Koopak

Some misunderstandings to clear up but as others have said the short answer is yes. Long answer: Procs all work in toggles and auto powers, when slotted they check every 10 seconds. Proc chance is calculated in bopper's ppm calculator easily. Preventative Medicine: Chance for Absorb is not a traditional proc however, it is an enhancement carrying a single set bonus, the same as say luck of the gambler. This means that it's effect is ALWAYS on regardless of the power it is slotted in. As an example I have multiple characters with it slotted in aid other or spirit ward which I almost never use and the effect still triggers naturally.

Here is what I'd do without changing your powers or significantly changing your goals. Theres a lot of other optimizations to be wrung out of this, especially in damage, and getting Hasten in would be massive as it not only improves uptime on your survivals but is the key to making Crushing Uppercut a core part of your rotation, spiking the damage up. But this will meet your goals as best as seems reasonable without me tearing the build apart. View This Build In MRB

So, speaking performance wise only, there's some serious issues I see if you are wanting to do more than shrug off a few stay AoEs The main one is your defense goal, you've grabbed shadow meld which is great, but with decent slotting it'll take you to defense cap to all positions on it's own and then some with a 50% up time. It's a long cast but if you are pressed its usually worth it. Resistance is a bit more valuable, granted defense protects you from debuffs which ruins Regen's day, but resistance gives you more time to react, where as defense leaves you vulnerable to bad RNG letting a couple big hits clap you out of existence. Focusing on the regeneration stat is a trap as well, most set bonuses do not give enough to be meaningful bump for a set that idles at several hundred % Regen. 20% from Numinas is big when you're invuln and only have maybe 200%, it's a 10% gain in EFHP/s but to a 700% idle or 1400% IHed Regen? It's a rounding error The other is skipping instant healing. IH gets a bad rap purely because it is no longer a toggle and has to be used proactively but I can't stress enough how potent it is when used well. Quick recovery is unneeded, there's plenty of tools to manage endurance, and is the only power I actually recommend skipping in Regen, though I'm tolerant of the hatred of revive even if I think it's silly. Rune of Protection isn't bad but there are statistically better options. That said while Unleash Potential and Unrelenting are statistically superior, neither gives resistance so they don't make it easier to react to damage spikes the way RoP does. Linked in my signature is a calculator I've made for the regeneration set, it takes some work to use, Id need to spend time writing a proper app to make it easier to use, but it will give you a clear window into the value of each power and let you fiddle with slotting changes and see the impacts directly in the form of Effective Health and Effective Regeneration defined as the raw amount of damage that must be thrown at you in any form for enough of it to stick and defeat you

Did this and got the results Id expect, took a solid 30 minutes to sort since Mako had defenses and I didn't have a build on hand to compensate so had to figure that out because otherwise I'm adding MORE noise to the data, further i only did these three runs so statistical deviation is entirely possible. Keep in mind my pylon times deviate by about 15 seconds up and down, for a 7% shift PURELY on misses, let alone any input errors and such. There's a reason a lot of times here are averages of 10+ runs. None the less, the results, mirroring your own format, using kill time rather than hp values. Reactive Radial: 2:46 (75% chance for DoT) Degenerative Core: 2:53 (75% chance for -maxhp) No Interface: 3:05 And video of the tests. if we were to use this as conclusive evidence WHICH WE SHOULD NOT then Degen Core is a 6.5% dps gain and Reactive Radial is a 10.3% dps gain over no interface at all. If we wanted to responsibly test this we would actually need to do 5-10 runs of each and average the results. However that would be another 45 minutes of my life at minimum. This is my point. I might be willing to run these tests to placate you, but if I didn't step in to do that I doubt anyone would have and more than one person would have taken your tests as conclusive. Even with my arguments and providing the numbers, this community sees 'testing' as superior, when it is in fact MORE error prone. In this video alone I made 8 micro errors in my rotations off the top of my head, skewing results by probably +/- one to three seconds. I also experienced at least one miss on Shatter Armor, which in pylon times has a minimum impact of 6-7 seconds. 10 seconds is enough to put Reactive behind Degen and Degen nearly on par with no interface. Proper testing isolates variables, some of those variables, like misses, cannot be isolated and must instead be drowned in data so that the noise they inject is statistically likely to cancel out, but that is not a guarantee. Mathematically we can account for this noise in a model with 100% accuracy however, because we are not scientists testing the limits of known physics, we are nerds disecting a bunch of code. That code behaves in a 100% predictable, 100% reliable fashion, if your math results are wrong, its because your formula is wrong, and anyone can see that in the minute it takes to read it instead of the 20 minutes it took to throw a half assed 'test' up.

So your argument is that math is bad because people make mistakes. Here is the thing, anyone with knowledge of how the game should be modeled can look at a model and tell if its wrong according to their knowledge, anyone can reproduce the numbers, and anyone can design a test to validate the model. Testing on the other hand can only be validated through further testing, and that assumes your testing methodology is clearly communicated AND well designed. This means you require other people to spend as much time if not more to reproduce your results for a lower fidelaty source of information. A large difference that drastically deviates from the mathematical model does NOT remove doubts, it CASTS doubts, because it implies either the model is wrong, or your testing methodology is wrong. This is even more extreme when your results show that not only is Degen somehow not only 30% better than Reactive, but NO interface is 6.5% better than Reactive. That should have set off massive red flags that your data was noise riddled, because it is IMPOSSIBLE for no interface to be better than some interface. The DoT ALONE should insure that even if you believe, wrongly, that AVs are immune to -resistance. Your quote isn't easy to search up atm, can you share more details of your testing methodology? What build? What's their dps? You say you ran a test for 5 minutes but didn't kill the AV, that tells me your DPS was VERY low, which the model clearly says Degen is more valuable at low DPS values. This test method is not clear, and you are 'publishing' results without coming to understand WHY, leading to the false assumptions of how the game actually works. This is literally how multiple scandals in the scientific community have kicked off. Further 5 minutes is NOT a customary cut off point to my knowledge and if it is it shouldn't be. Using my Widow as an example because she does many more attacks than most ATs, her rotation is 4 attack in about 4.75 seconds, that's about 63 attacks, meaning 63 trials. In that you would expect to see 47.25 procs of the debuff, however one proc above or below is a deviation of 1/63 or 1.58%, 2 is 3.16%, 3 is 4.74%, and suddenly we are beyond the expectant advantage of Degen. So assuming you deviated a mere 3 procs from statistical average you have DOUBLED the advantage Degen has over Reactive. If we were only wanting to know the proc rate, this test would be valid, if light, as the number of procs would be reasonably close to the expected proc rate. However our goal is to compare two competing effects applied by said proc. Two effects that, when modeled, show a relatively small difference between them. In order to eliminate the risk of probability drift you would need at least a hundred, preferably a thousand or so proc instances within your data, otherwise you run a significant risk of the noise of probability drowning out your actual data. For your test, again, assuming the rest of the methodology is sound, which i would need the details of to make any assessments about, that would require 10 minutes of testing at minimum, preferably 100 minutes. This is why testing without a model, and without a clear goal is a source of misinformation. Your test is only 5 minutes each, including prep time, probably a 15 minute affair, not a big deal, prohibitive to some I'm sure, but not most. However a review of what we KNOW about a game that has an open source code base anyone can verify, shows that at minimum you should have tested for 10 minutes each, leading to a 25 minute round trip, or god forbid, a properly rigorous test of 205 minutes. Now how many people do you think are going to burn half an hour of their day or more validating your results versus how many can review some words and make sure the logic presented is sound? Testing COULD work as a first port of call if we all had the time and patience to perform properly developed, rigorous testing. OR we can look at the facts of how a program runs and simply do the math and if someone makes a mistake, all it takes is someone else who has a highschool level education and an accurate grasp of the game's mechanics to call them on it. Not MULTIPLE testers as is required to refute test results since a single test result that is different could just be probability creeping in again.

This is why 'testing' is crap and I wish people would chill on how often they bring it up or present their results, because it adds a level of authority that shouldn't be there, leading to rampant misinformation. 5 minutes is a crap shoot, assuming the rest of your testing methodology is solid, you are still very vulnerable to probability drift there. I'm not attacking you, only your data. Applying the math, AVs at lvl 54 (+4 difficulty) have the same hp and regeneration rate as a pylon, this is WHY pylons are the ideal test targets. for proof, look here, make sure level is set to 54. https://cod.uberguy.net./html/archetype-data.html?at=boss_archvillain As such we happen to have the dps formula if we omit the /0.8 at the end which accounts for pylon resistances, though AVs are often similar. Now instead of throwing a time in, we can use this data to calculate 2 things, Effective Health (EFHP) and Effective Regeneration (EFHP/s) giving us a clear picture of both how much damage you need to do per second to cause lasting harm, and how much total damage past that dps you need to do to defeat the AV. So our AV's HP is 30677.15 our AV's Regeneration is 102.26 hp/s If we apply the maximum of 4 stacks of -maxhp from degen core we get about (degen stacks oddly so its not a clean -4000 but we will use that) EFHP: 26677.15 EFHP/s: 88.92 hp/s If we instead apply the 4 stacks of -res, we can calculate this same value ignoring any resistance they have because the impact is the same in relative terms (-10% resistance will always be a relative 10% damage gain) thus our results from factoring in this -res are EFHP: 27,609.43 EFHP/s: 92.03 hp/s So as we can see this is where the common consensus that Degen is superior comes from, however the margin is quite small, only a ~3.5% gain over Reactive. This advantage also shrinks as the target's HP increases, such as Trial bosses, Harmode bosses, and so on that use greater than AV scales. This is where the DoTs step in. Reactive's dot is scale 0.125, while degen's is scale 0.1 Comparing them that's a 25% gain in DoT damage going to Reactive, which si what generally closes the gap. I'd try to math this out further but at this point you DO need a hypothetical rotation of sorts to estimate proc chances per second. This is incorrect, all forms of Degen and all forms of Reactive call the same debuff power, and the stacking is based on that power. Mixing Tiers will not allow you to stack it further. It should be noted, that's 4 applications of the debuff, those 4 applications CAN be applied by a single individual, making all other rolls of the debuff useless, this is why Radial is superior to Core in groups if not solo. When testing you WILL occasionally see 5 applications, but this can occur even with a single person applying and has to do with the attribute monitor's update rate, NOT the snackability of the power.

I'm not sure where you are getting this. Neither Purple Patch nor AV resistance impact damage resistance, only damage resistance resists -resistance, and most AVs do not have more than 50% resistance with most having less. Generally I've found Reactive Radial to put up the best pylon times. Against run of the mill AVs Degen may be better due to their lower total HP pool making the -max hp more significant. However against anything with a pylon like health pool (see AVs with +maxhp or hardmode / trials) Reactive wins again, especially in teams where the -res is helping your team. Strictly speaking the cleanest answer requires you to know your DPS first. The more damage you do WITHOUT Reactive, the more valuable the -res becomes. So for builds doing sub 300 DPS it may be better to go degen. Both have stacking limits for team purposes so i can be worth to have both in actual content and swap to whichever your team has fewer of.

Fortunata - 1:40.6 - 509dps - Average - Hybrid On Best from this was 1:35 see linked video, 531.47dps. Is there a better Fortunata time out there? Build attached. This is my normal play build, so completely viable in endgame content. Musculature Core, Reactive Radial, Assault Radial. Acinus v3 - Arachnos Fortunata.mbd

In the mission 'Find Information on David Hazen' which is also called 'Part Two: Foundations' for Mu'Vorkan in Dark Astoria. After clearing the bank and being transported inside Mot it seems to start a timer, about 5 minutes or so, before the screen freezes. The game continues to work, audio plays and i can use powers or even interact with UI elements but it all has to be done blind as the screen stays on the frame it locked up at. The only solution is restarting the game. I've verified the game files and even tried a fresh install. Can provide any tests or diagnostic data like a dxdiag at request. Edit: Forgot to include, this occurs on both the normal and diag client. I don't think the diag client is catching it as such, but hopefully I'm wrong.

Would you be willing to share this build? Also curious how you have a double stack of Hasten for the first 1/3 of the run or so. I know it doesn't stack but was this on the beta server using the QA powers?

A texture issue with blood widow legs for VEATs and a clipping issue on flared skirt when using SitChair1

And yeah this is my kicker, losing Ignite sucks because its a unique power among blasts and especially in AR. But the fact that its being replaced by a boring as hell ST blast is just dirt in the wound.

I agree to a point, which is why i like them responding to different amounts of afraid. Like the AV is a powerful villian, he/she should be willing to walk through a bit of fire to 'prove a point' But honestly expanding that mechanic to be different per AV to reflect what they value, intimidation vs safety, would be fun, but a wholly different ask.

Assuming CoD is up to date, 1.0 https://cod.uberguy.net./html/power.html?power=sentinel_ranged.psychic_blast.scramble_thoughts&at=sentinel

Taunt overrides Affraid (lets not confine ourselves to solo play), and just reducing Affraid values could also work to make the set more useful. Honestly Its a little silly that AVs run from crap like caltrops. Big bad AV should shrug off some patchs and only run where theres several layers imo

This isn't an either or, the existing powers can be made to not suck, instead they are being replaced, that's the problem. And I can assure you the other changes in the set are doing a lot more for AR's rise into being middling, rather than bottom of the barrel than ignite becoming a dot with a DPA roughly on par with the buffed attacks, this leaves AR with five high DPA ST usable attacks, when most sets are more than capable of performing well with three. Ignition is just another ST attack in a set with plenty of that. No one is saying AR doesn't need buffs, and I have no problems ditching beanbag, but Ignite doesn't need to be turned into a half baked Sentinal clone to make the set good. We can have our cake and eat it too with a tiny bit more effort.

2.5 years on i think its about time i made this post. SG Name: Invictus Academy RP/RP Friendly: Yes Theme/Era: Collegiate Education/Training Redside/Blueside: Blue Recruitment Message: Invictus Academy, is a trade school dedicated to the superpowered industries of Paragon. Whether its mutant physiology, teleportation theory, or the ever popular hero program, Invictus has everything you need for a career in the most important functions of the city of heroes. Invictus recognizes that many students will have a busy life schedule and will even be splitting their time between the Academy and a traditional collage. As such Invictus provides a flexible schedule with regular classes and plenty of one on one time with many of the greatest minds in their respective fields. Invictus Academy promises to work with any individual to help them achieve their goals and overcome any obstacle no matter how unique or challenging. With so many reasons to join, why haven't you enrolled!? ((Information provided in the discord under the rules and about section. Friendly community willing to answer any questions. No application process, just come on in and join the fun. We are always looking for new members especially those interested in producing content for the group and community.)) Discord: https://discord.gg/6F4EanqvpA

Hey sorry I haven't been on the forums for a bit, IRL got messy. That is on my goals list for this project, I just haven't prioritized it because things like Alpha get super messy and may need structural changes. If I recall I don't even have the regeneration cap implemented at this time, which Rebirth Radial in conjunction with Instant Healing will actually let you hit, just as an example. It's on the to do list though.

Sorry I've been inactive on the forums due to work. At a glance you are over invested in 6 sets, which is holding you back, particularly with the Scrapper ATOs. Endurance looks fine, but i generally am able to afford to skip Quick Recovery. Are you going for maximum stability or maximum potential? This matters because Regen is inherently an unstable set, depending on player awareness and timing to use its defensives correctly. You can lean into this with lots of pool power defensives added in, or try to compensate with pool toggles to try and get a much lower performance that requires less attention. Also incarnates can make a significant difference, notably Ageless Radial as regen gets absolutely bodied by debuffs.

i never cared much about runners personally, i generally have a ranged attack or two, or just accept that they will come back later. An aside: I've got that comparison calculator roughed out just need to get the formulas sorted, but forgoet today is a production push at work so im working late.

Sorry for double post, page moved on me. It really does, but way back in the day (the first few powers have not changed in damn near forever) it was pretty hellish. Possibly, the thing id the debuffs stack so much harder and faster there you need to open with MoG to accomplish it and even then it could collapse out from under you. Im not saying SR is in a good spot, it is way better than it used to be but anecdotally it seems to still underperform when pressed IMO. However unlike regen thats purely a feel, as i havent put much effort into the set. Neither would I, but I also wouldn't disregard those results. Its just one of several pieces of circumstantial evidence. like we are doing now. I'm not making a call for action, im arguing what i think should be done if and when the time comes. Im not going to say more until i can try this myself but i've soloed Posi on Kat/Regen Scrapper, and Brute is much more durable. If there are any other details id be interested what i should do to reproduce this. I mean that will ultimately skew things more in my favor but doing so is a bit difficult to accurately model without taking a lot of over time data. What ill probably do is include a field to add the debuff% and then have it auto apply the given sets debuff resistance to that.

Ill see if i can get time to put together a calculator for this tomarrow, will be useful to have some of this done already for my other projects. On Brute? I don't want to be a dick but my man.... how???

Well said

No, I imagine you did not run into any difficulties at level 41 or level 50 on one set with an extremely high defense debuff resist and another with both mixed defense methods (resist, defense, and regeneration) and moderate debuff resists to everything except -end/-recovery. As I said, debuffs are uncommon and of modest magnitude throughout most of the leveling experience. This is because debuffs are, in many ways, the club used to bat down high end builds in end game content. If you can give an example of how debuff resistance added to regen would somehow make it behave notably different in low level content, you will have an argument here. If your primary concern is the 1-50 level grind, that's all well and good but none of what I'm suggesting has significant impact on that. Regen is great while leveling, well, past level 17, that climb to your mez protection is rough. We can tweak 1-50 scaling till we are blue in the face, powers are very much capable of being scaled along the path to solve any problems that would come up, and again I chose debuffs resistance partly because of its low impact on anything but the content where Regen falls abnormally short. ITF is one example where Regen collapses, but only one. I'd KILL for 15 seconds of survival against the first defense smack without having to rely on my survival tools or kiting. 70-80% chance to be hit is the norm in there for a Regener. DDR might not be the right answer, i know its not on brand, as the set has no +defense powers, and i have no problem with any one debuff remaining nightmareish. As I said, ITF is but one example, there are many. You say i can 'talk about anything i want' but that doesn't hold much water when your counter argument is 'but what do the devs want?'. Yer gonna have to ask them dude, I'm just a shitter on the Scrapper forum who spends an unhealthy amount of time optimizing the regen set. We CAN operate under the assumption that the average performance of armors ARE within scope, because if they aren't then when the great armor pass comes they will all be moved and, generally, will probably remain in their same relative position to each other, probably. If we cant? Then your counter point here amounts to "we don't know what the devs want so we cant speculate" which is not an argument but a shutdown of the discussion. I'd need to dig to pull up some of data that was shared in the past regarding this however I'd highlight that when the community was asked to vote on what the devs should focus on a couple years ago, new endgame content won out hard. Anecdotally however, I rarely see people put down a character before vetlevel 25, most atleast get to around 50 where they get T4 incarnates. Given the xp scale of Vetlevels, and the common rate at which people get farmed to 50 id argue that yeah that anecdote, how ever little a data point it is, does point toward the claim people spend more time at 50. Honestly I find the people who actively enjoy the 1-50 leveling experience to be in the minority, but thats again anecdote, ill have to get back to you after digging up the data points. I mean its entirely likely this very logic is why the live devs left balance in the state it is. After all each balance issue only effects a small portion of the player base, a potion that shrinks every month because of said problem. Add on the pressures the live devs had to actually make money and yeah. And again just because an issue might be small does not make it unworthy of discussion. This kind of thinking locks things in place and keeps old aches and pains around even when they may be very easy to fix. see below I feel as if you generalize such to include myself. If that is not the case then ignore me here. If it is, then I want to highlight that every single time I have brought up outside benefits of inspirations, pool powers, temp powers, and party buffs, i have specifically stated that Regeneration benefits MORE from these than other armors. I am happy to run the math here to prove this point. Powersets must be considered in full context, naked can give you a basis, but it isn't at all accurate to how the game is played. If a set does poorly naked, its worth looking at how it does with a few pool powers and comparing that performance growth relative to other 'strong' sets.

I don't represent others, so whatever they are arguing is not my argument, please do not mix them. I defined what I considered the kinds of situations that cause the issue and it is not this. I also don't expect Regen to solo +4x8 ITFs or AVs, even though it absolutely can. When I make my comparisons its meant to be relative to other armor sets. If you believe EVERYONE should be nerfed? Or that there should be more content that isn't solo able by a Scrapper? Totally understand, but that has nothing to do with Regen specifically. If you believe that there needs to be some kind of publicly mandated standard handed down by the devs to have such a discussion, then we fundamentally disagree. Do we want to discuss it in the context of each piece of content as equal or do you want to weigh it based on what content is done the most? Is that even a relevant discussion? I understand if you are trying to make sure any discussion is well framed but at some point you are asking for so much specific and hard to quantify information about things that are, relatively intuitive for most people, that it feels more like moving the goal posts. Which I'm not accusing you of, it is just frustrating to repeatedly have to address the question of "but is that actually common enough to matter". If I didn't feel it was, and you didn't feel it wasn't, we wouldn't be having a debate. So now, if we want to continue this we have to start hashing out very specific terms and definitions that we can agree on point by point from the ground up. This is painfully true, even if you personally feel I fall on one side or the other. The set, mathematically, CAN be, the third most durable in the game naked, and much more when factoring in outside buffs. But that's not how it plays in the hands of the average player. I believe there should be some effort to resolve that so that the set is accessible and doesn't feel garbage to many of its detractors (cant please everyone i know) without reducing its potential and room for personal performance.