Vanden

Agreed, but with that whole new powerset in testing I think we might have over a month left to go...

Here are the new total enhancement values at 50 for the latest build, after ED: Synapse's Shock Accuracy: 42.4% Damage: 68.9% Recharge: 73.8% End Cost: 21.2% End Mod: 91.8% Power Transfer Accuracy: 39.7% Damage: 89.9% Recharge: 45% End Cost: 39.7% End Mod: 68.9% Preemptive Optimization Accuracy: 68.9% Recharge: 91.8% End Cost: 68.9% End Mod: 97.5% Bombardment Accuracy: 61% Damage: 96.3% Recharge: 85.7% End Cost: 39.7% Artillery Accuracy: 68.9% Damage: 95.1% Recharge: 88.1% End Cost: 47.7% Range: 25.5%

I don’t think we have anything to really worry about; the reason the command is still usable all these months later is because they’re not going to shut it off before they come up with some solutions to the reasons people latched onto the command in the first place.

You should call him Mr. Name until you know him better.

This post is pretty strawman-ish... I'm not saying that endurance issues should just go away, I certainly never said any of my own characters have endurance problems, and you can't find a quote from me in this thread that says that without maliciously paraphrasing it. I'm saying that recovery set bonuses are so small and weak as to be non-factors. Endurance management is meant to be a part of the game, and my proposed change only makes it so that leveraging those set bonuses becomes an actual, meaningful tool players have to work towards that goal.

I've seen many posts about how posters in this thread have their endurance issues solved, but nothing that explains how more +Recovery would really unbalance the game. If you get more and more Recovery, all that happens is eventually you stop running out of endurance. "Doesn't run out of endurance" is basically just a baseline expectation for any endgame build, and more Recovery past the point where your character achieves that doesn't really do anything at all. Recovery is like Accuracy in that way. And running out of endurance just isn't fun. Cryptic used a lot of lessons they learned from CoH when they made Champions Online, and just like they designed a complicated system of dodging and damage reduction where your attacks never actually miss because players hated their attacks missing, they also built their combat system so that you could never actually run out of endurance, because players hate running out of endurance.

Every sleep which does damage, which is most of them. It's definitely very unfortunate. The interface procs are global procs which add their effects to most/all attacks that can slot damage enhancements.

I'd still prefer the S/L/Melee defense to the E/Ne resist, but as long as the Recharge stays in the fifth slot I'm pretty happy.

I'm happy to debate the merits of my suggestion or the value of existing +Recovery set bonuses, but I'm gonna take a pass on arguing semantics.

Cute, but I wasn't the one who brought up toggles to begin with.

OF is unique and doesn't give any global recharge at all, and not everyone hits high levels of global recharge. Most of my characters end up with around 30-50%. Right now Bombardment's in a good place, where you sacrifice some minor global set bonuses in exchange for better enhancement of the power you put it in, compared to Positron's Blast.

Bombardment offers 60% more recharge in the power than Positron's Blast. The way I see it, why would you ever slot Positron's Blast?

Not a fan of this option; Recharge is much more desirable to a wider variety of builds than a resistance bonus, so the set loses a lot of flexibility by putting the recharge in the sixth slot. In particular, it's hard on anyone using Energy Torrent or Explosive Blast, or any AoE Arachnos Mace blasts, since those powers basically have a Sudden Acceleration tax you have to pay, so the only way to still get a recharge bonus out of them would be to use the crappy Positron's Blast, or splurge on Ragnarok.

I missed @The Curator floating that option, otherwise I would've expressed my support for it.

Yeah, it varies from power to power and often changes based on the target's rank. I don't think it could be presented as a monitor-able attribute in a way that would give meaningful data.

One thing I've noticed, from making the charts in the link in my sig, and from the ongoing thread about +Recovery set bonuses, is that when it comes to thinking about +Recovery and the endurance costs from toggles, Endurance per Minute is way better than Endurance per Second. Our base Recovery rate is 100 end/min, for example. The same number in end/sec is 1.66 repeating. I think most of us would have an easier time wrapping our heads around the first number. Once you realize that 100 end/min is the base, basically all +Recovery effects become much easier to understand. For example, you probably know that Stamina is a 25% Recovery buff, but how much endurance is that actually? You can arrive at 25 end/min without even having to think, but to get .4166 end/sec you either need to just memorize the number or look it up every time you need it. For toggles, switching to end/min would be a great help as well. The in-game numbers only go to two decimal places, which I guarantee you results in problems from rounding the numbers, especially since in issue 6 all endurance costs were reduced by 13% (a prime number! 😨), to make up for the loss of six-slotted stamina. In fact, I can't say with confidence that I actually know the true end/min costs of toggles, because of the possibility of those rounding errors. So tl;dr, Endurance per Minute is superior to Endurance per Second because it's easier to wrap your head around, easier to do math with, and more accurate. End/Min are the units I'd like to see my Real Number endurance figures presented in.

Banes really do need defense debuff resistance.

Combat Jumping is not a good example of a cheap toggle; it's a known major outlier. A typical toggle is more like .21 End/sec, and an expensive toggle could be as high as .52 End/sec, like Dispersion Bubble. To say End management options from IOs are sufficient is just myopic. They are not. If the IO sets you want to slot don't have good endurance values, and you didn't choose power sets with endurance management powers, you have no real options. Global Endurance cost reduction bonuses are present in all of four enhancement sets, and sets with +Max End are relegated to unpopular sets in niche categories or that don't go to 50, and the majority require four-slot investments. +Recovery bonuses are the only End management set bonus options with presence in a variety of popular sets. Let's do another comparison, this time to Accuracy set bonuses. To hit a +3 enemy 95% of the time, a typical attack needs ~100% accuracy enhancement. An average accuracy slotting in a power is around 40-60%, which means set bonuses would need to be around 60-40% to make up the difference. This is quite achievable. As it happens, 40% +Recovery would also be a good, noticeable amount of +Recovery; it's around what you get from slightly underslotted Stamina, or both +Recovery uniques together with a Performance Shifter. These two types of set bonuses, with roughly equal value to a build at similar numbers, have vastly different numbers in set bonuses. The smallest Accuracy set bonus is 3%, and the second smallest Accuracy set bonus is 5%, already bigger than the largest Recovery set bonus. With my proposed 2.5 multiplier to the current Recovery set bonuses, they would still be smaller than the equivalent Accuracy bonuses at all levels, which should illustrate both that my proposal is not as major as it may seem, and that the current values are laughably weak.

I'd really like to keep the +Range bonus in Bombardment. I don't see why More Dakka (née Shrapnel) couldn't have a +Range set bonus in addition to Bombardment, rather than instead of.

I'm comparing the single largest possible +Recovery bonus to only one power with average end reduction slotting and a laughably low rate of usage and the set bonuses are already coming out looking bad. When you start to factor in that you're going to be using that example power way more than twice a minute, and using numerous other powers as well, probably with their own endurance reduction enhancements, it's obvious that the +Recovery set bonuses can't even hope to compare. Take your Grav/Time Controller: their set bonuses give that Controller an extra ~12.5 endurance every minute. How much End do you think your Controller spends in a minute? How much End do you think has been saved from slotting endurance reduction? Do you think either is anywhere close to 12.5 end? Because I don't.

Let me try to put into perspective how weak the bonuses are right now. The Ultimate +Recovery bonus, the largest one, is a 4% increase to Recovery rates. That works out to an extra 4 endurance generated every minute. A typical t2 blast attack like Power Blast costs 8.53 endurance to use. If you slot a single endurance cost SO into that power, bringing it down to 6.4 endurance cost, and use that power only twice per minute, you've already improved your endurance economy more than the best single +Recovery set bonus.

Too smol

Okay but to be fair it would be hard to make a targeted AoE set that is good while not being better than anything already available

So they're worth having.

+Recovery set bonuses suck. There, I said it. Why are they so weak? I do not know. The "Ultimate" level +Recovery set bonus is a 4% increase in Recovery, which is less than half of what you get putting a single SO into Stamina. That's the best one there is, and it makes me pinch my nose and go "pee-yew!" So how about we just buff them? Current (%) Proposed (%) Tiny 1 2.5 Small 1.5 3.75 Moderate 2 5 Large 2.5 6.25 Huge 3 7.5 Gargantuan 3.5 8.75 Ultimate 4 10 My proposal is to increase them to 2.5x their current strength. I arrived at this number by doing a quick look at all my fully-IOed characters and seeing that all their +Recovery bonuses usually added up to less than the Numina unique is worth. Maybe this will help give IO options for end management that isn't "hope the sets you need to six-slot come with good end reduction numbers."