Sanguinesun

1. Use mids or the ptr server to test out(as you can spawn any IO and build to 50 for free) to find potential improved builds for your play style. Lots of bonuses from sets for helping endurance management either in recovery boosting or endurance discounting. Just only doing general IO's for end redux isn't as effective as what can be garnered through set use. 2. Incarnates fully done(part of the build stuff in point 1 though really. 3. Improve potential management of your toggles. You dont need to necessarily run all toggles all the time depending on what you've got going. Also be mindful to manage your power use otherwise. 4. Beyond such general things as a whole, we cannot give you specific advice due to your not providing specific build information from which to give you feedback. Every character is different and with different play goals so its really impossible to give much more specific help.

Defense is a get hit or dont get hit. Resistance is a get hit but have the damage reduced due to your resistance values. You needs for either/both really depend strongly on what content you're choosing to play, what AT you're playing, and what power sets choices, etc etc etc. So saying defense equals resistance isnt an accurate way to look at it, really. If you are just casually playing and not doing the high end starred content for example, are not doing tanking duties, and you're on a team, then worrying on defense and resistances is not necessarily going to be something of merit to bother with. However if the above is not the case then it becomes more prudent to hit the specific AT forum subsection and present your build with incarnate choices and your specific play goals to actually then start to garner feedback related to such things in regards to your defense and resistance desires.

Evidence is also compelling that most of the player base doesnt pedestal it either.

Then if this is your basis for character building, anything is ok. You're attempting to blur between statistics regarding min/max performance and your subjective based wants regarding concepts. If you want to play anything, do so. Just accept that not every build of ever AT is going to be variably effective be it on a team or solo, however at the very least on teams, there is a better chance to mitigate(as that was part of the original game development design) combinations that are less effective than others. Expectations regarding soloing then must accept set shortcoming and it is the user's responsibility to find ways around them. This is also not covering of course additional variables within choices such as enhancements, power choices in the sets, use of boosters, what mob groups you're fighting which may be strong or weak against your set combo etc. Point all being. If you want to min/max, then pick well cited min/max'd sets. If you want to build by concept, then do what floats your boat as if its in the game, you can build it and get it to 50. But if you attempt to try to blur the lines between the two, then you're likely to find yourself frustrated. These sorts of threads crop up every so often over the years and the results remain the same. Take that for what its worth too in the context of things...

This will perpetually keep occurring. You're playing with people not bots. Things happen. However, just some people in groups too can be so incompatible with others on the team that said other members of the team prefer to move on to another activity or another team. Of course we do not know which is the case with your teams... perhaps.... As for your seeking fun elsewhere, that's up to you...

Guess what I'm going to state? Yep, still again no right way to defend the wrong thing.

And still no right way to defend the wrong there going on there.

No right way to inanely defend the wrong thing.

Or Joshua's realization at the end of War Games...

As I said in my other post. There are two, distinct, communities with HC: the ones who implement the decisions and the rest of the community. Years of this now have shown how its not going to change, that transparency is intentionally superficial, and worse. It should be changed but it wont change.

I thought spamming sg invites to people was a no no...

Its just a certain segment of devs that just want to put their mark on content more than much else. Warriors (like council et al before) didnt need revamps but its just in line with said mark making. The new zone concept and implementation is trying to create challenges due solely to the premise that someone feels the game needs more challenging content like with how the hardmodes were impolemented. That said: 1. Warriors(like the other groups before them) dont need a revamp and never did. 2. New zone is a convoluted and overly thought attempt to put yet another erroneous perception of challenge content into to the game. Like the hard modes before it, it's likely going to follow the same results after the novelty wears off. 3. Marine affinity. Its akin to how mcdonalds every so many months(or every month in some markets) takes their already currently made foods, switches around the combinations of them to make a new burger, wraps it in a new colored paper, and pushes the idea to people that its great. Its ok. That's about it. Im not saying its bad. It just that its ok. Likely could've been better had community input been sought during the conceptualization phase of course but that's not permitted with HC. 4. This "open" testing system is just an after-the-fact "check for bugs" only as usual. Community's input by this point matters little else because of the insular and non transparent system that exists that essentially has 2 communities instead of one. In follow up then: Let's be clear, this is intending to present challenge first and engagement second. The backhanded "some prefer less complex experiences" was a pretty similar denunciation against the criticisms that occurred when Hardmodes were implemented and under the perception that this is what the community wants when it was just then and still now, a niche set of the player base that bothered/bothers with it after the novelty of it wears off. Yes, it isn't casual content. That in itself means the majority of the player base wont engage with it. If the priority was truly engagement as you allege, then I think the evidence is compelling that it wouldnt have resulted in this. I get there is also this admitted testing the waters so to speak with "its pioneering a lot of new approaches to things"; and it would be interesting if the community as a whole were more aware of where that may be transparently heading... This also implies that this was first about the mechanics or this challenge-based "engagement", and that how such fits in with game otherwise was/is an afterthought. That's very much a shame. Story/lore shouldn't have to be "snuck in". Again this really is after-the-fact bug testing only and they expressed their reasons for disinterest plainly. Asking them, "what sort of things would interest you enough to try them on a beta" wouldnt have to be asked if we had an open development system that engaged the community as a whole from the start of the process....

Non double exp default server but running the double exp vendor buff, and not power leveling but just running task force and other team content= Between 10-25 hours of play time. Variables tend to be how readily groups get formed and what content is being done, days of the week done etc. Non double exp default server and without the double xp vendor buff= between a third to double more than the above in team content. If its non team content(solo) then considerably longer. Power leveling fastest (reunion or indom)= 4-5 hours with double exp booster. Power leveling on a non default double exp server= 7ish hours or less.

Dont you think you're rather churlishly overreacting there? They complimented your efforts and you respond by lobbing names and insults at them, all because of a forum emoticon of a response by someone else. Why diminish your efforts with such silliness?

Use common sense. Otherwise if you fork around, you're gonna find out.

As I tried to briefly explain before, the differences between a brute and a tank in terms of the most exp-inf per hour still favor a tank but because the differences in inf-exp/hr are rather small (-*-in farmer terms-*-) a brute is just as fine, especially if one already had brutes previously and fully set up for farming prior to both the 2019-2022 range of changes (brute fury nerf, tank damage buff, AOE targets numbers, Aggro changes, -def to fire swords and cascade, AE mission mob powers changes with regards to exp capabilities, and some other things). To someone new to farming who hyper focuses then on min/max from toon to mission to influence per hour etc, and wants just wants a relative bottom line(emphasis on relative), then yes, a smashing lethal farming tank with one of those builds one finds in the guides WITH the proper missions(missions are equally important that some ignore the importance of) would be of merit for their consideration. This is for both Active and AFK toons built for farming(as those who are extremely hyper focused on farming for influence will run 3 accounts for farming simultaneously) (1 active and 2 afk). Additionally, if someone is focused for leveling alts for their primary account, some opt to go to reunion or indom with an active tank on a second or third account, group then an alt from their primary account, and then power level the toon in 4-6 hours on one of those servers(due to the default double exp for the server due to low pop and the start vendor xp buff with it), then transfer (as you get 5 free xfers a week) to some other server they more likely play on(ie excel or everlasting). But again there are -many- brute farm, many who fire farm (Id argue they're still the most common vs S/L) there are many that do not use the more optimal melees opting instead for staff, SS etc, and there are yes even NON Tank/brute farmers that farm (there's been a blapper even who I've seen(though not recently) but as recent as a few months ago as I suspect they play on occassion vs consistently) fire farm. The less min/max optioned, then of course the less infl/xp per hour earned but still there is inf/xp per hour they earn sufficiently to satisfy their wants. So as I said in my other post, its the driver's choice(ie the player's choice) as people will either push to min/max, challenge themselves to find something else to use that they think they can drive better, or just simply have their own reasons otherwise to the contrary. So your question Battlewraith being answered wholly depends on you.

Final Battle of Marvel's End Game pretty well shows to me how you can justify any lore-ish summoning. You had everything from magic to tech summoning things to fight. In other words, the justifications/explanations are only limited by your creativity.

In feedback seen with changes post said changes, typically a "no" isnt commonly given without explanations why. Lack of transparency and filtering "testing/testers" tends to groom a sychophantic situation reinforcing an epistemic bubble of development. Then later only in cases of extreme criticism post implementation does it have the remote chance of being walked back and even then unlikely. In other words, the whole process is one in which most feedback that isnt congruent to the intent of dev's designs is essentially tossed.

This talk of things people will hate and rioting doesnt help the community, especially due to the lack of transparency. Its nonsense that a volunteer community run game has to even run testing in a closed and insular manner first, making a second "testing" open phase where feedback is not uncommonly derided; and then once live, making it implied that those that didnt participate in the testing have no right to criticism.

The people that maintain mids also have a discord. Perhaps ask for support there?

As you should know, how a toon "feels" varies as you level 1-50 and even post 50 too. Given how easy it is to level toons, I suggest simply leveling them both and deciding once 50 which has seemed to grow on you the most. Alternatively if you're unsure how they'd be to 50, hop on to the beta server . You can instant 50 a toon giving it all the best enhancements and stuff for free and then test it out on some missions of your choosing from there too. When it comes to concept toons, the driver(you) really are the subjective judge of what is going to work . That all said, I think too for your concept considerations, Bionics sentinel suggestion would be a more conceptual match for a deathstroke.

I recommend that you take your build to the beta server and try it out. You can instant 50 a toon and take all enhancements and things for free there allowing you to test any build you please. Then you can find specific AV missions to try it on that would give you an idea of its effectivity. Most cases most folks are taking down AV's on teams though so someone being an "av" killer is more or less really chalked up to being "just one of many" on the team doing the same for effectivity. Afterall, even a healer lobbing envenomed daggers bought from the S.T.A.R.T vendor is going to help effectively outside their healing for the team. 😛

Not a ridiculous question no but a loaded one because not every mission is the same and not every mm with varying primaries and secondaries can handle things the same. Its a very vague goal, really. If you're just looking for raw damage on paper, people will tell you taking /storm with primaries that have the multiple mob summons like necro, thugs etc for example.... however then you're not going to be very resilient and more team centric with others for your survival needs. Also, clearing fast is also relative. People will think for example that +4/8 fast clearing is the goal but for MM's that not necessarily the optimal consideration in all or many cases where a +3 is going to be more efficient because of survivability and capabilities (due to the pet level disparities to what you're fighting). You're essentially wanting a cookie cutter answer and like with -any- AT discussion section, there is no cookie cutter answer really to give because there are too many dynamic variables that have to (or arent able to) be accounted for. So consider more your specific play/post 50 goals, look over the mm section, take a build someone has or one you make yourself that you think matches closer those goals, then post and then let others give you feed back.

Im not sure anyone mentioned it but Incarnate-Hyrbid Support Core Embodiment's boosts -double- in strength for pets which is sometimes overlooked by some mms (dam/acc/def) and its of course stackable up to 5 times with other people who take support core embodiment. Often, people take other hybrids which can be fine but that doubling for pets is really often underesitmated.

Indeed. Typically, for most of the time for months now, it is cheaper to buy standard IO enhancements from the AH...... within certain level ranges..... than crafting them. Since IOI's % values never change, some opt to just simply use level 30 io's (or some 25 but the % value is lower than an SO really). The costs to constantly upgrade SO's over the course of leveling to 50 then is -much- more expensive for a player and it an unfortunately common way some folks lose considerable money. Then, at 50 if someone decides to play that toon beyond 50 and fully give the toon Set IO's etc, they can simply switch them out on a respec and then mail the 25's or 30's to their global account, thus recycling their use for another toon, saving even more money in the long run. However, if someone is deadset on only using SO's there's also another way to get them for relatively free by running AE missions for Architect rewards(tickets). SO's I believe are 75 tickets each which is pretty small when you can earn up lots a tickets in 1 run(capped at 1500 btw). This too can save money then. So for new players, I never recommend buying SOs or upgrading them as they're losing money in the long run.