Dark Current

Final Verdict: SO…Which Archetype Emerged as the Superior Support — Defender or Controller? After 51 missions, 4,000+ total kills, nearly 2.5 million combined points of damage dealt, and dozens of metrics across five power set matchups, the Controller archetype edged out the Defender in overall performance — but not by dominance. Here’s the call: 🏆 VICTORY: Controller… but with an asterisk. Why Controllers Came Out on Top Higher Damage Output (Threat) Controllers had a statistically significant advantage in damage per minute. This wasn’t a fluke — it held across most matchups and showed correlation with mission time, indicating scalable impact. Superior Lethality Controllers averaged 3.6 kills per minute vs. 3.0 for Defenders — a significant lead. They also claimed 31.2% of total team kills on 5-player teams — punching well above their weight in offensive contribution. Better Damage Efficiency They absorbed less damage per minute and dealt more — ending with higher out:in ratios. Not overwhelming, but the margins were clean and consistent. Higher Threat Quotient Both ATs showed correlation between damage and kills, but Controllers converted their damage to kills more efficiently, often through pet synergy and AoE stacking of damage, controls, debuffs and pets. Caveats: Where Defenders Fought Back Stronger Individual Set Performances In Time Manipulation and Traps matchups, Defenders won clearly, showing that a smart, aggressive build can absolutely rival or exceed a Controller. These wins weren’t marginal — they came with superior personal performance and better team outcomes. Stronger Reliability in Support Roles Defenders consistently had lower standard deviation in key metrics — suggesting greater stability and less reliance on team comp or pet AI. Their Resilience Quotient was higher, meaning they absorbed more punishment before allies went down.

Damage Efficiency Interpretation Defenders: Average Efficiency Ratio = 10.1 Controllers: Average Efficiency Ratio = 14.2 Controllers were more efficient at trading hits for harm — they got more bang for each point of damage they endured. The gap was marginal, and in many missions, Defenders kept pace or even outperformed them. Composite distributions largely overlapped, especially in the middle range, with Controllers skewing higher at the top end. Controllers edged out ahead in overall efficiency — but it wasn’t a rout. It was a strategic win, not a show of overwhelming power.

The Bulwark vs. The Binder… RESILIENCE Support Mission DMG In Time Teammate RATE COMPOSITE Support Mission DMG In Time Teammate RATE COMPOSITE Electrical 1 4519 13 3 348 116 Electrical 1 3102 8 4 388 97 2 10026 11 4 911 228 2 9459 14 4 676 169 3 7181 11 5 653 131 3 11204 17 4 659 165 4 14233 13 5 1095 219 4 12474 19 3 657 219 mayhem 17804 28 5 636 127 mayhem 11172 26 4 430 107 Nature 1 1764 7 4 252 63 Nature 1 1134 12 4 95 24 2 1352 6 4 225 56 2 2779 18 4 154 39 3 1870 4 4 467 117 3 2409 13 2 185 93 4 14316 18 4 795 199 4 2805 7 3 401 134 5 492 6 3 82 27 mayhem 13203 27 4 489 122 mayhem 6705 25 3 268 89 Time 1 7274 8 4 909 227 Time 1 11511 25 4 460 115 2 2624 12 4 219 55 2 6112 28 4 218 55 3 532 6 4 89 22 3 7993 22 4 363 91 4 2611 16 4 163 41 4 4986 15 4 332 83 safeguard 13706 30 3 457 152 safeguard 17166 41 4 419 105 Kinetics 1 5985 8 4 748 187 Kinetics 1 1557 6 4 259 65 2 3798 16 4 237 59 2 3773 8 4 472 118 3 3888 12 4 324 81 3 2071 11 4 188 47 4 3390 4 4 847 212 4 2739 12 4 228 57 5 7723 11 4 702 176 5 4845 20 4 242 61 Traps 1 5997 14 4 428 107 Traps 1 3117 6 4 520 130 2 2429 15 4 162 40 2 1800 11 4 164 41 3 1684 7 4 241 60 3 3359 6 4 560 140 4 3272 7 4 467 117 4 9696 10 4 970 242 mayhem 5571 33 4 169 42 Safeguard 8517 27 4 315 79 TOTAL 156752 337 4.04 481 118 AVG TOTAL 152977 413 3.77 373 100 286 66 STD 210 55 57 13 SE 41 11 Interpretation: Controllers took less damage per minute than Defenders by a statistically significant amount (SE ranges do not overlap). Controllers: 373 dmg/min (±41 SE) Defenders: 481 dmg/min (±57 SE) No correlation was found between incoming damage and mission time for either group. This tells us the trend wasn't due to longer fights — damage just arrived at a steadier clip for both. Composite distribution showed a more tightly packed curve for Controllers, but over 50% IQR overlap means the real difference lies in a small edge, not a massive gap. Resilience Quotient When a support character takes damage, does it protect the team from defeat? Resilience Quotient = Damage In / Ally Defeats A higher number might suggest a support that soaks damage before the team falls. A lower number might suggest that team defeats occurred even when the support wasn’t under fire — or that the damage taken wasn’t impactful. Interpretation: Defenders took more damage per team defeat (2,642) — suggesting they were absorbing more punishment without their team crumbling. Controllers, by contrast, showed a lower damage per defeat (1,763) — either they weren’t being hit as often, or their teams fell regardless of whether they were being targeted. But there was no correlation, so across dozens of missions, there was no consistent relationship between how much a support was hit and whether their allies lived or died. In other words, the damage a support character takes may not be the deciding factor in team safety at all. Maybe it’s not about who takes the hits — it’s about who stops the hits from happening in the first place.

Controllers' Pet-centricity Interpretation: Controllers unleashed more overall damage, driven heavily by their high-performing pets (48% of their total damage on average). Defenders relied more on their personal output, with pet contributions making up a smaller share (only 28.8% of total damage). Statistically, this was a very large difference: Defender pet damage: 777k out of 1.09M Controller pet damage: 770k out of 1.48M This suggests Controllers act as force multipliers, leveraging summoned pets to maintain consistent pressure and damage across missions — even when the controller isn’t doing the bulk of the blasting. Meanwhile, Defenders embody a “do-it-yourself” ethos, channeling the bulk of their value through their own powers, not proxies. Pet Protection "Does higher pet damage correlate with fewer ally deaths?" Interpretation: Defender Slope: 5712 pet dmg per ally defeat Controller Slope: 5537 pet dmg per ally defeat No correlation for either AT Pets aren’t reliably absorbing or distracting enough enemies to reduce team casualties in a predictable way. The similar slope values show equal levels of investment in pet-generated threat, but the lack of correlation suggests their protection value is situational — maybe spiking during certain fights (e.g., large groups or drawn-out mayhems), but not reliable across all missions. Pet Aggression "Does pet damage lead directly to more kills?" Interpretation: Defender Slope: 329 pet dmg per foe defeated (no correlation) Controller Slope: 475 pet dmg per foe defeated (with correlation) Controller pets are delivering reliable finishing power — the correlation shows a direct link between pet damage and actual kills. Their minions aren’t just nibbling at edges; they’re actively closing fights. Defender pets are contributing solidly (lower slope), but their impact is more diffuse — possibly because they’re soaked into AoE fights where others land the kills, or because defenders mix more personal damage into the equation.

The Bulwark vs. The Binder… THREAT Support Mission DMG Out Time Teammate RATE COMPOSITE Support Mission DMG Out Time Teammate RATE COMPOSITE Electrical 1 26686 13 3 2053 684 Electrical 1 28898 8 4 3612 903 2 43998 11 4 4000 1000 2 50124 14 4 3580 895 3 35956 11 5 3269 654 3 34983 17 4 2058 514 4 32188 13 5 2476 495 4 64033 19 3 3370 1123 mayhem 136770 28 5 4885 977 mayhem 90620 26 4 3485 871 Nature 1 25917 7 4 3702 926 Nature 1 47382 12 4 3948 987 2 19978 6 4 3330 832 2 86902 18 4 4828 1207 3 4611 4 4 1153 288 3 62640 13 2 4818 2409 4 47292 18 4 2627 657 4 26531 7 3 3790 1263 5 9054 6 3 1509 503 mayhem 86752 27 4 3213 803 mayhem 74236 25 3 2969 990 Time 1 42504 8 4 5313 1328 Time 1 94081 25 4 3763 941 2 56179 12 4 4682 1170 2 103122 28 4 3683 921 3 21825 6 4 3638 909 3 48758 22 4 2216 554 4 44633 16 4 2790 697 4 51038 15 4 3403 851 safeguard 124568 30 3 4152 1384 safeguard 110426 41 4 2693 673 Kinetics 1 17597 8 4 2200 550 Kinetics 1 30271 6 4 5045 1261 2 55480 16 4 3467 867 2 32299 8 4 4037 1009 3 36397 12 4 3033 758 3 58663 11 4 5333 1333 4 15607 4 4 3902 975 4 47442 12 4 3953 988 5 26970 11 4 2452 613 5 93463 20 4 4673 1168 Traps 1 24937 14 4 1781 445 Traps 1 36405 6 4 6067 1517 2 41152 15 4 2743 686 2 41197 11 4 3745 936 3 26942 7 4 3849 962 3 31473 6 4 5246 1311 4 13016 7 4 1859 465 4 29218 10 4 2922 730 mayhem 83810 33 4 2540 635 Safeguard 97492 27 4 3611 903 TOTAL 1091766 337 4.04 3164 791 AVG TOTAL 1480751 413 3.77 3783 1029 1021 267 STD 1061 380 204 53 SE 208 74 Interpretation: Controllers delivered significantly more damage per minute on average: CON AVG: 3,783 damage/min DEF AVG: 3,164 damage/min Both archetypes showed a clear correlation between damage output and mission time — longer missions gave more room for their impact to build. Controllers also had more volatility, with a wider range of values and a high outlier that pushed their composite distribution further than defenders, who were more consistent with no outliers. Threat Quotient (DMG Out : Foe Defeats) "How much damage does it take for a support archetype to get a kill?" A lower Threat Quotient means: More of a character’s damage results in kills directly. The player is likely landing finishing blows or dealing high-impact, decisive bursts. A higher Threat Quotient might suggest: The character’s damage is spread across enemies, weakening them but letting teammates land the final blows. They’re playing a more enabling or support-through-damage role. Results Defender TQ: 1088 damage per foe Controller TQ: 1003 damage per foe Statistical Tie (no significant difference) Positive correlation for both ATs — more damage = more kills, consistently

The Bulwark vs. The Binder… LETHALITY Support Mission F Defeats Time Teammate RATE COMPOSITE Support Mission F Defeats Time Teammate RATE COMPOSITE Electrical 1 32 13 3 2.5 0.8 Electrical 1 25 8 4 3.1 0.8 2 50 11 4 4.5 1.1 2 25 14 4 1.8 0.4 3 32 11 5 2.9 0.6 3 26 17 4 1.5 0.4 4 19 13 5 1.5 0.3 4 44 19 3 2.3 0.8 mayhem 74 28 5 2.6 0.5 mayhem 78 26 4 3.0 0.8 Nature 1 25 7 4 3.6 0.9 Nature 1 46 12 4 3.8 1.0 2 22 6 4 3.7 0.9 2 128 18 4 7.1 1.8 3 2 4 4 0.5 0.1 3 70 13 2 5.4 2.7 4 42 18 4 2.3 0.6 4 30 7 3 4.3 1.4 5 14 6 3 2.3 0.8 mayhem 81 27 4 3.0 0.8 mayhem 61 25 3 2.4 0.8 Time 1 42 8 4 5.3 1.3 Time 1 91 25 4 3.6 0.9 2 53 12 4 4.4 1.1 2 101 28 4 3.6 0.9 3 26 6 4 4.3 1.1 3 45 22 4 2.0 0.5 4 31 16 4 1.9 0.5 4 45 15 4 3.0 0.8 safeguard 127 30 3 4.2 1.4 safeguard 87 41 4 2.1 0.5 Kinetics 1 16 8 4 2.0 0.5 Kinetics 1 24 6 4 4.0 1.0 2 47 16 4 2.9 0.7 2 42 8 4 5.3 1.3 3 38 12 4 3.2 0.8 3 55 11 4 5.0 1.3 4 9 4 4 2.3 0.6 4 33 12 4 2.8 0.7 5 24 11 4 2.2 0.5 5 114 20 4 5.7 1.4 Traps 1 23 14 4 1.6 0.4 Traps 1 24 6 4 4.0 1.0 2 46 15 4 3.1 0.8 2 41 11 4 3.7 0.9 3 26 7 4 3.7 0.9 3 33 6 4 5.5 1.4 4 23 7 4 3.3 0.8 4 17 10 4 1.7 0.4 mayhem 88 33 4 2.7 0.7 Safeguard 85 27 4 3.1 0.8 TOTAL 998 337 4.04 3.0 0.8 AVG TOTAL 1384 413 3.77 3.6 1.0 1.1 0.3 STD 1.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 SE 0.3 0.1 Interpretation: Controllers had a higher average kill rate than Defenders — but this wasn't domination. It was consistency. Controllers are opportunists. They create fragile windows of vulnerability through control and illusion, then capitalize. Their damage output often comes in waves — phantasms, creepers, pets, DoTs — and it works because the battlefield is under their thumb. They aren't rushing. They're setting the stage and letting the clockwork run. Defenders, on the other hand, are slow burners. Their lethality builds. Their tools — often debuffs, auras, positional blasts — compound over time. And while their average kill rate was lower, the correlation with mission time tells a story: the longer the mission, the more dangerous the Defender becomes. That’s not just about output — it’s about traction. “Who kills more?” The answer is: Controllers, slightly. But if you’re asking, “Who shapes the kill tempo?”, then it becomes trickier. Controllers frontload and finish. Defenders ramp and sustain. LETHALITY LOAD – interpreting the kill pressure Across the entire DEFCON 5 series… How lethal were these teams overall? How much offensive pressure did they apply as a group? Which archetype generated more total team impact over time? To answer that, we calculate the Lethality Load: Add up all foe defeats from the mission logs. Divide by the average number of teammates (excluding the support character) to determine how many kills were generated per teammate slot across all missions. This gives a sense of teamwide combat output — and allows direct comparison to the individual Lethality stats of the Defenders and Controllers. Interpretation: Teammate Kills: Nearly identical — both archetypes led teams that delivered similar total kills. Kills per Teammate: Again, close — suggesting that teammates across both sides contributed evenly, kill-wise. Controller Lethality is concentrated, even though their teammates didn’t lag too far behind the defender’s. Defender kills = 22.5% of total team kills (998 / 4437) Controller kills = 31.2% of total team kills (1384 / 4441) Controllers may have had more tools or pets tagging final blows. Their builds could be funneling more combat to themselves — through summons, AoEs, or aggro manipulation. Or, their teammates were more supportive/less aggressive, letting Controllers shine. Defender Lethality is Distributed as their teams had higher kills per teammate than the controller’s. More ally throughput — teammates dealt the finishing blows more often. Defenders might not be logging the kills, but they’re boosting teammates’ performance. Defenders amplify the team’s total lethality, even if they personally don’t get the credit on the scoreboard.

The Bulwark vs. The Binder… RISK Support Mission A Defeats Time Teammate RATE COMPOSITE Support Mission A Defeats Time Teammate RATE COMPOSITE Electrical 1 1 13 3 0.08 0.03 Electrical 1 1 8 4 0.13 0.03 2 3 11 4 0.27 0.07 2 3 14 4 0.21 0.05 3 1 11 5 0.09 0.02 3 12 17 4 0.71 0.18 4 4 13 5 0.31 0.06 4 1 19 3 0.05 0.02 mayhem 10 28 5 0.36 0.07 mayhem 1 26 4 0.04 0.01 Nature 1 0 7 4 0.00 0.00 Nature 1 0 12 4 0.00 0.00 2 0 6 4 0.00 0.00 2 0 18 4 0.00 0.00 3 0 4 4 0.00 0.00 3 1 13 2 0.08 0.04 4 5 18 4 0.28 0.07 4 0 7 3 0.00 0.00 5 0 6 3 0.00 0.00 mayhem 2 27 4 0.07 0.02 mayhem 3 25 3 0.12 0.04 Time 1 1 8 4 0.13 0.03 Time 1 2 25 4 0.08 0.02 2 0 12 4 0.00 0.00 2 1 28 4 0.04 0.01 3 0 6 4 0.00 0.00 3 1 22 4 0.05 0.01 4 0 16 4 0.00 0.00 4 1 15 4 0.07 0.02 safeguard 3 30 3 0.10 0.03 safeguard 4 41 4 0.10 0.02 Kinetics 1 1 8 4 0.13 0.03 Kinetics 1 2 6 4 0.33 0.08 2 1 16 4 0.06 0.02 2 1 8 4 0.13 0.03 3 1 12 4 0.08 0.02 3 0 11 4 0.00 0.00 4 0 4 4 0.00 0.00 4 1 12 4 0.08 0.02 5 1 11 4 0.09 0.02 5 0 20 4 0.00 0.00 Traps 1 1 14 4 0.07 0.02 Traps 1 0 6 4 0.00 0.00 2 0 15 4 0.00 0.00 2 1 11 4 0.09 0.02 3 0 7 4 0.00 0.00 3 1 6 4 0.17 0.04 4 1 7 4 0.14 0.04 4 0 10 4 0.00 0.00 mayhem 2 33 4 0.06 0.02 Safeguard 3 27 4 0.11 0.03 TOTAL 38 337 4.04 0.09 0.02 AVG TOTAL 40 413 3.77 0.10 0.03 0.11 0.02 STD 0.15 0.04 0.02 0.00 SE 0.03 0.01 Interpretation: Risk (Ally Defeats) Overall Outcome: No significant difference in Risk Rate between Defenders and Controllers. Both archetypes had an average team defeat rate of around 0.10 per minute — meaning their teams suffered a defeat roughly once every 10 minutes, on average. Consistency & Spread: Composite distributions for both archetypes were narrow and overlapping, indicating a stable and similar performance level. The Controllers showed two high outliers, indicating occasional team collapses that weren’t seen in the Defender runs — but those were exceptions, not patterns. No Correlation to Mission Length: Neither archetype showed a meaningful relationship between mission length and team defeat rate. Long or short, the rate remained consistent, suggesting reliability across mission types and durations. Conclusion: Despite Controllers occasionally having spike events (likely due to burst failure of controls or pet AI quirks), the overall team safety profile was nearly identical between the two archetypes. DEFEAT LOAD Across all the entire DEFCON 5 series… How punishing were these missions were on the team overall? How well the team was protected over time? Which archetype carried the weight of team safety better? If you add all player defeats (personal + ally) and divide by the average number of teammates (including the support character), you get a “Defeat Load” — or how many total defeats occurred per player on the team. Interpretation: The number is very close: both archetypes resulted in about 9 total defeats spread across each player slot over their missions. This backs up the previous conclusions: no meaningful difference in team-wide fragility or risk management. The load per player is basically the same.

The Bulwark vs. The Binder… SURVIVABILITY Support Mission P Defeats Time Teammate RATE COMPOSITE Support Mission P Defeats Time Teammate RATE COMPOSITE Electrical 1 0 13 3 0.000 0.000 Electrical 1 0 8 4 0.000 0.000 2 1 11 4 0.091 0.023 2 0 14 4 0.000 0.000 3 0 11 5 0.000 0.000 3 0 17 4 0.000 0.000 4 1 13 5 0.077 0.015 4 1 19 3 0.053 0.018 mayhem 1 28 5 0.036 0.007 mayhem 1 26 4 0.038 0.010 Nature 1 0 7 4 0.000 0.000 Nature 1 0 12 4 0.000 0.000 2 0 6 4 0.000 0.000 2 0 18 4 0.000 0.000 3 0 4 4 0.000 0.000 3 0 13 2 0.000 0.000 4 0 18 4 0.000 0.000 4 0 7 3 0.000 0.000 5 0 6 3 0.000 0.000 mayhem 2 27 4 0.074 0.019 mayhem 0 25 3 0.000 0.000 Time 1 0 8 4 0.000 0.000 Time 1 1 25 4 0.040 0.010 2 0 12 4 0.000 0.000 2 0 28 4 0.000 0.000 3 0 6 4 0.000 0.000 3 0 22 4 0.000 0.000 4 0 16 4 0.000 0.000 4 0 15 4 0.000 0.000 safeguard 0 30 3 0.000 0.000 safeguard 0 41 4 0.000 0.000 Kinetics 1 1 8 4 0.125 0.031 Kinetics 1 0 6 4 0.000 0.000 2 0 16 4 0.000 0.000 2 0 8 4 0.000 0.000 3 0 12 4 0.000 0.000 3 0 11 4 0.000 0.000 4 0 4 4 0.000 0.000 4 0 12 4 0.000 0.000 5 1 11 4 0.091 0.023 5 0 20 4 0.000 0.000 Traps 1 0 14 4 0.000 0.000 Traps 1 0 6 4 0.000 0.000 2 0 15 4 0.000 0.000 2 0 11 4 0.000 0.000 3 0 7 4 0.000 0.000 3 0 6 4 0.000 0.000 4 0 7 4 0.000 0.000 4 1 10 4 0.100 0.025 mayhem 0 33 4 0.000 0.000 Safeguard 0 27 4 0.000 0.000 TOTAL 7 337 4.04 0.020 0.005 AVG TOTAL 4 413 3.77 0.009 0.002 0.038 0.009 STD 0.023 0.006 0.008 0.002 SE 0.005 0.001 Interpretation: Survivability – Personal Defeats Defenders: Took more defeats on average, but the difference wasn’t statistically meaningful. Slightly more volatile survivability. Controllers: Fewer defeats overall with tighter clustering, but isolated spikes skewed a few results. Distribution Insight: Defenders had more outliers (4 vs. 3), suggesting greater variance, but most data still clustered tightly around the mean. No correlation found between defeat rate and time for either archetype. Verdict: Neither side showed a consistent edge. Performance > archetype.

FINAL VERDICT: Controllers ARE the Superior Support Archetype vs. Defenders Recap of all DEFCON Matchups: Deep-dive Statistical Analysis of Aggregate Defenders vs Controllers:

I had this done a week ago, but I'm just now getting around to releasing my DEFCON 1 Verdict: Traps goes to the DEFENDER!!! My detailed reasons are in my YT video linked below, but the short version is that while the statistics suggest a tie, the Controller had what I would call (in hindsight) a disqualifying team and therefore his stats are suspect, if not misleading. Overall, the defender provided better defenses while the controller provided superior offense. Now that all 5 levels of DEFCON are complete, all the stats will be combined and analyzed in totem and patterns looked for to answer the big question: who is the superior support archetyped? Is a defender with the better buff / debuff numbers and their arsenal of blasts, better? Or is the controller with their synergy between controls and support? Or are they statistically indistinguishable? Or is 'better' a situational product? Find out in the next video: DEFCON 5 FINAL JUDGEMENT... coming Soon

Thanks, Saw! I agree about character concepts being the foundation for fun. If I can't get into a character, I find it's generally the concept and costume just haven't gelled yet. I wish we had customizable objects beyond weaponry. Or powers you could replace with objects. I'd love the Blackwand to shoot dark blast powers from!

My Reaction and Analysis video of the Vexaris team trials is up!

I sense zero bias in this statement.

Vexaris's stats are almost ready for reveal! In the meantime, here's his Team Trials video: Mission Retrospective Mission 1 (CoT tip, Polar Shift) = 6 minutes with 4 teammates Mission 2 (Malta tip, rescue) = 11 minutes with 4 teammates Mission 3 (Arachnos radio, boss) = 6 minutes with 4 teammates Mission 4 (Nemesis tip, destroy, doppelganger) = 10 minutes with 4 teammates Safeguard (Malta, Carnies, Arachnos with Fall from Grace) = 27 minutes with 4 teammates Total Time = 60 minutes DEFCON 1 Stats Rate = Stat / Minute standardizes for time spent on mission Correlation = reliability of relationship between X and Y of Rate graph Standard Error – primary set comparison using error bar overlap between graphs of the mean rates Composite = Rate / Teammate standardizes for number of teammates Distribution = Box and Whisker plot compares IQR shape and outliers 1. Survivability = Personal Defeats Mission P Defeats Time Teammate Rate Composite 1 0 6 4 0.00 0.00 2 0 11 4 0.00 0.00 3 0 6 4 0.00 0.00 4 1 10 4 0.10 0.03 safeguard 0 27 4 0.00 0.00 total 1 60 0.02 0.01 ß AVG 2. Risk = Ally Defeats Mission A Defeats Time Teammate Rate Composite 1 0 6 4 0.00 0.00 2 1 11 4 0.09 0.02 3 1 6 4 0.17 0.04 4 0 10 4 0.00 0.00 safeguard 3 27 4 0.11 0.03 total 5 60 0.07 0.02 ß AVG 3. Lethality = Foe Defeats Mission F Defeats Time Teammate Rate Composite 1 24 6 4 4.00 1.00 2 41 11 4 3.73 0.93 3 33 6 4 5.50 1.38 4 17 10 4 1.70 0.43 safeguard 85 27 4 3.15 0.79 total 200 60 3.62 0.90 ß AVG 4. Threat = Damage Output Mission DMG out Time Teammate Rate Composite 1 36405 6 4 6067 1517 2 41197 11 4 3745 936 3 31473 6 4 5246 1311 4 29218 10 4 2922 730 safeguard 97492 27 4 3611 903 total 235785 60 4318 1080 ß AVG Personal Damage Output Attack: 1 2 3 4 Safeguard Attack total: Acid Mortar 91 270 164 117 569 1211 Touch of Lady Grey 220 701 210 236 1810 3178 Shield Breaker 51 382 264 414 1175 2286 Caltrops 9 469 379 726 2125 3707 Positron's Blast 33 521 139 779 690 2162 Bombardment 0 470 134 406 415 1424 Impeded Swiftness 0 263 60 337 593 1254 Poison Gas (Gladiator's Net) 468 595 278 440 1322 3103 Poison Gas (Unbreakable Constraint) 968 552 40 339 684 2583 Poison Gas (Ghost Widow's Embrace) 462 777 416 883 1590 4128 Seeker Drones 180 351 534 549 1138 2750 Time Bomb 381 496 76 180 1130 2262 Arcane Bolt 744 1063 731 529 1784 4851 Blind 1346 1425 614 683 1602 5671 Mental Blast 452 985 665 182 1891 4175 Psionic Tornado 984 1853 1487 947 1921 7192 Spectral Wounds 1227 2685 1304 1002 3143 9360 Web Grenade (Trap of the Hunter) 0 0 0 66 63 129 World of Confusion 271 406 113 339 605 1734 Malaise's Illusions 543 618 167 323 1092 2743 Scirocco's Dervish 561 864 261 493 1241 3421 Cognitive Interface 311 336 339 297 860 2142 Mighty Partial Radial Judgement 3946 8489 8286 7832 18139 46692 TOTAL 13245 24571 16661 18100 45581 118158 Pet Damage Output Pet 1 2 3 4 Safeguard Pet Total: Phantasm 4267 3866 4199 3149 11867 27348 Decoy Phantasm 951 1022 273 581 2962 5789 Phantom Army 11909 10314 7687 4832 22175 56918 Spectre Essence 5664 903 2317 2337 13759 24979 Cognitive Interface (Pet) 368 522 336 219 1148 2593 TOTAL 23160 16626 14812 11118 51911 117627 5. Resilience = Damage Taken Mission DMG in Time Teammate Rate Index 1 3117 6 4 520 130 2 1800 11 4 164 41 3 3359 6 4 560 140 4 9696 10 4 970 242 safeguard 8517 27 4 315 79 total 26490 60 506 126 ß AVG Type of Damage Taken Mission: 1 2 3 4 Safeguard Type Total Cold 527 0 0 0 0 527 Energy 0 45 1449 0 472 1966 Fire 283 902 277 6108 252 7822 Lethal 196 852 143 2228 1958 5376 Negative Energy 1122 0 0 0 11 1133 Psionic 226 0 1108 0 5604 6938 Smashing 662 0 46 142 222 1072 Toxic 101 0 337 1219 0 1657 Mission Total: 3117 1800 3359 9696 8517 26490

That was Madness! Reaction Video: