Dark Current

Frisson Sensate, Empathy Controller analysis: Mission Overview Mission 1: 801.0 IC 6034 = 16 minutes Mission 2: 801.5 C IC 6035 = 36 minutes Mission 3: 801.6 Static IC 6041 = 30 minutes Mission 4: 801.7 Tech R IC 6089 = 18 minutes 4 Teammates: Arcfusion (Tanker), Shocksplice (Tanker), Nate Shocks (Sentinel), gyyv (Peacebringer) Total Time = 100 minutes 1. Survivability – Personal Defeats Mission P Defeats Time Teammate RATE Composite 1 0 16 4 0.000 0.000 2 7 36 4 0.194 0.049 3 7 30 4 0.233 0.058 4 3 18 4 0.167 0.042 Total 17 100 0.149 0.037 AVG 0.103 0.026 STD 0.051 0.013 SE 2. Risk – Ally Defeats Mission A Defeats Time Teammate RATE Composite 1 0 16 4 0.00 0.00 2 8 36 4 0.22 0.06 3 17 30 4 0.57 0.14 4 10 18 4 0.56 0.14 Total 35 100 0.34 0.08 AVG 0.28 0.07 STD 0.14 0.03 SE 3. Resilience – Damage Taken Mission DMG In Time Teammate RATE Composite 1 1454 16 4 91 23 2 20112 36 4 559 140 3 23342 30 4 778 195 4 11814 18 4 656 164 Total 56722 100 521 130 AVG 300 75 STD 150 38 SE 3a. Punishment – Damage taken vs Personal defeats 3b. Overwatch – Damage taken vs Ally defeats 3c. Pet Loyalty – Pet Damage Taken Mission Char DMG In Pet DMG In Total PP CP 1 1454 2441 3896 62.7% 37.3% 2 20112 6931 27043 25.6% 74.4% 3 23342 20656 43997 46.9% 53.1% 4 11814 3684 15498 23.8% 76.2% Total 56722 33712 90434 39.8% 60.2% 3d. Pet Sacrifice – Pet Damage Taken vs Team Defeats 4. Disruption – Controls Delivered Mission Controls Time Teammate RATE COMPOSITE 1 406 16 4 25.4 6.3 2 1013 36 4 28.1 7.0 3 1497 30 4 49.9 12.5 4 1235 18 4 68.6 17.2 SubTotal 4151 100 43.0 10.8 AVG 20.3 5.1 STD 10.1 2.5 SE 4a. Blunting – Controls vs Damage Taken 4b. Prevention – Controls vs Team Defeats 5. Avoidance – Hits Taken Mission Hits Time Teammate RATE COMPOSITE 1 88 16 4 5.5 1.4 2 252 36 4 7.0 1.8 3 234 30 4 7.8 2.0 4 74 18 4 4.1 1.0 Total 648 100 6.1 1.5 AVG 1.6 0.4 STD 0.8 0.2 SE 5a. Targeting – Hits vs DMG taken 5b. Deflection – Controls vs Hits 6. Provision – Buffs Provided 6a. Warding – Buffs vs Ally Defeats 6b. Shielding – Buffs vs Pet Damage Taken 7. Lethality – Foe Defeats Mission F Defeats Time Teammate RATE Composite 1 26 16 4 1.6 0.4 2 82 36 4 2.3 0.6 3 44 30 4 1.5 0.4 4 10 18 4 0.6 0.1 Total 162 100 1.5 0.4 AVG 0.7 0.2 STD 0.4 0.1 SE 7a. Kill Share – Proportion of Team Kills 7b. Amplification – Provision vs Foes Defeated by Allies 8. Threat – Combined Damage Output Mission DMG Out Time Teammate RATE Composite 1 31029 16 4 1939 485 2 110368 36 4 3066 766 3 142988 30 4 4766 1192 4 99522 18 4 5529 1382 Total 383908 100 3825 956 AVG 1625 406 STD 812 203 SE 8a. Potency – Damage Dealt vs Foe Defeats 8b. Engagement – Hits vs Damage Dealt 9. Efficiency – Character vs Pet DMG Out Mission Character Pets Total PP CP 1 27758 3272 31029 10.5% 89.5% 2 91710 18658 110368 16.9% 83.1% 3 121571 21416 142988 15.0% 85.0% 4 82761 16761 99522 16.8% 83.2% Total 323801 60107 383908 14.8% 85.2% AVG 9a. Character Ratio – Out:In Mission DMG Out DMG In Ratio 1 27758 1454 19.1 2 91710 20112 4.6 3 121571 23342 5.2 4 82761 11814 7.0 Total 323801 56722 9.0 AVG 6.8 STD Ratio of the Sums 5.7 3.4 SE 9b. Pet Ratio – Out:In Mission DMG Out DMG In Ratio 1 3272 2441 1.3 2 18658 6931 2.7 3 21416 20656 1.0 4 16761 3684 4.5 Total 60107 33712 2.4 AVG 1.6 STD Ratio of Sums 1.8 0.8 SE 9c. Pet Aggression = Pet DMG : Character DMG Output Ratio 9d. Pet Savagery – Pet Damage vs Foe Defeats 10. Debilitation – Controls vs Damage Dealt 10a. Devastation – Controls vs Lethality

Thanks for putting these together @Linea They're a fun challenge for testing my DECONs. If each tier is 2x as hard as the one before, how would the 801.0 compare to a standard +4 radio or paper mission?

Frisson's 801 Trials "The Slaughterhouse doesn’t let you save the team. It lets you trade it—one soul at a time." Chatty Cathy The Challenge: AE 801 Trials A brutal custom mission arc designed by @Linea to push support builds to their limits Includes elite bosses, ambush chains, and heavy debuffs Played at +4/x8 difficulty with incarnate-level enemies 5-man teams, level 50 minimum Increasing mission difficulty from Tier 1 - Tier 5, randomly selected from mission list by die roll Trial ends when either Defeat Condition is met: 4 out of 5 defeated teammates at the same time; time-limited missions (30, 30, 45, 45, 60) or Success Condition is met: complete all 5 tiers of missions before the time limit expires. No extraneous help, no 'cheese' temp powers like AV summons or super-inspirations, no email access, no exiting the map, no hospital visits... just what your character has on them and would 'normally' do within the purview of their build

Ankh MIDS Build: Ankh - Defender (Empathy)2.mbd Frisson Sensate MIDS Build: Frisson Sensate - Controller (Symphony Control - Empathy).mbd

Round 2: Empathy "Your powers give you the ability to heal and aid allies as well as yourself. Empathy has no offensive powers, but its heals and buffs are unmatched." The Challengers... Ankh Empathy / Water / Soul DEFENDER Concept: Lord of the Wrapped. Empowered by Ra, the sun god to reclaim incarnate power stolen by the insolent Greek deities. Blasts of punishing sand and bursts of radiant vitality. Hunting down Mu mystics in service to Scirocco who have plundered the tombs of the ancients and stolen relics. Playstyle: Light switch. Buff first. Then Blast away. Support on the fly. VS Frisson Sensate Symphony / Empathy / Ice CONTROLLER Concept: Famous soft rock superstar who gained power through abuse of designer neuro-pharmaceuticals synthesize using CSF from Praetorian Seer Network. His vocal talent has been enhanced to where his songs amplify the emotions of his listeners bringing them euphoria and elevating them to heights of passion. Playstyle: Blanket enemies with 7 swaths of far-reaching cone attacks, layering multiple CCs and debuffs. Support as needed. Matchup Video Both are designed to bring the pain as much as ease the pain. Of special note, Frisson was designed by Cathy (Chat GPT) and I can't wait to show you what she came up with.

DEFCON II: Aftermath – Cold Domination. So, Who Wins This Matchup between Shimr and Gyr ??? 🏆 Winner: 🛡️ Shimr: The Glacial Fortress Why Shimr edges out Gyr Falcon in Incarnate-Tier Support Control-Driven Battlefield Sovereignty Shimr’s Debilitation → Damage correlation is R² = 0.99 vs. Gyr’s 0.99—but she casts 2.8× more controls per minute (Avg 84.9 CPM vs. 25.8 CPM), layering slows, freezes and DoTs that systematically collapse swarms. Her Devastation (Controls → Kills) slope is 12.5 kills per 1,000 CCs vs. Gyr’s 5.0—meaning her CC is itself a kill tool, not just an opener. Superior Survivability & Efficiency Despite wading into the thickest fights, Shimr sustains 320 DPM in vs. Gyr’s 535 DPM in—and still converts each DPM in into 11.4 DPM out vs. his 6.1 (Efficiency R² = 0.88 vs. 0.77). Her Resilience R² = 0.73 is lower than Gyr’s 0.91—but her actual damage-per-minute is steadier (fewer spikes), letting her maintain uptime without sudden wipes. True Force-Multiplier Pets Shimr’s Pet Aggression system contributes 30% of her total damage (steady 21–37% per mission) with near-perfect scaling (R² = 0.95). Her three pets fight as an autonomous vanguard, pressuring foes even when she’s off-cooldown. Gyr’s two pets average only 24% of his damage with much wider variance (8–40%, R² = 0.69), acting more as situational beef-buffers than core damage engines. Tactical Edge in Prolonged Engagements In Incarnate-level trials—long, punishing, multi-front—Shimr’s layered CC, DoTs, and pet zoning shifts the fight’s tempo. Gyr shines on coordinated, burst-clean teams where surgical buffs and procs are maximized—but falters when team composition or pace slips (his one high-pressure outlier saw a complete wipe in 8 min). Team-Context Nuance Shimr ran with a static roster (2 tanks + pets), absorbing shared aggro and keeping lanes locked. Her one bad run (M4) still showed 33% kill share and zero roster churn. Gyr faced two roster changes and only one tank—his buff volume kept allies alive longer overall, but didn’t prevent the final collapse. DEFENSIVE STATS 1. Survivability – Personal Defeats (S) Interpretation Higher Average Risk: Gyr’s average personal defeat rate (0.162 defeats/min) is over double Shimr’s (0.071), reflecting a more volatile survivability profile under pressure. High Variability: Gyr shows much greater standard deviation (0.228) and standard error (0.114), signaling inconsistency in durability. His survivability fluctuates significantly by scenario. Outlier Fragility: One extreme outlier (0.5 defeats/min) skews Gyr’s trend line upward. While he sometimes tanks damage impressively, he also experiences sharp collapses under fast or unexpected burst pressure. Comparison with Shimr Shimr’s Durability is More Stable: With a lower average defeat rate (0.071) and much tighter standard deviation (0.079), Shimr offers predictable survivability. Her SE of 0.040 vs. Gyr’s 0.114 reinforces this stability. Both characters fall below R² = 0.60 (Shimr: 0.48, Gyr: 0.54), suggesting time isn’t a strong predictor of survivability — outcomes vary due to factors beyond duration such as team composition. While Gyr may absorb initial punishment or carry early aggression, Shimr tends to remain standing longer and more consistently in extended encounters. Her rate never exceeds 0.18 defeats/min, even in her worst case. 2. Risk – Ally Defeats (G) Interpretation Lower Ally Casualty Rate: Gyr averages 0.30 ally defeats per minute compared to Shimr’s 0.48. Even under stress, his teams tend to hold the line better across most runs. More Predictable Exposure: Gyr’s R² = 0.60 suggests that ally defeats rise somewhat proportionally with mission length. His outcomes track more consistently with time compared to Shimr. Narrower Error Band: Gyr's standard deviation (0.38) and SE (0.19) are notably smaller than Shimr’s, reinforcing more stable teamwide performance under his support. Comparison with Shimr Shimr’s Team Performance Is More Volatile: Her average ally defeat rate (0.48) is significantly higher, and her standard deviation is more than double Gyr’s (0.84 vs 0.38), indicating serious swings in outcome. Single Mission Outlier Skews Shimr's Trend: One mission with 19 ally defeats (1.73/min) creates a huge spike, distorting the linear relationship (R² = 0.12). The rest of her results are relatively controlled. Unlike Gyr, Shimr’s ally defeat rate doesn’t rise meaningfully with longer mission duration, which might suggest either tighter crisis recovery or that risk is triggered situationally, not cumulatively. 3. Resilience – Damage Taken (S) Interpretation Takes More Heat: Gyr averages 535 incoming damage per minute vs Shimr’s 320, marking him as the more exposed frontliner across missions. Highly Predictable Scaling: His damage intake scales linearly with mission length (R² = 0.91), suggesting a consistent level of threat absorption rather than spiky volatility. Wide Variance with Outlier Impact: His standard deviation (380) is nearly double Shimr’s, largely driven by a single burst-heavy encounter (1,100+ DPM over 8 minutes). Comparison with Shimr Shimr Absorbs Less Damage Overall: With a lower average and tighter distribution, Shimr’s defenses prevent heavy stacking, possibly due to better engagement pacing or control uptime. Gyr Is a More Durable Sponge: Despite taking significantly more punishment, Gyr maintains team stability in most runs, implying successful tank-mitigation or toughness via healing, mitigation, or movement. Both Show Linear Durability Trends: Although Gyr’s intake is steeper, both characters show upward resilience scaling over time, reinforcing their consistency under pressure—albeit through different thresholds. 3a. Punishment – Damage taken vs Personal defeats (D) Interpretation High Average Pressure, Moderate Correlation: Gyr endures a much higher average Resilience rate (535 DPM) than Shimr (320 DPM), and his defeat count tracks with that under moderate correlation (R² = 0.85). Slope Indicates Slightly Lower Pressure Tolerance: Gyr’s slope of 215.23 means it takes slightly less DPM for each defeat than Shimr (235.70), suggesting a marginally lower threshold before he buckles under pressure. Volatility Still Evident: The range in his outcomes—especially the extreme mission with both high damage and high deaths—adds noise to his performance reliability. Comparison with Shimr Shimr Handles Slightly More Pressure per Defeat: Her higher slope means that it takes slightly more DPM on average to force a personal defeat—she bends more before she breaks. Minimal Practical Difference: While the slope difference (235.7 vs 215.2) favors Shimr, it's numerically narrow, and well within margin-of-error range, especially considering mission variability. Higher Predictability for Shimr: Her near-perfect correlation (R² = 0.96) shows that her defeats occur at fairly consistent damage thresholds—there’s less surprise or outlier variance compared to Gyr. 3b. Overwatch – Damage taken vs Ally defeats (G) Interpretation High Pressure, Strong Correlation: Gyr shows a tight correlation (R² = 0.89) between how much incoming damage he sustains and how many allies fall—suggesting his performance has a direct and measurable impact on team outcomes. Steep Slope (124.27): This means that for every ally defeat, Gyr tends to be absorbing much more damage. He’s either being leaned on more heavily or slow to offload pressure via mitigation / aggro transfer. Tradeoff Indicator: The steep slope hints at a tradeoff — Gyr often holds the line longer, but when cracks form, allies fall. This may reflect less teamwide damage blunting, despite high personal resilience. Comparison with Shimr Shimr Takes Less Pressure Before Ally Deaths Rise: Her slope (28.31) implies that team defeats begin accumulating at much lower damage thresholds. She may not be able to absorb as much threat herself before others suffer. Weaker Correlation (R² = 0.58): Her curve is less predictive, indicating that incoming damage alone doesn’t strongly explain her team’s defeats. Other factors—like her control-based threat mitigation—may obscure the raw DPM–defeat linkage. Net Takeaway: Shimr’s lower slope and weaker R² imply more distributed team protection (2 tanks)—she may suppress damage before it reaches the party (controls). Gyr, by contrast, appears to soak more of it directly, but at greater risk to his team if overwhelmed. 3c. Pet Loyalty – Pet Damage Taken (S) Pet Contribution Mission DMG In Time Rate SHIMR 1 10290 30 343 2 9057 31 292 3 14118 28 504 4 8123 11 738 SubTotal 41587 100 469 201 100 GYR FALCON 1 874 17 51 2 8644 30 288 3 7928 37 214 4 5645 8 706 SubTotal 23091 92 315 279 139 Interpretation High slope means Gyr is taking 55% more damage per minute than his pets. For every 1 unit of pet resilience, he takes 1.55 units himself. Either his pets are comparatively well-shielded or lower priority targets, influenced by limited uptime (33%) and tight burst windows. The strong correlation (R² = 0.96) implies when Gyr is under pressure, his pets are too—but less so, reinforcing that they play a more secondary or reactive role. Compared to Shimr Her lower slope shows that her pets are absorbing more damage relative to her own intake—a sign of them sharing frontline exposure. This can be interpreted two ways: Her pets function as soft tanks, intentionally absorbing threat while she controls the field. Her build’s structure: 3 pets to Gyr’s 2, with Jack Frost always active, creating more pet damage. Her consistently higher pet resilience supports this: each of her pets averages ~14K DPM, compared to ~11.5K for Gyr’s. 3d. Pet Sacrifice – Pet Damage Taken vs Team Defeats (D) Interpretation Gyr’s pets are only present 33% of the time and he has fewer of them (2 vs. 3), so one would expect a shallower slope due to lower cumulative exposure. Instead, the steeper slope (50.70, R² = 0.91) suggests that when the team is failing, his pets are disproportionately absorbing damage — possibly due to: Poorer mitigation in collapse, Being exposed without strong controls, Or simply being used aggressively as frontline damage sponges. The high R² confirms that this pattern is consistent across missions. Compared to Shimr Shimr’s pets are always active (Jack Frost) and often joined by two more, meaning they’re absorbing damage steadily across all mission states, not just during team collapse. Her slope (39.75, R² = 0.76) is lower than Gyr’s despite greater pet presence and uptime, which is unexpected. This likely reflects an outlier — one low-resilience, high-defeat mission. Most of her data points are consistent with a steeper slope. This ‘true’ slope is likely closer to or even above Gyr’s, which would align better with the logic that more pets taking damage across more time = more total pet resilience per team defeat. 4. Disruption – Controls Delivered (S) Interpretation Gyr delivers control effects at a consistent pace across missions, with a perfect correlation to time (R² = 1.00). This implies reliable deployment of his control tools, even if limited in volume. His average control rate is 25.8 controls per minute, with relatively low variation (STD = 5.0). This places him in a secondary suppression role, relying more on soft crowd control from his Archery, Sleet, and pets. About 6% of Gyr’s controls come from pets. This slightly boosts his total output, and supports the interpretation that his control role is more distributed and less burst-focused. Comparison to Shimr Shimr averages 84.9 controls per minute—over 3× Gyr’s rate—making her a dedicated controller. Her suppression is central to her team role, and tactically dominant. Shimr’s Disruption R² is 0.95, showing strong alignment between mission length and control use. Her control usage appears slightly more responsive or variable by scenario. Shimr’s controls are 98% from herself, underscoring that her pet presence plays a minimal role in disruption output. Her kit enables direct, intentional suppression, whereas Gyr’s is more diffuse and opportunistic. 4a. Blunting – Controls vs Damage Taken (S) Interpretation Gyr's 3 non-outlier missions cluster tightly, showing he maintains steady suppression under normal conditions, with Disruption around ~27 CPM and Resilience ~350–380 DPM. That steadiness across teams suggests control reliability. Mission 4’s early collapse (high DPM, low CPM due to time cutoff) distorts both R² and slope, exaggerating the apparent inefficiency. It should be flagged as an anomalous mission rather than defining the overall trend. Gyr isn’t modulating his incoming damage through volume of controls. He’s holding a fixed control baseline, which keeps him afloat, but he’s not able to “scale up” suppression the way a control-primary like Shimr can. Comparison to Shimr Strong Positive Correlation (R² = 0.93): As Shimr’s control output increases, so does her incoming damage rate — suggesting higher control activity is a response to more intense combat, not a method of suppression. Moderate Slope (3.97): For every point of increased controls-per-minute, her damage-per-minute rises by ~4, showing proportional escalation between threat level and her disruptive response. Active Combat Role: Shimr’s controls scale with pressure — she fights more, not less, when under fire, reinforcing her identity as a frontline controller who steps up output during demanding missions. 4b. Prevention – Controls vs Team Defeats (S) Interpretation Weak Positive Correlation (R² = 0.66): As team defeats rise, his control rate doesn’t escalate proportionally—his output remains low and flat (~26–30 CPM range), regardless of threat level. Shallow Slope (2.85): Indicates minimal change in control volume even as situations worsen. Suggests either a fixed rotation or an inability to scale disruption in response to mounting team pressure. Stable but Passive: His consistency is notable, but also reflects a limited ceiling—he may not have tools to intensify suppression when allies are at risk. Comparison to Shimr Higher Disruption with Defeats (Slope = 6.41): Unlike Gyr, Shimr is clearly escalating control efforts as the team faces more defeats—her kit lets her spike suppression aggressively. Moderate Fit (R² = 0.64): The relationship is present but noisy—her control increase isn’t always enough to fully prevent team losses, but it reflects intentional effort. Responsive Mitigator: Shimr behaves like a battlefield triage specialist—her control output is adaptive, likely driven by both control uptime and awareness of ally state. 5. Avoidance – Hits Taken (G) Interpretation Slightly Lower Hit Rate (5.7/min vs. Shimr's 8.8): Despite having 1 fewer pet and less tank support, Gyr is taking fewer hits over time on average. This suggests effective positioning, defensive boosts, or more burst-based aggro management. Steady Trend (R² = 0.80): Gyr’s hits correlate strongly with time, showing consistency in his exposure patterns. His combat rhythm seems less spiky—likely helped by fallback tools or phase rotation. Controlled Exposure, Possibly Self-Reliant: His lower hit volume, despite weaker pet and tank infrastructure, implies Gyr uses timing or spacing to avoid enemy aggro spikes—likely not through Disruption. Comparison to Shimr Higher Hit Rate (8.8/min): Shimr is absorbing more incoming strikes, which may reflect her frontline presence, clustering near her pets, or actively controlling groups up close. Slightly More Volatile Curve (R² = 0.77): Shimr’s hit count scales somewhat with time, but with more scatter. Notably, her spike in mission 3 (471 hits) suggests a breakdown in control coverage or tanking posture. She may be acting as a semi-soak between her teammates and foes—taking hits to land buffs or controls. Her proximity to pets and tanks may put her in the same aggro radius, resulting in residual hits. 5a. Targeting – Hits vs DMG taken (S) Interpretation Higher Slope (57.74): Gyr is taking heavier hits on average—each successful strike inflicts more damage. His slope is double Shimr’s. Moderate Correlation (R² = 0.68): Suggests his damage per hit fluctuates a bit more—possibly due to erratic encounter pacing or higher spike damage from elites during low-control phases. Implication: Gyr isn’t just getting hit—he’s getting slammed. Even with fewer total hits than Shimr, the damage adds up fast. This supports the idea that he’s absorbing boss-level or high-threat focus fire, not minion chip. Comparison to Shimr Lower Slope (28.46): Her hits tend to be less severe, about half the damage per strike compared to Gyr. High Correlation (R² = 0.93): A consistent pattern—when she takes more hits, her damage in scales smoothly. That regularity may reflect minion pressure, not spikes. Implication: Shimr appears to be taking more frequent, lighter hits, suggesting she's nearer to the action but buffered—by tanks, Jack Frost, controls, or mitigators. 5b. Deflection – Controls vs Hits (D) Interpretation Moderate Correlation (R² = 0.77): Shows a linear relationship between controls and hits—when Gyr fights more, he gets hit more, but his total output remains modest. Higher Slope (0.17): Each control action corresponds to more hits taken than Shimr, suggesting less mitigation per control or higher exposure during suppression. Volume-Limited Suppression: Despite steady ratios, his lower total controls (avg ~634 per mission; Sleet accounting for 80%) limit how much pressure he can offset; control quality or timing may not compensate for quantity. Comparison to Shimr Strong Correlation (R² = 0.88): As her controls increase, hits taken rise predictably—suggesting a clear combat scaling model: more action equals more suppression and exposure. Lower Slope (0.13): Fewer hits per control, indicating better deflection efficiency—her suppression seems to proactively reduce incoming attacks. Effective Combat Scaling: Her high-volume control kit (primary and secondary) allows her to trade hits for disruption dominance—absorbing pressure while suppressing enemy threat more thoroughly than Gyr. 6. Provision – Buffs Provided (G) Interpretation Exceptional Correlation (R² = 0.99): Buff output scales almost perfectly with mission duration, reflecting reliable and sustained team support across conditions. Higher Output (446 total buffs): Gyr averages ~4.4 buffs per minute—about 19% higher than Shimr—consistent with his Defender-based kit. Steeper Slope, Stronger Support: Gyr’s steeper trendline shows more support actions per minute, suggesting his build is tuned for continuous provision regardless of pressure. Comparison to Shimr Very Strong Correlation (R² = 0.98): Like Gyr, her buffs scale predictably with time, but less steeply—suggesting less emphasis on frequent support output. Lower Buff Rate (355 total): Averages ~3.7 buffs per minute, reflecting a Controller’s lighter provision focus, likely used situationally or reactively. Support as a Secondary Role: Her flatter slope and lower volume reinforce that her contribution leans more on control than numerical buffs. 6a. Warding – Buffs vs Ally Defeats (G) Interpretation Stronger Scaling (0.76 slope, R² = 0.65): His buffing rate rises more sharply with increasing ally pressure, indicating more synchronized or reactive support under fire. Higher Provision Rate Overall (Avg 4.4 buffs/min): Gyr consistently outbuffed Shimr, despite having fewer controls and team consistency issues—suggesting a defender-style emphasis on shielding. Fewer Total Ally Defeats (17 vs. 24): Despite being on less stable teams with only 1 tank and lower pet uptime, his stronger buffing pattern may have blunted worse outcomes. Compared to Shimr Flatter Scaling (0.28 slope, R² = 0.51): Shimr’s buffing didn’t increase proportionally with rising team casualties—especially during Mission 4, where 19 defeats occurred despite moderate buff output. Lower Average Buff Rate (3.7 buffs/min): Reflects her controller role and toolkit; less output, though possibly bolstered by other defensive tools (e.g. control, pet zoning). Outlier Drag Effect: Mission 4 undermines her slope and correlation; removing it reveals a tighter pattern and implies that significantly higher buff output may have helped prevent the breakdown. 6b. Shielding – Buffs vs Pet Damage Taken (D) Interpretation Weaker correlation (R² = 0.43) is skewed by one major outlier where resilience spikes unexpectedly despite low buffing. Without Outlier Gyr’s Slope would drop and R² would rise, indicating a cleaner inverse relationship — more buffs, less pet damage per minute. Buffing as Prevention: With only two pets and higher per-minute buffs, Gyr’s pattern implies preemptive shielding behavior that helps dampen incoming damage when active. Comparison to Shimr Strong Positive Correlation (R² = 0.95): Her data is consistent — more buffs coincide with more pet damage per minute, suggesting she buffs reactively during higher combat intensity. Steep Slope (129.67): Her 3-pet setup absorbs significantly more damage as buffing increases, but this reflects exposure/load more than mitigation. Buffing as Response, Not Shield: The relationship suggests she's trying to contain heavy combat pressure, not prevent it — likely driven by her larger pet footprint and the nature of encounters. OFFENSIVE STATS 7. Lethality – Foe Defeats (D) Interpretation Clockwork Killing: With R² = 0.95 Gyr racks up defeats almost perfectly linearly with time, meaning his damage throughput translates directly into kills. Burst–Fade Profile: He goes from a slow start in Mission 1 to strong pacing in Missions 2–3, then virtually zero in Mission 4’s wipe—highlighting vulnerability to sudden team breakdowns. Despite roster churn, his overall average kill rate (~4.6 kills/min) stays very close to his peers, proving his build reliably converts damage into kills. Comparison to Shimr Both Gyr and Shimr maintain nearly perfect R², so mission length is the dominant driver of kills, not playstyle spikes. Gyr’s slightly steeper line (≈ 5.00 defeats/min) versus Shimr’s (≈ 4.98 defeats/min) hints he edges out in raw burst when fights are rolling, but the difference is negligible. Resilience to Collapse – Shimr sustains her kill pace better in shorter missions (her low in M4 is 18 kills vs Gyr’s 2), suggesting she handles sudden wipe scenarios more gracefully. 7a. Kill Share – Proportion of Team Kills (D) Interpretation Consistent Carry: Gyr accounts for roughly one-third of his team’s kills in Missions 1–3 (33%, 32%, 35%), slipping only when his weakest roster change in Mission 4 collapses (14%). Secondary MVP: He trails just one super-charged blaster (Ally 1) on his team, outperforming the other three teammates by a wide margin (Ally 2–4 average ~12%). Roster Sensitivity: When his support allies underperform or swap out (Mission 4), his share plunges, highlighting both his carry potential and the fragility of relying on unstable team comps. Comparison to Shimr Matched Shares: Both land right around 30 – 33% of total kills in stable missions, showing equal personal throughput despite wildly different roles (control + pets vs. direct blasts). Team Context: Shimr hits her ~30% share while backed by two tanks and a permanent pet—meaning she thrives in a sturdy, coordinated team. Gyr hits the same mark with fewer buffers and shifting allies, underscoring his raw DPS focus. Dependency Contrast: Shimr’s share holds even when her DPS-heavy teammates shift relatively little, whereas Gyr’s share collapses with a single weak link, illustrating that Shimr’s toolkit is more forgiving of team variance. 7b. Amplification – Provision vs Foes Defeated by Allies (G) Interpretation Consistent Support–Kill Link: With R² = 0.90, Gyr’s buff rate tracks closely with ally kills, showing that when he pours out protections, teammates reliably convert that into defeated foes. High Responsiveness: A slope of ≈60 kills per buff-per-minute means each extra buff/minute nets roughly 60 additional ally defeats over the span—strong, quantifiable leverage. Robust Under Roster Flux: Despite two teammate swaps and a last-mission wipe, his buff-to-kill relationship holds, underscoring his build’s ability to shore up varied group dynamics. Shimr’s Ally Amplification Weaker, Noisy Correlation: R² of 0.66 indicates her buff rate doesn’t predict ally kills as Gyr’s. Similar Per-Buff Yield: Her slope of ≈73 kills per buff-per-minute edges Gyr’s, but variability and that outlier mission (nearly zero ally kills on ~4.5 buffs/minute) undermine reliability. Dependence on Context: Her buff impact seems tightly tied to perfect synergy with her control and pet uptime—less forgiving when team composition shifts or fights spike unexpectedly. 8. Threat – Combined Damage Output (D) Interpretation Near-Perfect Time → Damage Scaling (R² = 0.99): His total damage output tracks almost exactly with mission length, showing rock-solid, predictable pressure. High, Stable DPS Rate (~4,332 damage/min average): Even across wildly different team compositions and fight tempos, he sustains top-tier output. Immediate Ramp in Short Engagements: His peak rate (≈4,712 dpm in the brief, wipe-heavy Mission 4) underscores a capacity to hit hard from the outset. Comparison to Shimr Very Strong Time → Damage Correlation (R² = 0.98): Similarly linear growth in damage over time, with no major drop-offs or spikes beyond expected DoT layering. Matching DPS Efficiency (~4,354 damage/min average): Despite a control-focused toolkit, she keeps pace with Gyr’s raw output, blending DoTs, pets, and freezes into steady pressure. Layered Momentum: Her slow-tick damage and pet bursts compound over long missions, ensuring her threat curve never plateaus prematurely. 8a. Potency – Damage Dealt vs Foe Defeats (D) Interpretation Slightly Higher Damage-per-Kill Efficiency (slope = 757.9): On average he deals ~758 damage for each foe he defeats—about 5% more than Shimr’s ~719 damage/kill. Very Strong Consistency (R² = 0.92): His damage-to-kill relationship is marginally more predictable, indicating each kill reliably follows a similar volume of output. Burst-Lean Build: His kit (Archery + Energy Mastery) converts controls and basic attacks into concentrated damage spikes that shave off enemy health efficiently before the final blow lands. Comparison to Shimr Robust Kill Scaling (slope = 718.6): She averages ~719 damage per kill—nearly identical to Gyr—reflecting the combined muzzle of DoTs, pet hits, and control pulses. Excellent Predictability (R² = 0.91): A very tight fit shows her layered slows and ticking damage reliably stack up to each defeat. Attrition-Focused Kit: Rather than raw burst, her potency emerges from cumulative debuffs and pet bursts—ideal for sustained fights where enemies are worn down. 8b. Engagement – Hits vs Damage Dealt (G) Interpretation Massive Payback per Hit (slope ≈ 668 DMG/hit vs. Shimr’s 369 DMG/hit): Gyr turns every strike into a devastating counter-attack—nearly twice Shimr’s return, even accounting for his outlier. Consistent Hit Economy (three missions tightly clustered): Outside of the wipe-out mission, his damage-per-hit remains rock-solid, showing reliable burst capacity whenever he’s targeted. High-Risk, High-Reward Playstyle: By leaning into hits, he trades raw durability for surgical offense—making each moment he’s hit count far more than a standard controller response. Compared to Shimr Higher Peak Impact: Gyr’s steeper slope means his kit converts enemy aggression into far more damage, pressuring foes to think twice before targeting him. Lower Volume with Similar Output: Although Shimr logs more hits overall, she averages similar total DMG/min—Gyr matches her output with fewer, more potent engagements. Volatility vs. Predictability: Shimr’s tighter R² = 0.88 offers steadiness, but Gyr’s higher slope outclasses her when it matters most—his worst case still beats her best. 9. Efficiency (S) 9a. Character Efficiency – Out:In Mission DMG Out DMG In Ratio 1 49300 5327 9.3 2 95910 10101 9.5 3 157270 14245 11.0 4 22525 8827 2.6 Total 325006 38499 8.1 AVG 3.8 STD Ratio of the Sums 8.4 1.9 SE 9b. Pet Efficiency – Out:In Mission DMG Out DMG In Ratio 1 17279 874 19.8 2 25766 8644 3.0 3 14614 7928 1.8 4 15169 5645 2.7 SubTotal 72829 23091 6.8 AVG 8.6 STD Ratio of Sums 3.2 4.3 SE Interpretation Moderate Conversion Rate (slope ≈ 6.07): Gyr turns roughly 6 points of incoming damage-per-minute into 1 point of outgoing damage-per-minute, showing solid endurance but limited payback. Steady Under Fire (R² = 0.77): His data points cluster reasonably well, indicating consistent performance under varied pressure—even if raw intake spikes, his output scales predictably. Gyr’s high average damage intake (~535 DPM) underlines his soak strength, and although one outlier lowers his damage-per-damage-taken slope, excluding it shows he reliably converts incoming fire into consistent output in typical fights. Compared to Shimr Shimr nearly doubles Gyr’s efficiency, generating more than 11 DPM out for every 1 she absorbs—evidence of her control-and-DoT damage loop. Tighter Scaling (R² = 0.88): Her stronger fit means her output reliably tracks her intake, whereas Gyr’s is a bit more variable. Volume vs. Precision: Gyr absorbs more total damage, but Shimr leverages each point of damage taken into far greater offensive impact. 9c. Pet Aggression = Pet DMG : Character DMG Output Ratio (S) Interpretation Steady but Secondary Contribution – Pets average 24% of Gyr’s total damage, filling gaps when his personal output dips (e.g., 40% in Mission 4) but never beyond primary driver status. High Variance – Pet share swings dramatically (8.5%–40%), reflecting opportunistic deployment rather than a baked-in tactic. Support Role, Not Core Offense – Stronger personal damage outputs correlate with lower pet share (and vice-versa), underscoring pets as auxiliary rather than foundational to his combat rhythm. Comparison to Shimr Higher Baseline & Consistency – Her pets average 30% of total damage with minimal fluctuation (21%–37%), showing a deliberate, sustained pairing of her offensive toolkit with pet uptime. Tighter Synergy – Pet output correlates closely with her own (R² = 0.95 vs. Gyr’s 0.69), meaning they scale in lockstep rather than fill in only during slumps. Strategic Force Multiplier vs. Band-Aid – Where Gyr’s pets plug holes, Shimr’s are woven into every engagement, amplifying control bursts and smoothing pressure spikes. 9d. Pet Savagery – Pet Damage vs Foe Defeats (S) Interpretation Moderate Scaling (R² = 0.80): His pets’ damage output tracks allied kills reasonably well, but with more scatter—sometimes they finish targets, sometimes they don’t. Lower Kill Contribution (118.7 DMG per foe): On average, each point of foe defeat correlates with only ~118 damage from his pets, reflecting a support role rather than a primary killer. Inconsistent Output: Pet damage swings wildly—from 15 k in Mission 1 to just 14 k in Mission 3—highlighting uneven uptime and impact. Comparison to Shimr Stronger, Tighter Finishers (R² = 0.97): Shimr’s pets deliver nearly 239 damage per foe defeated and do so with high consistency, making them reliable secondary damage dealers. Double the Lethality: Their slope is roughly twice Gyr’s (239 vs. 119), showing Shimr’s pets actively secure kills rather than merely supplementing. Systemic Integration: Consistent pet Savagery supports Shimr’s layered control + DoT burst philosophy, whereas Gyr’s pets remain peripheral. 10. Debilitation – Controls vs Damage Dealt (G) Interpretation Laser-Focused Control DPS (R² = 0.99): Nearly perfect linearity shows each control reliably contributes to his damage profile. High Damage per Cast (153 DMG out / control): Gyr’s controls trigger potent Archery+Energy Mastery synergies, yielding almost triple the damage of Shimr’s per cast. Control as a Damage Trigger: Rather than purely utility, his CCs are built into his primary offense—each cast is a mini-nuke. Shimr Comparison Utility-First Controls (R² = 0.99): Equally reliable but far lower output per cast (54 DMG out / control), reflecting her CC’s role in debuffs and DoTs. Volume vs. Punch: Shimr layers hundreds of controls to build attrition; Gyr lands fewer but far harder-hitting casts. Tactical Implication: Gyr excels when you want each control to hit like a hammer; Shimr shines when you need battlefield lockdown and damage over time. 10a. Devastation – Controls vs Lethality (D) Interpretation High Kill Efficiency (slope = 5 controls per foe defeated; R² = 0.95): Gyr needs only ~5 controls on average to secure a kill, showing surgical precision. Consistent Conversion: Very tight fit (R² = 0.95) means his control-to-kill ratio holds steady across diverse missions. Lean Control Deployment: Fewer controls (total 2,537 vs. Shimr’s 7,931) translate into nearly as many or more kills, freeing him to focus on raw damage and buff uptime. Shimr Comparison High Volume, Lower Efficiency (slope = 12.5; R² = 0.83): Shimr casts over twice as many controls per kill, reflecting her attrition-based CC playstyle. Broader Variability: Looser fit (R² = 0.83) indicates her control-kill linkage is more mission-dependent—she relies on layering CC until enemies collapse. Tactical Trade-Off: Shimr’s approach locks down large groups and builds DoT pressure; Gyr’s delivers precise, payoff-heavy casts.

The Cold Domination analysis video (s) is out now. I go over in depth the stats collected by Gyr Falcon, my Cold / Archery / Energy defender and compare them statistically with Shimr, my Ice / Cold / Ice controller who went head to head with him in a series of AE 801 Trials. Mission Overview Mission 1: 801.3 r OFC IC 6035 = 17 min Mission 2: 801.5 b IC 6035 = 30 min Mission 3: 801.6 Tunnels IC 6041 = 37 min *Mission 4: 801.9 k IC 6089 = 8 min 4 Teammates: Missions 1-2: Safeword (Dominator), Badmotorfinger (Blaster), Reshoot (Blaster), Ben Drinkin (Tanker) Mission 3: Safeword (Dominator), Badmotorfinger (Blaster), Ben Drinkin (Tanker), Mindless Ending (Scrapper) *Mission 4: Badmotorfinger (Blaster), Ben Drinkin (Tanker), (Scrapper), Gospel Girl (Dominator) Total Time = 92 minutes *Trial Ended due to 4 out of 5 condition; hospital disqualification had minimal impact on stats Team Comp Note: team lineup changed over the 4 trials, lacking persistent DPS and/or reliable mez coverage. This may have reduced the value of his defensive auras and increased vulnerability to burst scenarios. Part 1: Defensive Stats Comparison (Defeats, Damage Taken, Hits Taken, etc.) Part 2: Offensive Stats Comparison and Final Verdict (Damage Dealt, Efficiency, Foe Defeats, etc.) I'll post several of the key graphs discussed in the videos when I get some time later. In the meantime, prepare to discussion the following debate I was having with Cathy when deciding on the winner of this matchup when trying to determine what was THE most important metric that tells the story of the two contestants? Initially, she said: "For me, Efficiency—the ratio of damage out to damage in—is the single most telling metric. It encapsulates: Survivability under fire (how much you can endure) Offensive potency (how well you and your pets convert that endurance into pressure) It tells you who gets the most collective damage delivered to foes for every hit they personally endure. Shimr’s 1.48 : 1 versus Gyr’s 0.81 : 1 captures in one number how her control-plus-pet ecosystem turns punishment into payoff far more effectively than his pure buffer-and-soak style." But after I pressed her on that focus of personal production when this was a 'support' test, she altered her opinion: "When you’re evaluating support, the real story isn’t how much you melt faces yourself but how well you keep your team alive and lethal. With that in mind, the single most telling metric becomes the Amplification Correlation (Provision rate vs. ally foe defeats). Why it matters: It directly measures how each shield, heal or buff you cast translates into your teammates racking up kills. Shimr vs. Gyr: Gyr’s volume bankrolls a rock-solid R² = 0.93 in ally kill enablement, but Shimr’s tighter timing and pet-driven bursts push her slope to ~73 kills / (buff-per-min) vs. Gyr’s ~60—showing she can amplify team DPS more surgically when synergy holds. Support in one number: This metric fuses uptime, cast timing, and team performance into a single lens: how many more bodies your presence on the field lets your allies put down. If you want to know which Contender truly makes their squad outperform, look at who boosts their team’s lethality per support action—because that is the essence of support." What do you think?

Glad you're having as much fun as I did with mine. She was beastly!

I'm not aware of the Cold Dom team. I'm doing my own thing with some folks from the Best of Worst as well as some PuGs over on Excelsior. Run tests 1-2x a week to use in these posts. I just finished the analysis of Gyr Falcon's data in comparison to Shimr. It's monumental! I should have the vid recorded tomorrow and released by Friday. Going to showcase the missing minutes from Mission 4 of his 801 Trial. Spoiler: we completed it, but after the team DQd with 4 out of 5 deaths.

I've added the 801 Team Trials video to Gyr Falcon's page (cold / archery / energy defender). Build Update: After running the solo tests, I swapped 4 pieces of Superior Defender's Bastion for the Sting of the Manticore in Ranged Shot (snipe) to pick up the Chance to PBAoE Heal proc. I wanted an extra layer of protection and the heal worked out quite nicely from the stat totals I racked up in the 801 Team Trials. His detailed stat analysis and my reaction video from the 801 Team Trials is Coming Soon (TM).

Uncaged Psyche – The Scream Before the Silence Support Stalker Experiment #3: Savage Melee / Psionic Armor / Leviathan Mastery The third subject in the Support Stalker Experiment is Uncaged Psyche, a mutant shaped by prolonged exposure to the ancient Leviathan’s psychic residue beneath Sharkhead Isle. Where most Stalkers seek precision and stealth, she brings raw psychic contagion and brutal chaos — destabilizing enemy minds before shredding their bodies with coral-warped claws. Concept: Uncaged Psyche doesn’t wait in the shadows — she erupts into the fray. Her mind, fractured by captivity and coral-borne madness, emits an aura of confusion and dread. She infects enemy formations with hesitation, misfires, and betrayal through Aura of Madness, while striking with savage, reef-laced blows that tear both flesh and sanity. Psionic Armor hardens her mind as the coral hardens her skin, letting her stride through carnage untouched by fear or mental interference. Her Leviathan-born powers manifest as bursts of psychokinetic rage — spouts of water and shadow that strike like ghostly extensions of her wrath. She doesn’t serve the sea mother. She punishes the surface. MIDS Builld: Uncaged Psyche - Stalker (Savage Melee - Psionic Armor).mbd 43.73 kB · 0 downloads Test Parameters: Content: Level 54 x8 Radios, Tip Missions, Boss rushes Team Composition: 5-man team with Uncaged Psyche as the sole support Tools: Sythlin’s DPS Tracker, compared against other Support Stalkers and / or my earlier DEFCON Defender/Controller results Support Toolkit: Madness Induction & Status Layering (Aura of Madness + Procs): Aura of Madness projects a persistent PBAoE field that Confuses, Disorients, Sleeps, Holds, and Fears foes while debuffing their damage. Proc-loaded for frequent AoE Confuse and debilitation, causing enemies to betray, hesitate, or collapse inward. Combines beautifully with chaotic AoEs to overwhelm enemy behavior trees. Psychic Disruption & Regeneration Denial (Devour Psyche): Devour Psyche debuffs regen, healing, and recovery in a frontal cone — ideal for softening spawn clusters or bosses. Also grants Uncaged Psyche a significant self-heal and recovery boost, scaling with target count. Synergizes with Psionic Armor’s layered sustain to keep her upright amid chaos. Savage Pressure & AoE Burst (Savage Melee): Savage Leap gives mid-range initiation, AoE burst, and rapid Frenzy stacking. Rending Flurry and Shred apply AoE DoTs and -DEF, softening groups for follow-up. Hemorrhage punishes lone targets, while Build Up spikes damage and accuracy in key moments. Survivability & Sustain (Psionic Armor): Psychokinetic Barrier grants +Absorb, +Max HP, +Regen, and resistance to endurance/recovery debuffs. Precognition provides passive +DEF and perception. Impenetrable Mind resists status effects and psi damage — keeping her mobile in psychic storms. Chaos Manifestations (Leviathan Mastery): Water Spout is a disruptive PBAoE that knocks foes skyward, inflicts fear and disorientation, and pairs thematically with her aquatic corruption. Spirit Shark Jaws offers ST control and knockdown, ideal for punishing survivors or halting dangerous foes. How It Plays: Chaos Engine Activation: She excels when surrounded — Aura of Madness softens minds, while Devour Psyche drains recovery and morale. Confused mobs collapse as she leaps from target to target in a whirlwind of bleeding coral and psychic screams. Support Through Disruption: No traditional buffs — her support is chaos. Enemies misfire, freeze, or attack each other. Frenzied leaping and AoE DoTs keep pressure high while team safety rises through reduced incoming damage and scattered threat focus. Solo Strength & Survivability: Despite being a support, Uncaged Psyche is tough. Between Psionic Armor’s +Absorb layers and healing procs in Devour Psyche, she sustained in repeatable 54x8 content and Mayhem finales without a true support ally. Verdict: Uncaged Psyche doesn’t support with shields or songs—she supports by shattering minds. Enemies lose direction, cohesion, even loyalty as her presence floods the field with psychic distortion and chaos. She’s unpredictable. She’s overwhelming. And if you’re within her reach, you’ll either flee, freeze, or bleed. She doesn’t clear the path — she tears a new one, then lets her team stride through the bleeding carnage. For more detailed stats and discussion of their implications, check out:

I'm finding the amount of debuff and control a stalker can muster is pretty damn impressive. Here's a little tease for you from ONE of Uncaged Psyche's missions: NAME KNOCK HELD STUN SLEEP CONFUSE IMMOB TERROR Takeoff 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cognitive Interface 0 0 0 0 82 0 0 Pyronic Total Radial Judgement 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 Control Hybrid 0 0 0 0 0 108 106 Superior Avalanche: Recharge/Chance for Knockdown 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aura of Madness 0 116 116 126 110 0 116 Lockdown: Chance for +2 Mag Hold 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 Stupefy: Chance for Knockback 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spirit Shark Jaws 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 Spirit Shark 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 Contagious Confusion 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 Unspeakable Terror: Disorient Bonus 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 Memento Mori 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 Duplicity 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 Overwhelming Force: Damage/Chance for Knockdown/Knockback to Knockdown 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 <Pet> Water Spout : Cognitive Interface 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 Totals: 168 191 162 126 240 108 254 1249

Still working on this? Updates would be appreciated. I've finished my Savage / Psionic / Leviathan testing and I'm putting together the data. Should be releasing that here in the next couple days.

And here are her Offensive Stats: 6. Lethality – Foe Defeats 7. Threat – Combined Character and Pet Damage Dealt 8. Pet Aggression – Character vs Pet Damage Output 8a. Pet Focus – Pet Damage vs. Foe Defeats 9. Damage Efficiency – DMG Out : DMG In for Character (orange) and for Pets (blue) Just noticed as I posted this that Shimr has more variation in damage efficiency while her pets are more stable (ratio of the sums shows her average to be 10.1 while her regression line slope shows it to be 8.6. Her pets are the same ratio either way). WHY? Explanations not included in the video for this discrepancy: Factor Shimr (Controller) Jack + Lore Pets Aggro sensitivity High (player-targeted) Low (AoE/collision damage) Uptime variability Moderate Binary (alive/dead; summoned/unsummoned) Tactical adaptability High Limited by player commands Range of tools (burst, heal) Wide Narrow, fixed AI Crisis exposure High Often removed from play early 10. Disruption Amplification – Controls vs Threat 10 a. Disruption Yield – Controls vs Lethality Combined Offensive Insight Metric What it Correlates With R² Value Interpretation Lethality Time ↔ Foe Defeats 0.95 Shimr secures kills through sustained uptime, not short bursts. Threat Time ↔ Total Damage Output 0.98 Damage grows linearly with duration — constant pressure application. Pet Contribution Personal ↔ Pet Damage Output 0.95 Pets scale directly with Shimr — they’re part of her offensive engine. Pet Aggression Pet Damage ↔ Foe Defeats 0.97 Pet output tracks with team kills, not padding — they help finish targets. Character Efficiency Personal DMG In ↔ Out 0.88 Shimr maintains strong solo efficiency, even when under fire. Pet Efficiency Pet DMG In ↔ Out 0.88 Pets contribute meaningfully, though less efficiently than Shimr herself. Disruption Synergy Controls ↔ Total Damage Output 0.99 Disruption is Shimr’s damage. DOTs + CC powers produce a linear threat. Disruption Focus Controls ↔ Foe Defeats 0.83 Disruption boosts kill count, especially with competent DPS teammates. Offensive Interpretations 1. Shimr scales with time — not tempo. Her Lethality (R² = 0.95) and Threat (R² = 0.98) indicate a clockwork contributor: the longer the mission, the deadlier she becomes. Ice/Cold doesn’t spike — it accumulates control, attrition, and output until foes collapse. 2. Disruption is her damage loop. With a near-perfect 0.99 correlation, Shimr’s control output = damage output. Her slows, freezes, and debuffs tick damage while locking down foes, turning CC into lethal momentum. This creates a seamless offense/defense blend, typical of Ice Control but amplified by Cold Domination’s layered suppression. 3. Pets are enablers — not passengers. Pets contribute 30% of all damage, and their output scales with Shimr’s (0.95) and with foe defeats (0.97). They’re helping secure kills and keep Shimr moving. 4. She fights well under fire — until collapse. Shimr’s efficiency (DMG Out:In) is strong when challenged, especially compared to her pets (nearly 3x higher). In chaotic fights (e.g., Mission 3), her personal output stays high, while pet efficiency plummets. This creates a fragile balance — Shimr performs best when her pets are active and she's pressured, but only up to a threshold before they break and, if the pressure is high enough, she follows.

Thanks! And just because you were nice, I'm going to give you the results of Shimr's 801 Trials: Here's the link to the full analysis video: Here are the main graphs; the data tables are discussed in the video. Correlations are looking at the strength of the X and Y relationship. Does one 'cause' the other? Values close to 1.00 (0.90+ for my purposes) suggest 'yes' the two values are related and / or predictive of one another. Defensive Stats 1. Survivability – Personal Defeats 2. Risk – Ally Defeats 3. Resilience – Damage Taken 1-3. Combination Graphs a. Punishment – Damage Taken vs Personal Defeats *The slope is corrected here from the one presented in the video. Slightly less damage (4989) was sustained per personal defeat* b. Overwatch – Damage Taken vs Ally Defeats *The slope is corrected here from the one presented in the video. Slightly less damage (415) was sustained per ally defeat* c. Pet Protection - Character Resilience vs Pet Resilience d. Pet Sacrifice - Pet Damage Taken vs Team Defeats 4. Avoidance Distribution – Hits Taken Across 4 Missions (orange line - average; upper range is anomalous mission 3) 4. Targeting – DMG Taken vs Hits (28 / hit) 5. Disruption Protection – DMG Taken vs Controls (3.9 / control) 5a. Disruption Shielding – Team Defeats vs Controls Combined Defensive Insight Metric What it correlates with R² Value Interpretation Targeting Hits ↔ Damage In 0.93 Very strong correlation — hits reliably predict damage taken Resilience Time ↔ Damage In 0.73 Moderate: longer missions → more damage, but not always Punishment Damage In ↔ Personal Deaths 0.78 Stronger link — damage tracks with death, but some buffer holds Overwatch Damage In ↔ Ally Deaths 0.23 Weak predictor — Shimr’s damage isn’t a tight proxy for team fate Disruption Shielding Controls ↔ Team Deaths 0.27 Disruption ramps up after collapse starts, not before it. Pet Protection Pet DMG In ↔ Shimr DMG In 0.88 When pets are under fire, Shimr tends to be targeted too — shared exposure. Defense Interpretations Avoidance is Shimr’s core survival metric. – When she’s targeted more, she takes proportionally more damage. – Cold Domination offers no personal resist toggles — survival is about slowing incoming fire and not being hit. Mission length increases pressure, but doesn’t guarantee a breakdown. – One short mission saw the highest spike in damage (M4), while longer ones sometimes stayed stable. – Mission duration only matters when pressure compounds from mob volume and spawn control failure. Shimr absorbs damage well — to a point. – The Punishment R² = 0.78 confirms she can tank moderate incoming stress. – But once overwhelmed, her tools don’t recover quickly — there’s little active self-sustain, and shields are for allies. She’s still vital to team survival — just not a strict 'linchpin'. – A low Overwatch R² = 0.23 doesn’t mean Shimr isn’t protecting the team. – It means her own damage intake isn’t the best predictor of team defeats — what matters is her ability to keep enemies weakened and teammates strengthened. – When control uptime or debuff application drops, team collapse can follow — often fast. Pets aren’t absorbing stray aggro. — Their survivability tracks with Shimr’s own (Pet ↔ Char DMG In: R² = 0.88), highlighting a shared vulnerability and synergy. When she's hit, they're hit. Control doesn’t prevent collapse — it reacts to it. — Disruption Shielding (R² = 0.27) shows her CC doesn’t reduce deaths directly. — Instead, Shimr throws out more controls when fights devolve, aligning with Ice / Cold’s identity as a slow, reactive toolkit, not a preemptive one beyond shielding.

Thanks for the heads-up. I was not aware of pets' limitations in this regard. I wasn't even thinking about the pets' to hit, mostly their ability to take a hit.

@Maelwys, Thanks again for the thoughtful response — I genuinely appreciate your concerns around how testing data is presented and interpreted. You’re absolutely right that scope clarity is important, and I want to acknowledge that directly. So to clarify: these forum posts are primarily a data notebook where I post the raw mission outcomes, charts, and performance breakdowns so that anyone who wants to deep dive the numbers can do so without pausing and rewatching the YouTube videos. The nuance, limitations, and intentions of the DEFCON testing are addressed in the accompanying YT builds and tests and analysis vids. You'll typically hear me say things like: “This isn’t all Defenders vs all Controllers" or "I'm not concluding anything here" or "these results are for these specific builds across randomized conditions.” But I do use thread titles like "Defenders vs Controllers" not to overstate the scope, but as shorthand for the test theme or question. The actual conclusions are more modest: "My tested controllers showed stronger and more stable DPM across 25 missions than the Defenders.” I agree that misinterpreting limited data as global truth is a problem, and it's why I'm structuring my presentations this way: YouTube = narrative, nuance, limitations, goals. Forums = data reference, clean reporting, minimal interruptions As far as sampling and representation go - like you said - testing all primary/secondary combos is sheer madness. But Monte Carlo-style sampling isn’t trying to be exhaust the list. It asks a simpler question: “Do any consistent patterns emerge when we inject randomness into team context?” The answer the data from my tests have provided so far is YES. For these builds, some clear trends did emerge. But I completely agree with your bottom line: These Controllers outperformed these Defenders in these trials. Not: “Controllers are definitively better than Defenders.” And that's why I'm running the DEFCON II: Aftermath series. It will add an additional 5 defenders and 5 controllers, another 25 missions each, to the mix. It will also increase the challenge level from standard 54x8 to AE 801 Incarnate challenges to really examine support capabilities at the margins. I have no idea what's going to happen, but in my initial run with Shimr, my ice / cold / ice controller, her pet output was reduced by a good 15% from what I was seeing in the DEFCON 5 tests. IF that's real and holds true with the character tests, then that will hurt controllers more than defenders. And IF that happens, the advantage in the support game that the DEFCON controllers had will evaporate. That will help isolate the Defender's superior buff / debuff numbers, which COULD give them the advantage vs incarnate level foes. But we'll see. It's early in the game and I have yet to release the actual Shimr data in context to the bigger picture. There is a lot more there now with Sythlin's DPS tool, so I'm trying to make sense of it before presenting more. But you see it later today or tomorrow and that will give you both a baseline for the DEFCON II: Aftermath series as well as what it looks like in the greater context of the DEFCON 5 series data. As each test result comes in, hypotheses will evolve, but I'll hold off on any more conclusions until all 10 tests are completed and added to the original 10. I really appreciate the discussion. Your critique helps sharpen how I communicate this work. Thanks again.

It's there in both builds so far. XAOS has it in ToF Dead Cell has it in LR

@Maelwys I appreciate your detailed response, and I think we're close in thinking actually. Since this project leans on a Monte Carlo-inspired testing style, I wanted to explain a key tool I'm using to evaluate it called Cumulative Average Analysis. Cumulative Average tracks how the average value of a performance metric (like damage per minute) changes as each new mission data is added. It works like this: Trial 1 = just the first result Trial 2 = average of Trials 1 and 2 Trial 3 = average of Trials 1, 2, and 3 etc. until Trial 25 that is the average of all 25 trials This creates is a picture of performance over time where you can see if the trend is stabilizing (main goal in Monte Carlo). Monte Carlo methods need random inputs to stress-test the system. You're not looking to eliminate variability, but to see if a pattern emerges despite it. It's why I’m deliberately introducing variation in teammates, powersets, maps, etc. If an AT performs well consistently through all the noise, that’s a real signal, not a fluke. A cumulative average graph shows whether performance is converging. If a line rises, flattens and holds, that's telling you the performance metric is stable and meaningful across the variables — exactly what I'm looking for to test generalizable performance. DEFCON 5 Sample Results Here’s what I found when applying this to the DPM data from the 25 Defender missions and corresponding 26 Controller missions: The Controller line rises faster and flattens at a higher average DPM. The Defender line is more erratic and flattens lower. This suggests that, across randomized team setups and builds, trends that held as more data accumulated: Controllers outperform Defenders in average damage per minute. The Controller curve rises faster and flattens higher = stronger and more consistent offensive performance. The Defender line is more erratic, starting lower and stabilizing at a lower average, which suggests greater variability in support synergy or damage contribution. Now, you're absolutely right that I’m not sampling anywhere near the full powerset × slotting × epic × incarnate potential. But the point of these tests isn’t to simulate every combination. It’s to observe whether significant trends emerge from real, in-game randomness. If the 'signal' I measure is strong enough to stabilize over 25 varied conditions, it has value. If it collapses as soon as variables change, it wasn’t stable to begin with. I get the appeal of narrowing things to "median builds," and that kind of reductionist testing has its place — but it would overcontrol the environment IMO, hiding synergy or volatility that emerge in actual game environments. So no, this isn’t meant to be a perfectly controlled lab experiment. It’s more stress testing the 2 classic support ATs in the field, and letting large, messy data reveal patterns. And what the cumulative average graph above tells us is: in this pocket of noise, Controllers outperformed Defenders, and reliably so, in DPM. This is also true for other metrics, which is why I gave them the 'win' in DEFCON 5. The next questions are: Why? I think it had to do with 'perma' pets. Is it true on the margin? I suspect defender advantage from their higher buff / debuff numbers wasn't properly tested at the normal game setting of 54x8.

XAOS was pretty damn good at team protection. If you get a chance, watch his team video (linked above). Dead Cell's principle was strong and solo he did great with it. His team performance was uncertain because there was some questionable actions and slotting by one of his teammates that made it look a lot worse than it would likely be in most scenarios. The one I'm testing now, Uncaged Psyche, is very interesting. She's getting a lot of mileage out of the Aura of Madness. I haven't done her team tests yet, so it's premature to call it better than the others so far or comparable to a defender or controller. But I'm loving the action potential. I've posted her build and solo vids to my channel if you want a sneak peek. I'm going to update this post with the links once I have the team trials and data analyzed. Here's the link to her on a pick up ITF I joined before I had her incarnates all T3d for the actual tests. No commentary, but you can see what she's able to do.

I’m absolutely enjoying the ride. That said, I want to clarify why I’m intentionally using random offensive powersets and team comps in these Defender vs Controller tests, rather than keeping them fixed. This isn’t apples to cauliflower as you dismiss it as — it’s a Monte Carlo approach, which is a real-world method used in science, finance, and engineering to figure out how things perform under uncertainty. To summarize it, you run the same type of test many times with randomized inputs to see if consistent patterns still emerge. Why? Because if a support set or archetype performs well no matter what kind of team or situation it's in, then we’ve uncovered a generalizable strength, not just a combo that works in one ideal setup. That’s what I’m after. If I used the same blast set or teammates every time as you're suggesting, I'd risk: Building in a bias toward a specific synergy, Missing the bigger picture of which support sets hold up across a variety of actual play conditions. So, the randomness of the tests isn't a flaw — it's the engine of the method. While it makes the results messier, it also makes them more meaningful, because patterns that emerge from the noise are the ones worth trusting. I appreciate your thoughts and the chance to explain the reasoning. I'm happy to debate Defenders vs Controllers on a per-case basis if you'd like, but I’m testing for robustness, not cherry-picked synergy that would come with locking into a specific blast or control set for every combo.

Well I aim to find out if it's the player or the powerset. Last go round my controllers edged my defenders due to their perma pets from what the data indicated. But that was vs 54x8 standard content. What about vs. incarnate level content? Do those defender higher buff numbers matter or not?

I love the Repeat Offenders concept. I ran Defenders of the Night SG back on live and we did all-defender stuff all the time until CoV came out.

Dead Cell – The Drain Before the Pain Support Stalker Test #2: Electrical Melee / Bio Armor / Mu Mastery The second subject in the Support Stalker Experiment is Dead Cell, a mutant-born horror twitching with bioelectric energy. His strategy: disrupt enemy attacks through stuttered sleep cycles and crippling endurance drain. Concept: Where other Stalkers strike from the shadows, Dead Cell never hides. He pulses with a disruptive rhythm—briefly stunning or sleeping targets, only to do it again moments later. Bio Armor’s genetic auras reduce incoming damage and bolster survivability, while Mu Mastery’s blasts flood the field with powerful debuffs and control. He's not just draining life—he's draining will. Mids Build: Dead Cell - Stalker (Electrical Melee - Bio Armor).mbd Test Parameters: Content: Level 54 x8 Radios, Tip Missions, Boss rushes Team Composition: 5-man team with Dead Cell as the sole support Tools: Sythlin’s DPS Tracker, compared against other Support Stalkers and my earlier DEFCON Defender/Controller results Support Toolkit: Sleep-Based Control (The “Stutter Lock”): Charged Brawl, Havoc Punch, Jacob’s Ladder (Elec Melee) each apply brief Sleep effects Genetic Corruption (Bio Armor) pulses constant AoE Sleep + -DMG in Offensive Adaptation Mu Adept’s Cage of Lightning adds further Sleep support Endurance & Recovery Suppression: Ball Lightning, Mu Bolts, Zapp: Wide-area and ranged endurance drains Mu Adept layers on -END and -Recovery with every attack Enemies become ability-starved, reducing incoming DPS dramatically Damage Debuff & Regen Denial: Genetic Corruption & Parasitic Aura provide passive AoE -DMG DNA Siphon (Bio Armor): -Regen and group healing in one hit Mu Adept’s EM Pulse: AoE Hold and -Regen vs groups and bosses Crowd Control & Utility: Electric Shackles (Mu Mastery): Long-duration single-target Hold Shocking Bolt & EM Pulse: Frequent Stuns and AoE Holds from pet Together with Sleep cycling, this creates a battlefield under siege How It Played: Disruption: Most enemy attacks never fired. Sleep cycling combined with constant endurance drain shut down groups before they could retaliate. Safety via Denial: Rather than buffing allies, Dead Cell weakens the enemy’s ability to act—creating what felt like ambient protection. Solo Viability: With Bio Armor sustain and Siphon heals, Dead Cell handled +3/x8 solo missions with eerie stability. Verdict: Dead Cell doesn’t fight fair—he fights inevitability. His enemies stumble, spark, and fall unconscious before they understand what’s happening. He’s flashy. He’s loud. And if you’re near him, you will shut down. So when his enemies stop fighting back, everyone else gets to shine. Combined Stalker Stats:

Xaos Warden – The Shadow Before the Fall Support Stalker Test #1: Dark Melee / Shield Defense / Soul Mastery The Support Stalker Experiment kicks off with a full evaluation of Xaos Warden, a magic-origin guardian who turns the shadows into shelter and blunts incoming threats with cascading accuracy debuffs. Concept: What if a Stalker could protect their team not by vanishing… but by making sure the enemies miss? Xaos Warden isn’t a backline lurker. He’s a frontline phantasm wielding the Umbral Aegis, fusing Dark Melee’s -To Hit, Shield Defense’s +Defense auras, and Soul Mastery’s ranged suppression to serve as a living interference field. He layers debuffs, tanks selectively, and confuses priority targets through fear, holds, and knockdowns. Mids Build: Xaos Warden - Stalker (Dark Melee - Shield Defense).mbd Test Parameters: Content: Level 54 x8 Radios, Tip Missions, and Boss-heavy content Team Composition: 5 players, including Xaos Warden as the sole support Data Capture: Sythlin’s DPS Tracker (same format used in the DEFCON Series) Comparison: All Support Stalkers will be ranked against each other and against a baseline from traditional Defenders and Controllers Support Toolkit: -To Hit Stacking: Smite, Shadow Maul, Touch of Fear, Midnight Grasp, Dark Blast, Moonbeam, and the Widow’s Smoke Grenade +Team Defense: Grant Cover offers AoE +DEF and stealth to the team, plus resistance to debuff types Hard Control: Fear, Hold, Knockdown, and Immobilize effects let him neutralize threats instead of soaking them Durability: Defensive toggles from Shield and Shadow Meld make him surprisingly sturdy for a Stalker How It Played: Team Role: Functioned as a shadow tank-lite—blunting alpha strikes with Grant Cover, opening with Shield Charge, and using -To Hit suppression to make teammates feel “shielded” without ever drawing aggro Crowd Safety: Night Widow pet helped stack further accuracy debuffs, keeping lieutenants and bosses swinging wildly… and mostly missing Solo Efficiency: Surprisingly capable soloing at +3/x8, despite low mitigation tools beyond debuff layering and control pacing Verdict: Xaos Warden proved the core hypothesis: a Stalker can support a team. Not by healing, buffing, or mez-blasting—but by surgically suppressing enemy accuracy and stacking defense around their squad. Was he a Defender? No. But did he defend? Absolutely.