Luminara

That's when someone bumps the server rack and all of the Internets spill out.

They're still working on the "wife, two kids and being out of shape" code. Patience, Snarkhopper.

That's because your right hand is in the air. You're feeling left.

http://i.imgur.com/JcspoU2.jpg

"Have you tried pulling it out, blowing on it, putting it back in, jiggling it, smacking it and shaking it?"

The hardware is in Canada. Maybe there's something wrong with Canada.

This? That's a revolver.

If they're powerful enough to defeat the person who defeated the global threat, they're probably powerful enough to defeat the global threat, too.

The scaling Resistance buff is functioning correctly without additional interaction. Only the +Regen and +Recovery seem to be failing to activate unless Efficient or Evolving is turned off and back on.

Oh, also, for thoroughness, toggling Evolving Armor off and on while Efficient Adaptation is active also works. Since this seems to be an issue with Evolving Armor, rather than Efficient Adaptation, I'm revising the thread title.

Still more testing: Inexhaustible, Hardened Carapace and Ablative Carapace all respond to Efficient Adaptation correctly without requiring the Adaptation to be cycled. Evolving Armor is the only one not working correctly (so far, only level 22).

That was the point I was making. If one just looks at the different versions of the attack and compares the archetype scalars, that's the impression it gives, that the blaster version is using a higher than normal ranged damage scalar. Or, from the other perspective, that the sentinel version is using a lower ranged damage scalar than the listed 0.95. And the base values and scales aren't exactly front and center in any of the sources, nor do as many people enjoy playing with the numbers as we do, which makes it even more unintuitive. The relevant information isn't presented as clearly or neatly as it could or should be.

Further testing: Logged in, Efficient was still toggled on, as is normal. Moved to the nearest critters, no change in Regeneration or Recovery. Toggled Efficient off and on, Evolving Armor began buffing Regeneration and Recovery as expected. Accepted a mission, entered mission door, moved to the nearest spawn... no change in Regeneration or Recovery. Toggling Efficient off and on had the same effect as outdoors, Evolving Armor's Regen/Recovery buffs began functioning. Third test, exited mission, went to nearest critters, exactly the same behavior as described in the first post and the two previous paragraphs. Had to cycle Efficient to get Evolving's buff working. One difference, though, was that Evolving's buff was intermittent this time. It would show up in the combat attributes, then disappear. It kept doing that until I cycled Efficient yet again, at which point it settled down. I queued Efficient while it was still recharging on this test, though I can't see that making it behave so oddly. Looks like Efficient has to be turned off and on again every time the character zones, which includes logging in, in order for Evolving to register that it's active.

Trying out a Savage/Bio scrapper, playing in Faultline. Was about to log out, but decided to verify the numbers against Mids'. Stood in the middle of three Clockwork and watched the combat attributes window for a while, waiting to see Evolving Armor's Regeneration and Recovery buffs apply. Both relevant toggles are active, no buff to Regeneration or Recovery. As an afterthought, I killed Efficient Adaptation, then toggled it back on. Regeneration and Recovery buffs evident, Evolving Armor now shown in the window.

This is affecting Lightning Rod, too. The teleport functions, but nothing takes a single point of damage. 72% global +Accuracy and 5/6 Armageddon in Lightning Rod, critters are +0 or +1 to the character, so we're not talking about horrendous slotting or an insane miss streak.

I said Snap Shot.

As I noted, they were generalized, not standardized. Some have higher recharge times, others don't. Snap Shot is an excellent example of the discrepancy. The recharge time, animation time and endurance cost are all identical on all three archetypes, but blaster Snap Shot's damage indicates that it's at scale ~1.39, whereas sentinel is at the correct 0.95, and defender at 0.65. If the player looked at blaster Snap Shot damage and presumed it was using the expected 1.125 scalar, it would make it seem as though both sentinel and defender Snap Shot were markedly below their presumed scalar values.

They're not saying there's nothing wrong with them, Snarkums. Most of us agree that sentinels aren't all sunshine and roses. They're saying that... you're misinterpreting the damage on the attacks. For example, Aimed Shot for defenders deals 36.15 damage. For sentinels, it deals 52.83 damage. 36.15/0.65=55.62, which is the base value of Aimed Shot. 55.62*0.95=52.83. Now, the blaster ranged damage scalar indicates that Aimed Shot should be dealing 62.57 damage, and, in fact, it did, a long time ago. But Paragon did a pass across all blaster T1 and T2 primaries when they revamped Defiance to allow blasters to use those two attacks while mezzed, resulting in a generalization of all T1 and T2 attacks. They're not all identical, but most of them deal roughly the same damage, have the same recharge times and endurance costs, etc. So you can't make an accurate assessment of sentinel T1 and T2 attacks by comparing them to blaster attacks. Blaster T1/T2 attacks are just leagues ahead of where they would otherwise be, if they stuck to the standard formulae. If you look at other attacks, you'll see that the base damage and scalar values are more properly represented. Blazing Arrow, for instance. Blaster: 161.7 ; sentinel: 136.6 ; defender: 93.44. All of those perfectly reflect the base damage of the attack and the relevant ranged damage scalar. And, frankly, a small increase to the scalar portion really isn't going to make them rock your world. Increasing the sentinel ranged damage scalar to 1.00 would only improve Blazing Arrow to 143.75. It's just not going to be appreciable. This is where sentinels are, in regard to damage. They're functioning at the set scalar value, but some blaster attacks are operating at significantly higher than their appropriate scalar value, and that's skewing your perception.

That wasn't the point that I made. You're deliberately obfuscating the facts. Again. If you can't support your argument otherwise, you can't support your argument at all. Defenders aren't healers. They never were. I don't take comments like that on face value. It reeks of hyperbole. And given that I didn't encounter this kind of behavior, and I was playing some very strange defender builds, teaming frequently in those days and spending time on seven different servers, that alone provides evidence that it was not, in fact, the norm, nor even somewhat common. Being mentally ill myself, I'm the last person on the planet who would deliberately attempt to fuck with someone else's mental state or make them question reality. Asking for proof isn't gaslighting. Refuting anecdote with anecdote isn't gaslighting. Insisting that there was a deliberate campaign to force every defender into a healer role, providing not a single iota of proof of said campaign and saying, "You'll just have to take my word for it" when asked for evidence, that's gaslighting. Pot, kettle, black.

T1 defender primaries are available at level 1 as controller secondaries. Of the entire roster of defender primaries which both contain at least one healing power and which was available prior to I5, that only leaves Storm with a healing power unavailable to controllers at level 1. Even if you were to constrain the argument to Empathy, Heal Other is available to controllers at level 2, Absorb Pain at level 4, representing an availability differential of 2 levels (Absorb Pain is available at level 2 for defenders) for controllers to function as "healers" at the exact same efficiency and strength as defenders when the game was released. Not really a foundation for proclaiming a significant advantage, even in that era, when it was "harder" to level. Sure, if you blatantly ignore that the development team refuted that notion, that argument could be supported. Ah. Well, in that case, my hearsay and anecdote counters your hearsay and anecdote, and the information I've provided, and which can be verified both on the wiki and in the Wayback Machine, has certainly proven your disinformation to be what it is, so it doesn't appear you have any basis for your assertion. Defenders aren't healers. They never were.

Heal scalars (ranged and melee) for defenders and controllers were identical until Issue 3. Vigilance wasn't added until after Issue 5, and Cryptic's response to our objection to an endurance discount tied to team health, which we disliked because a) it did nothing for us when solo, unlike every other inherent, and b) it offered no tangible effect for primaries like Force Field and Trick Arrows, was "Blast more.", thus directly informing us that the inherent was not, in fact, intended to be a "healer bonus". Never happened to me. Never happened to anyone I played with. Wasn't a common complaint on the old forums (i double-checked, just to be certain my memory wasn't failing me). Can you support that assertion, that non-healing defenders were "often rejected by teams" with any evidence (independently conducted poll with a large sample size, or records of in-game metrics, or any unbiased collection of data indicating a trend)?