, DEX/INT superstats, Form of the Tempest.
Three passives can be arguably effective with that combination: Quarry, Invulnerability, Lightning Reflexes
In all three cases, they can be bolstered even more defensively with Inertial Dampening Field or Eye of the Storm.
Lightning Reflexes build - basically a dodge tank, further bolstered with Eye of the Storm when you get swarmed by a group. This can be really durable in both PvE and PvP. High crit chance, but lower general damage than Quarry.
Invulnerability + IDF build - provides a better survivability boost against hordes of mobs. You can basically pick any offensive power combination with those passives. High crit chance, but you'll still lag behind Quarry in damage.
Quarry build - Gives a bonus to damage, while also giving certain bonuses to defense. Audacity increases your dodge chance and avoidance, reduces your power cost, increases your crit severity, while Fair Game advantage can make sure that you practically can't die if you get swarmed by mobs, since every dead henchman is a heal for you.
With certain extra powers, you can reach the same dodge chance percentage as with Lightning Reflexes.
So, you have a build with an offensive passive, that can give the same defensive boost like a defensive passive, while at the same time boosting damage. Quarry will always outdamage the other defensive passives mentioned here, and keep players alive long enough for that extra damage to matter.
Most players avoid offensive passives if they can simply because they are too squishy compared to defensive passives. Players are more than willing to trade damage for survivability. That's the reason most people prefer to use Enrage/Focus + defensive passives. The exception is Quarry, since it can be considered a hybrid passive that gives substantial bonuses to both.
Using Quarry as a template and modifying other offensive passives with their own incorporated defensive bonuses would benefit every player. More damage, more defense(most importantly, defense that can't be stacked on top of defensive passives).
boosting the defensive qualaties of all offensive pasives is a really nice idea the main issue would be coming up with something fair and balanced without resorting to oh look they all get dodge or damage resistance, they would have to be unique to each of those passives. Although lighting and ice going dodge and resistance does make alot of sense but what about fire form, targeting computers charge time problem, and pestilence. kinetic manipulation has an innate damage resistance wich is actually fairly decent so it doesnt have to be touched, aggressor has its energy gain bonus and additional damage resistance, way of the enlightened warrior gets dodge, targeting computer is decent although the lock on timer is still an issue
so all we have left is fire, ice, electric, and pestilence that are lacking the defensive bonus.
giving these passives a defensive bonus has been brought up before but again its not the same as a defensive passive can be with work just like enrageand to a much lesser extent focus. but that still doesnt solve all of the issues but its a really good start, still need a ranged damage toggle
Ice should have a defensive bonus of damage resistance with chance to proc chill whenever struck just like ice shield
Electric should go dodge-if any offensive passive should get a dodge bonus it should be electric and possibly a chance to stun when struck
fire- ive got no clue hear maybe a flat damage absorb caused by incinerating the object hitting the player? and again clinging flames proc when struck
pestilence- a heal advantage its infernal supernatural home of devour essence why not give it a much lesseer version of regeneration that uses stacks of healing based upon the number of infected targets
justa couple of suggestions still think the easiest way to solve the damage disperity issue would be to add a ranged toggle ranged defensive tanks and offenisve toons would then be on par with the same difference between the melee versions. add in the offensive passive defenses that can be worked into a semi effective defense and that should be able to make everyone happy or at least somewhat agreeable.
well i dont know about pestilence, but the projectors get a defensive bonus as well, about equivalent to KM. ots just a different family of dmg resistance.
fire is elemental
electric is energy
and ice is... elemental again,
the problem is this usually makes them most effective against other ranged users, and only certain ones.
Still though. its there.
I think upping the defense on offensive passives may in fact be the best answer, but an interesting way to do it would probably be using some type of maintained, or burst defense mechanism, that basically works with the offensive passive's style of play. This way people couldnt say it was a free boost, and it couldnt just be tacked on to the already super powered defense classes.
Say for example, a way for fire to turn part of the dmg against them into fire dmg, or say foes with clinging flames applied dmg is reduced by X, something similar would work for chill. or possibly something on a cool down or requiring maintence that would make a portion of the dmg against them be elemental.
of course it cant be too powerful, Quarry gives less offense than the other skills, so giving them similar all around buffs maybe overkill, anyhow its an idea.
Funny, I have only started to get into avengers, and find them (or characters designed for that role, rather)so much more playable than the other roles.
Killing minions and almost all of PvE? Easy.
Five man hard spawn, powerhouse? Easy - except for argent, but I find them harder with melee toons.
The greater effective range on all AoEs makes so many fights easy. One toon I have kites (darkness/pestilence hybrid), the other off-tanks (ice, with Support drones/IDF/radiant sigils). Doing red mishes, lvl 30 range, usually coming top against chimera, and once tanking him. !.
I wonder, would it help if avenger damage got the DW touch? I.e. all ranged damage from avengers got higher damage penetration? Would help the PvP crowd, and perhaps reduce the ascendancy of DW as the only attack... hmmm? It would keep the high risk/reward playstyle (something I enjoy) but give them a fighting chance verses defense stacking.
quarry grants the same damage bonus its just seperated into 2 parts so that it can buff multiple forms of damage. that doesnt mean its buffing less.
Quarry actually does give a smaller buff than other passives to physical damage, and buffs both ranged and melee. It buffs non-physical damage by half that much.
yes and when adding both totals it = out to a normal offensive passive rank for rank the bonus is the same just divided into 2 different types physical and non physical total at rank 1 = 60% bonus, fiery form is granting a 50% bonus at rank 1 so it is actually granting more of a bonus than other offensive passives at times. some do more and some do less but it is still= to the average damage bonus on an offensive passive
If teams can't run "hard" stuff, then they should run it on easier difficulties where failing to meet condition x is much harder (or condition x does not exist). Also, I didn't explicitly suggest trinity roles -- DD for instance is actually much easier if your team doesn't have a healer or your healer is seraphim/rage of majesty (and can thus dps pretty hard). If your dedicated dps characters pull aggro, they just block -- if they don't have heals they shouldn't be doing elite content anyway.
Let me put this in big giant bold underline so that everyone understands my point: Elite content should be gated. It should be hard, even for experts, and it should give radically better rewards. Non-elite content should not do either of these things. I don't care if idiot pugs can't run nemcon on elite. They can run it on normal, and if they want the (theoretically) epic boe drops from nemcon elite they can buy them on AH.
I don't really see how Luther is bugged. His aggro is forced on the key every time it opens a chest, and it's some huge amount of aggro so you have to generate quite a bit more to get him off -- which is trivial for a real tank. The mob spawns can be taunted or dealt with, and a healer is absolutely wonderful because it lets the key stay alive much more effectively.
dunno bout the radically better rewards angle, maybe slightly better rewards, or give you rewards faster (lets say you could get 60 unity instead of 40 for example) also vanity items, and skins would be a viable reward. that said i think it would eb a good idea to have a top tier difficulty (whether elite, or a new even higher one) that gave more incentive, low level that would be experience and items (definately high level, since its the main reason for doing anything at cap)
I don't really see how Luther is bugged. His aggro is forced on the key every time it opens a chest, and it's some huge amount of aggro so you have to generate quite a bit more to get him off -- which is trivial for a real tank. The mob spawns can be taunted or dealt with, and a healer is absolutely wonderful because it lets the key stay alive much more effectively.
If any mob(Luther or his adds) ever debuffs the Key in any way, you can't pull aggro off him, in any way.
That perma-agro lasts through the entire duration of the debuff. Now imagine a 5-man team, with appropriately many adds, of which some can inflict a random debuff. That bug.
Also, the Key attacks his attacker, EVERY TIME, and you can't make him stop until you kill the mob attacking him. If it's Luther Black, right before he closes himself in a bubble, you've lost the fight because Luther can attack AND he's invulnerable during that period.
You know, i don't really feel like discussing it. The same bugs have been reported over a hundred times, with no fixes.
Oh and, your suggestion would just put a huge strength gap between "normal" and "hardcore" players, due to "radically better rewards".
Think Freeform vs Archetype, as an example.
It would also be detrimental for build variation, since it would encourage building cookie cutter toons, just to perform well in "hardcore" content.
Oh and, just a random though, did anyone notice that custom crafting is completely broken since the last patch?
As in, you can't craft anything even though you have 3 times the required mats?
Yes, it is unrelated to this subject. But i mentioned it as an example for you Auspicious. Even though the user community has shouted their eyeballs out, requesting for fixes, we still have players that are blissfully unaware of the many many past and present bugs, and lack of fixes for them. Maybe you should ponder a little about that one, put it into a bigger context.
Let me put this in big giant bold underline so that everyone understands my point: Elite content should be gated. It should be hard, even for experts, and it should give radically better rewards. Non-elite content should not do either of these things.
Giving better rewards to better players just makes the gap bigger, forcing you to design even harder content (since by giving out epic gear you just upped the maximum power level available to min-maxed toons) which then becomes unavailable to the overwhelming majority of your player population. It also completely skews PvP games toward veterans (even more than they already are, that is).
The end result is a massive and ever-increasing barrier to entrance for all the newer players (or the older but not so good ones), both in PvE and in PvP, which is an utter disaster from a game design standpoint.
Comments
i agree that might should have the best ways of gaining stacks of enrage but that doesnt mean other sets cant refresh it
and i assure you i understand how brawler and avenger work but the negatives on avenger make it gimped, is it playable yes but that doesnt mean its good.
Umm.... they already do this. That's why Ego Bladers use Form of the Tempest.
I think you've missed the point here. You obviously haven't played with Avenger role outside of the Powerhouse. In Practice there is almost nothing that an Avenger Role character can do to defeat a Brawler character, and they can't even begin to chip the defenses of a Defiance/IDF user. This "Ranger" class you speak of from other games has other tricks up their sleeve that keep enemies at a distance. They have snares, roots, some minor crowd control capabilities, and sometimes have stealth depending on the game. Mostly, the excel by keeping enemies at a distance. But those options don't exist in this game, where Brawler's have only a 2-3 second cooldown on their Lunge, which remove your travel power and roots you in place, and when their attacks all snare you, slowing your movement and stopping you from being able to kite. Rangers in other games don't have those kinds of problems because they keep enemies away. But here the Avenger Role has non of that. Avenger only has damage at the cost of everything else. Avenger has no way of penetrating defense or stopping escape the way a Brawler does, has no way to keep an opponent locked down the way a Sentinel does, doesn't have a tenth of the survivability a Protector does and doesn't have the resistance against crowd control EVERY SINGLE OTHER ROLE HAS. It only has damage, and not enough to overcome the defenses of non-Offensive Passive and no way to avoid taking damage. In reality, it has no distinct advantage over any other role, the fact that you can now get more damage from Guardian Role than Avenger is a sign of a huge problem with the role, and that it needs to be looked at.
The problem here is your complete failure to see any perspective beyond Trinity-style team play. But even in Trinity-style team play, a Guardian role character can still outdamage and outsurvive and out crowd control an Avenger Role character, all at the same time - a point you completely fail to acknowledge in these rants of yours.
I agree with most of what is in this post and in the spirit of objectivity, i am willing to accept that enrage is does not need a nerf if the facts show that that's whats best for the game. what you have here is a well thought out argument but not necessarily cold and unmovable facts. but maybe you can still change my mind.
Lets say that all offensive passives got the quarry treatment and avenger role got tweaked. I can only accept that enrage does not get nerfed if offensive passives get buffed to the point that enrage/focus can no longer match damage buffs number for number with offensive passives. Restated, if offensive passives get a survivability buff and offensive passives are put in a league of damage that enrage can never touch then it can be said that we are both on the same page.
I guess you can say my thing is that passives should always be the largest buff of its kind.
Now can you please explain to me how it would be so game breaking if enrage was only able to produce say..80% of the damage buff that a passive can? from where im sitting that's still a lot of damage. And please don't lean too heavily on the "you have to take certain stats to make enrage work" argument because i have built enrage toons and honestly, it is not that big of an inconvenience (and i am not a build guru by any stretch). As far as i can tell, the stats are really only a means to an end from a game play perspective and giving up stats i like for superior performance only hurts me if my theme is heavily tied to my stats.
If i knew that enrage doing any less damage that an offensive passive would be game breaking then i would be on the "don't nerf enrage train".
EDIT: Damit! i said i was going to stay out of this conversation!!:mad:
It's a good thing that your read the rest of my post with comprehension.
In fact, it's such a good thing that i'll just quote myself again to answer your question. Again.
They'd still survive, just taking longer to win.
Offensive passives would be as inferior as before, and everyone will get real bored, real fast.
P.S.
Offensive passives alredy have Defensive Toggle and clicky powers available. See IDF, Masterful Dodge, Evasive Maneuvers and many others.
Adding more seperate defensive powers would just enable layered tank players in PvP and PvE to become even more unkillable.
Balance (like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder and inherently subjective and unstable. We both have fundamentally different views on how to balance this equation but the optimal solution is largely determined by your view on the issue above. So far, all you have presented are subjective observations and not facts. (and certainly not numbers) LOL show me a build that cant steam roll PVE. What does this have to do with the cost V. effectiveness of enrage argument? I thought we were talking about how defensive enrage toons perform v. offensive toons relatively not how enrage or non enrage toons perform in by themselves in a vacuum in pve. how does the fact that non enrage build can steam role pve prove that reducing enrage below offinsive passives would be game breaking. If any thing it proves that if enrage was nerfed that you would still be able to steam role as you did before. Enrage, Ego storm, Stun lunges and Dragons wrath are are all considered overpowered in the pvp community. Dragons wrath is just plain overpowered in any setting. How does listing a bunch of cheese powers that ppl hate in pvp make defense stacking damage tanks not a problem. how does this prove that reduseing enrage damage below offensive passive levels would be game breaking? I didnt even know you could do that and have never seen it but is sounds broken. At any rate how does this prove that if you reduced enrage [insert the rest]
in this lv range all you really need is a good AOE in my experience, you don't really need a passive until around lv 20 any way. this goes back to the cost v, investment of enrage but doesn't prove that enrage needs to exceed offensive passives in order to be an effective power
I was looking for real game breaking examples like:
If enrage is reduced below offensive passives then i will no longer be able to solo content
If enrage is reduced below offensive passives then i will no longer be able to build a tank properly or hold agro
If enrage is reduced below offensive passives then then i will no longer be able to complete high lv lair content
If enrage is reduced below offensive passives then tanks will have no value in teams.
If enrage is reduced below offensive passives then i will no longer be able to build an effective pvp toon
If enrage is reduced below offensive passives then [insert math eqation]
Of course none of these things are true but if they were, then it would be game breaking.
If you disagree with me then that's fine but don't quote my question and then pretend that you have answered it by throwing a bunch of loosely related opinions at me. It really shouldn't take a wall of text to answer my question and if the question cant be answered in a conclusive way then just accept that your opinion on the matter is one of many and not some kind of scientifically provable fact.
EDIT: My question in post #256 still stands if there are any takers.
I dont have any video capture set up off hand. But it really isnt exciting, its pretty gay for an avenger toon, and requires lots of blocking, waiting regenerating, etc. I may look for some software, but no.... i am not proud of this fake tank avenger....
And Will i have played with Avenger outside of PvE. Survivability should not be your measuring stick of Avenger, and yes i have played Avenger AND teamed up with Avenger outside of the powerhouse, but not with as many different abilities, and not as many styles of Avenger play. I got a force heavy toon and a munitions heavy toon.
Btw Avenger has access to a host of CC skills, and with resistances working the way they do, the fact that a brawlers skills place snare on avengers has its disadvantages, in build resistances when you may not want to. What CC exactly is it the avenger cant get? i see snares, stuns, and holds a plenty in ranged frameworks. But really im not saying Avenger is the spit in PvP because if your alone, unless your trying to snipe and run, taking hits is as important as doing dmg. but you can select your role, so when you need to be a survivor, then use a different role.
and yes, there are advantages to range, using corners, getting to set your big attack up. getting CC advantage. and there are ways to neutralize this.
http://livestre.am/H6Ws
ok i dug out some old capture crap i had, Avenger killing everything in the hard room, i went with a fire build this time because it has more easy dots, though i will say this build is made to get beat up, its energy efficiency without getting hit by a lot of targets is crap, but it has the str and enrage mechanics, it shows why enrage is a choice with various options, not necessarily the best bet, because if i had more ego, id get more per block, if i had more end i could spam more, if i had dex, etc. Melee toons pay the same tax using enrage.
I would call this build more of a survivor class than what an Avenger should do, but thats what your building, when you plan on running past every mob in the room, gathering them up, and trying to fight them all at once, when there is no advantage to doing so, since most attacks are limited to 5 or 7 mobs at once. If i was building something to clear the room smartly, id probably have gone with a more "avenger" build.
may have got lost in my wall of text
http://livestre.am/H6Ws
thats a livestream with me taking them all on with a fire toon. slow and not very avenger like, but there ya go
Wait, what? Seriously, what cesspool fiery pit of hell did that thought even come from?
Let's put your idea in a realistic context.
Passives are perma-active. You can't deactivate them. You stack anything you want on top of them.
Defensive passive + defensive buffs
Defensive passive + offensive buffs
Defensive passive + offensive/defensive buff mix
(same goes for Offensive passives)
So yeah, your idea is that you couldn't stack Enrage with any passive. Enrage is an offensive buff. Should we do the same with the next offensive buff power or power combination that starts getting used widely?
While we're on offensive buffs, it's clearly logical that we should do the same with defensive buffs, since there would be virtually nothing but DW or similar powers that could break through layered defenses.
So where does it all lead? Squishies will be even more squishy, and tanks will be squishier tanks while doing miserable damage.
I really wish people would look at things from all aspects before spouting random suggestions.
That means looking at it from both a PvE and PvP perspective. They are not seperate things and changes affect both sections.
It also means that any drastic change will pull up a number of more drastic changes behind it.
And that's the crux of the matter. What each person perceives as balance is subjective. In a way, all we've done is proven that point since we're all reasonably intelligent, have access to the same information yet arrive at different conclusions. You may weigh Enrage maintenance and the required stats heavily, while I do not. Does this mean one of us is wrong? No.
Agree to disagree.
I don't know much about tanking but you seem to be implying that you cant tank properly without 8 stacks enrage. I don't buy that, but we can to to one of the other forums and start a thread to see if in fact it is exceedingly difficult or impossible to tank without 8 stacks of enrage.
question1 If you go back and read you will see that i am basically on board with what G0dSlay3r said in post #246 the only difference is that i feel that the less damage is available outside of offensive passives the less damage you have to pile on offensive passives to compensate. I'm hesitant to buff offensive passives too much because i feel that the damage in this game is already exceedingly high and as a consequence the challenge suffers. I never said that nerfing enrage alone would fix anything.
Question2 You answered the question for me at the end of the statement. I repeat that this is a subjective issue. You don't agree? fine. That doesn't mean your right, it just means that we disagree. It is my opinion that when passives are the main thing that defines your role in combat then its ez for every one to jell together on a team and thus improves the teaming experience. This may be largely because Im still carrying baggage from COX (where roles are clearly defined) but i don't think that's a bad thing (cox was well known for its teaming experience).
^^^ /charlie sheen voice: WINNING!
I'm quoting this part, because I'd like you to do some analysis based on this statement. Just go into the Powerhouse with a friend (or I'll come with you if you want), and see what happens when you use Bullet Beatdown with an offensive Passive that boosts it in Brawler Role with 8 stacks of Focus, Loack and Load and over 35% crit rate and over 80% severity, and take it against someone using Invuln or Defiance with Beatdown as their attack. Try to kill them.
The point of that exercise isn't about PvP, it's to show how ridiculous defensive stacking can get compared to offensive stacking. In the above setup, the Defensive Passive+Beatdown user will defeat that Bullet Beatdown user with all those buffs stacked on. And that's just one passive compared to pretty much every offensive buff a number of offensive buffs. The fact that the Defensive Player has access to all the same extra buffs isn't exactly the problem, it's that the Offensive Player is starting further behind.
If do tests like these, it may show you where the other point of view is coming from.
The point becomes moot when several people agree on one approach, but others disagree while having seperate approaches or ideas for each opinion.
Thereby, it wasn't a perception of just one person, but several.
Many people here agreed that the real handicap with offensive passives is not lack of damage, but severe lack of survivability that makes using a combo like offensive passive + enrage largely ineffective when compared to defensive passive + enrage.
Many people have also agreed that Enrage/Focus is a an offensive mechanic, but can't be directly compared to offensive passives due to different requirements and uses. Enrage does not replace, it complements a passive.
Those that disagreed have stated their opinions, but each of them had different ideas and approaches.
There was also a distinct lack of foresight in those approaches, along with a lack of a general aspect, sometimes focusing just on the PvE section of the game while ignoring the effect on PvP altogether.
Yes, we can agree to disagree. We already do. But that by itself means nothing.
When you're a real dedicated tank, your main purpose is to buld and maintain threat while staying alive.
Keeping track of Enrage/Focus during all that doesn't have too much of an effect, and might distract you enough to make a mistake and get killed.
Just an example. Mathematically, yes, Enrage + taunt is more affective. Practically, it's easier to just taunt away without worrying about building Enrage of Focus.
Aggressor can give up to 30% melee damage boost at Rank 3, which is on par with some offensive passives.
Also, Enrage can give a damage bonus on par or superior to a passive. But that just gets us back to the beginning: you need to heavily invest in STR to get a damage bonus on par or superior to offensive passives.
Along with INT and CON for builds that have no Enrage stack building attacks.
Like i said. It is a damage buff, but it's not comparable to offensive passives.
See in trying to understand where you are coming from, i see two issues.
1) you think that charachters who take a defensive passive should do less damage than they currently do. or rather in comparison to offensive charachters, they are too close in your op.
2) You think enrage/focus is the core of this issue.
as to 1. how much more dmg do you think an offensive charachter should be able to achieve than a defensive passive user. because using the same skills, SS and setups, an offensive role charachter with an offensive passive will do probably some were in the family of 40% more damage. this is not to base, this is straight up after everything is factored.
Protector Force cascade rank 2. = 4,698k from tooltip description with 8 stacks of enrage
Avenger Force cascade rank 2 = 6.581k 8 stacks
from tooltip.
is that not big enough difference? with no enrage tooltip dmg goes to 64% more damage, total after everything.
force cascade 2994 protector no enrage
force cascade 4920 avenger no enrage
do you really think someones dmg should be that gimped for having a defensive passive? all offensive skills being 60 % less effective than an offensive charachter? flat damage reductions would impact them even more. 40% isnt enough? can you imagine how long it would take a defensive passive user to solo the same content? keep in mind tooltip doesnt include damage mitigation
Keep in mind with this whole defense issue, defensive passives are hax. with high offence i can clear a bunch of mobs in the time it takes my unbreakable to last
Which is better, taking 30% of health, or taking 47%? There's non-zero value to killing things faster, but with healing being what it is, there's also non-zero value to more efficient healing, so we'll call those two equal, and thus either the Avenger should be doing 10,000 damage (45% of health on the Protector, needs 4,504 points of healing to mitigate) or the Protector should be doing 3,100 damage (31% on the Avenger, requires 2,976 points of healing to mitigate).
That is a very dangerous line of thinking. Simply because other people say the same thing does not make it the best idea.
That statement is linked to a very specific discussion and backed up by very specific facts.
Nice try though.
The classic brush off. Out of other arguments you attempt to make mine seem worthless. I'm touched!
this is an ineresting analysis, and versus each other, the avenger is in a losing battle. But this is solo vs solo analysis, with a defensive healer, or a tank by his side, the avenger is going to kill the same target much faster. IE when your in certain situations, the Avenger will prove more usefull, in other situations, such as in such a head to head battle the protector would have the advantage.
So, its a different class with different utility. In solo pvp all things the same, hes going to lose, but consider if we upped a avenger's dmg to get 47% of something with 122% mitigation what would that force cascade have to do, 5k which translates to like what 12k base? so it would be 2.5 times as effective dmg wise as a defensive passive user? not to mention, anyone except a fully spec con tank would die in 1 hit. PvE wise youd either need to make the mobs with such high hp, anyone with a defensive passive would find leveling to take about 2.5 times as long? And in situations where Avenger shines right now, it would widen the gap even further? I dont know man, Its definetly a valid perspective, but followed to its logical conclusion you get a game that would probably suck a lot.
also that only looks at the defiance style tank. the invulnerable, regeneration and dodge tanks would have tottally different equations.
so maybe the problem is, the defiance tank, but changing that... would make a lot of people very upset.
From a pve perspective damage is only one way to contribute. And the degree to which it helps cannot be weighed equally between the Tank, Healer, and DPS characters.
Let's say the tank can do a lot of damage, so what? If they lose threat, the group could wipe or the healer could die forcing everyone in the group to block more, bringing down their damage output. A more complete measure of the contribution of a team member is:
Total team dps with teammate A - Total team dps without teammate A = Contribution of teammate A
That does not mean dps of teammate A, it just means how much damage does their activity in the group afford the group to deal. Whether they are a healer, tank, or DPS.
Given that the dps of a given character is not universally important, it doesn't make sense to balance the game around it.
Edit: Vixy would agree that it's easier to roll up and play a decent tank than it is to do the same for an offensive character, however you'll find that in very high end play where all team members are min maxing to be most effective, the offensive characters do a lot more damage than the tanks.
I doubt those two match ups would go that way, and really giving any class that much power would still unbalance the game insanely. It would translate to avenger 1 shots anyone except a super tank. which can happen now, but it requires way more set up.
even assuming a tank good go all out and attack all the time, assuming the avenger could go out and attack all the time.
lets call the tanks dps 100 with enrage
assuming for all the same skills and frequency the avenger would be currently 140 with enrage
the tanking guys dmg would go down, say to 60
tank tank, you have 60 +100 dps
tank Avenger you have 60+140 dps
160 vs 200
the bigger your group, the less valuable each tank is, and the more valuable each dps is. especially an avenger who can avoid most aoe, and can therefore dps more, as well requires less upkeep.
Sure avenger gives up ease in soloing and defense, but it will be more useful than a second tank, though in this game, the 2nd tank wont be a complete waste. double that damage, and in pve that avenger will be worth almost 2 defensive passive users.
If this bonus comes from the role itself, it will also make guardians laughable.
the fact is if your tank is really good, for any situation you only need 1 of him.
really, double dmg, doesnt sound like a good idea
This is why I brought up the asymmetry between defense stacking (handling higher difficulty content) vs offense stacking (moving through content faster). It's true that giving up a defensive passive for an offensive one means giving up on the biggest potential source of defense for a second or third biggest source of offense, but I don't immediately see this as a problem, because defense and offense are difficult to directly compare in PvE.
I would love to see more defensive powers that can be maintained similarly to enrage and focus. I think these kinds of powers (similar to defensive combo's defiant stack, or telekinetic eruption's lingering form) have the potential to solve all the issues with avenger role, if they were just more common and available to more themes. Toggles like IDF are another good way to go. Unfortunately I can see that giving us more defense stacking without restriction will hurt game balance a lot more than the buffs or nerfs to offense would.
True, there are a few boss fights where team damage output matters, and that's also something I'd like to see more often in the game, I just meant that the "you must be at least this tall to ride the ride" signs in the CO themepark are nearly always based on defense, aside from those few exceptions of regenerating foes.
I can say why I do it sometimes, which is that an offensive passive (stacked with enrage or focus) is the only way to reach the highest levels of damage, and in a sense that's priceless (in PvP, because it allows for defeating players through spike damage who would otherwise never be defeated, in PvE, because for better or for worse most competitive pve in this game is a winner-takes-all dps contest). It reminds me of holding threat on tako's deathlord with invulnerability and enrage but coming in second place to your fiery form + focus build.
I think we agree that the problem is that there isn't enough of a reason to use an offensive passive instead of a defensive or support passive. But my problem with avenger characters is not that I find their extra damage lacking, playing an avenger I actively appreciate the 30-40% larger damage numbers. Instead I think the problem is expecting too much of a damage advantage based on the huge loss of survivability.
Nerfing protector damage without changing avenger makes the roles more interdependent and promotes trinity play, while buffing avenger defense without changing protector makes the roles more independent. I want to see more teaming in CO, but I'm opposed to promoting / forcing team play through trinity-style interdependence, that's why I want tanks to continue doing high damage and would boost avenger's defenses.
I think that content benchmarks should put greater stipulations on DPS. Dimensional Destroyer is a good example, and there need to be more situations like him where DPS is critical. I'd like to see more bosses on enrage timers, forcing the team to output x dps or fail. I'd also like to see fights like Luther, only way more extreme - forcing healers to really emphasize keeping the Key alive, for instance.
Fights in CO by and large need to be measured in other ways than tanking efficiency, but right now they're just not.
Of course, like everyone else, I definitely think Avenger needs a buff. Most of all, I think the heal debuff and CC resistance need to be removed. I also thing Avenger should have +CC strength rather than -CC strength, and a bonus to energy strength/equilibrium and possibly max end. Something like Brawler, where your attacks pierce defenses, would be cool but possibly too good. I don't think the max hp should be removed, regardless.
Not only did you pick out the single most horrible(both by bugs and design) fight in the entire game, but also continued with the pure DPS aspect of offensives.
So, let's take Dimensional Destroyer as an example. You run a newly buffed offensive passive for that extra DPS that should take him down in that mode.
But you don't have a trinity stiled team. You know, dedicated tank, dedicated healer, dedicated dps.
There's a couple of DPS builds, maybe a healer, but the rest are just plain self-sustainable builds.
Your squishy offensive passive toon would generate the most threat through raw damage, you'll get attacked by Destroyer which would kill your DPS due to the need for healing/blocking, or you'd just get pretty much stomped into oblivion. Rendering the damage bonus from that newly buffed offensive passive useless.
Of course, the situation changes if you had a dedicated tank. Theoretically.
It's also theoretically possible that the tank would still lose aggro every once in a while due to the raw damage of the buffed offensive passive toon. Also, if an Enrage/Focus nerf occured as some players are asking, the tanks damage output would fall even more and there would be even more difficulty keeping aggro if another player heavily outclasses them in damage.
You'd get tank build that can last through a fight with a big boss, but the only difference is the artificial prolongation of that fight due to decreased damage bonuses from Focus/Enrage.
Squishies will still remain squishies on offensive passives. Nothing changes.
Let's take a certain build as a a practical example.
Sword Cyclone, Dragon's Wrath with crit chance buff powers, DEX/INT superstats, Form of the Tempest.
Three passives can be arguably effective with that combination: Quarry, Invulnerability, Lightning Reflexes
In all three cases, they can be bolstered even more defensively with Inertial Dampening Field or Eye of the Storm.
Lightning Reflexes build - basically a dodge tank, further bolstered with Eye of the Storm when you get swarmed by a group. This can be really durable in both PvE and PvP. High crit chance, but lower general damage than Quarry.
Invulnerability + IDF build - provides a better survivability boost against hordes of mobs. You can basically pick any offensive power combination with those passives. High crit chance, but you'll still lag behind Quarry in damage.
Quarry build - Gives a bonus to damage, while also giving certain bonuses to defense. Audacity increases your dodge chance and avoidance, reduces your power cost, increases your crit severity, while Fair Game advantage can make sure that you practically can't die if you get swarmed by mobs, since every dead henchman is a heal for you.
With certain extra powers, you can reach the same dodge chance percentage as with Lightning Reflexes.
So, you have a build with an offensive passive, that can give the same defensive boost like a defensive passive, while at the same time boosting damage. Quarry will always outdamage the other defensive passives mentioned here, and keep players alive long enough for that extra damage to matter.
Most players avoid offensive passives if they can simply because they are too squishy compared to defensive passives. Players are more than willing to trade damage for survivability. That's the reason most people prefer to use Enrage/Focus + defensive passives. The exception is Quarry, since it can be considered a hybrid passive that gives substantial bonuses to both.
Using Quarry as a template and modifying other offensive passives with their own incorporated defensive bonuses would benefit every player. More damage, more defense(most importantly, defense that can't be stacked on top of defensive passives).
so all we have left is fire, ice, electric, and pestilence that are lacking the defensive bonus.
giving these passives a defensive bonus has been brought up before but again its not the same as a defensive passive can be with work just like enrageand to a much lesser extent focus. but that still doesnt solve all of the issues but its a really good start, still need a ranged damage toggle
Ice should have a defensive bonus of damage resistance with chance to proc chill whenever struck just like ice shield
Electric should go dodge-if any offensive passive should get a dodge bonus it should be electric and possibly a chance to stun when struck
fire- ive got no clue hear maybe a flat damage absorb caused by incinerating the object hitting the player? and again clinging flames proc when struck
pestilence- a heal advantage its infernal supernatural home of devour essence why not give it a much lesseer version of regeneration that uses stacks of healing based upon the number of infected targets
justa couple of suggestions still think the easiest way to solve the damage disperity issue would be to add a ranged toggle ranged defensive tanks and offenisve toons would then be on par with the same difference between the melee versions. add in the offensive passive defenses that can be worked into a semi effective defense and that should be able to make everyone happy or at least somewhat agreeable.
fire is elemental
electric is energy
and ice is... elemental again,
the problem is this usually makes them most effective against other ranged users, and only certain ones.
Still though. its there.
I think upping the defense on offensive passives may in fact be the best answer, but an interesting way to do it would probably be using some type of maintained, or burst defense mechanism, that basically works with the offensive passive's style of play. This way people couldnt say it was a free boost, and it couldnt just be tacked on to the already super powered defense classes.
Say for example, a way for fire to turn part of the dmg against them into fire dmg, or say foes with clinging flames applied dmg is reduced by X, something similar would work for chill. or possibly something on a cool down or requiring maintence that would make a portion of the dmg against them be elemental.
of course it cant be too powerful, Quarry gives less offense than the other skills, so giving them similar all around buffs maybe overkill, anyhow its an idea.
Killing minions and almost all of PvE? Easy.
Five man hard spawn, powerhouse? Easy - except for argent, but I find them harder with melee toons.
The greater effective range on all AoEs makes so many fights easy. One toon I have kites (darkness/pestilence hybrid), the other off-tanks (ice, with Support drones/IDF/radiant sigils). Doing red mishes, lvl 30 range, usually coming top against chimera, and once tanking him. !.
I wonder, would it help if avenger damage got the DW touch? I.e. all ranged damage from avengers got higher damage penetration? Would help the PvP crowd, and perhaps reduce the ascendancy of DW as the only attack... hmmm? It would keep the high risk/reward playstyle (something I enjoy) but give them a fighting chance verses defense stacking.
Otterman
Quarry actually does give a smaller buff than other passives to physical damage, and buffs both ranged and melee. It buffs non-physical damage by half that much.
http://www.champions-online-wiki.com/wiki/Way_of_the_Warrior
http://www.champions-online-wiki.com/wiki/Quarry
If teams can't run "hard" stuff, then they should run it on easier difficulties where failing to meet condition x is much harder (or condition x does not exist). Also, I didn't explicitly suggest trinity roles -- DD for instance is actually much easier if your team doesn't have a healer or your healer is seraphim/rage of majesty (and can thus dps pretty hard). If your dedicated dps characters pull aggro, they just block -- if they don't have heals they shouldn't be doing elite content anyway.
Let me put this in big giant bold underline so that everyone understands my point: Elite content should be gated. It should be hard, even for experts, and it should give radically better rewards. Non-elite content should not do either of these things. I don't care if idiot pugs can't run nemcon on elite. They can run it on normal, and if they want the (theoretically) epic boe drops from nemcon elite they can buy them on AH.
I don't really see how Luther is bugged. His aggro is forced on the key every time it opens a chest, and it's some huge amount of aggro so you have to generate quite a bit more to get him off -- which is trivial for a real tank. The mob spawns can be taunted or dealt with, and a healer is absolutely wonderful because it lets the key stay alive much more effectively.
If any mob(Luther or his adds) ever debuffs the Key in any way, you can't pull aggro off him, in any way.
That perma-agro lasts through the entire duration of the debuff. Now imagine a 5-man team, with appropriately many adds, of which some can inflict a random debuff. That bug.
Also, the Key attacks his attacker, EVERY TIME, and you can't make him stop until you kill the mob attacking him. If it's Luther Black, right before he closes himself in a bubble, you've lost the fight because Luther can attack AND he's invulnerable during that period.
You know, i don't really feel like discussing it. The same bugs have been reported over a hundred times, with no fixes.
Oh and, your suggestion would just put a huge strength gap between "normal" and "hardcore" players, due to "radically better rewards".
Think Freeform vs Archetype, as an example.
It would also be detrimental for build variation, since it would encourage building cookie cutter toons, just to perform well in "hardcore" content.
Oh and, just a random though, did anyone notice that custom crafting is completely broken since the last patch?
As in, you can't craft anything even though you have 3 times the required mats?
Yes, it is unrelated to this subject. But i mentioned it as an example for you Auspicious. Even though the user community has shouted their eyeballs out, requesting for fixes, we still have players that are blissfully unaware of the many many past and present bugs, and lack of fixes for them. Maybe you should ponder a little about that one, put it into a bigger context.
Giving better rewards to better players just makes the gap bigger, forcing you to design even harder content (since by giving out epic gear you just upped the maximum power level available to min-maxed toons) which then becomes unavailable to the overwhelming majority of your player population. It also completely skews PvP games toward veterans (even more than they already are, that is).
The end result is a massive and ever-increasing barrier to entrance for all the newer players (or the older but not so good ones), both in PvE and in PvP, which is an utter disaster from a game design standpoint.