Bopper

It's been awhile since i tested this on Beta so I could be mistaken, but I believe the recharge buff doesn't degrade based on number of targets hit, it degrades based on which jump the target is hit by. The initial target (lets call this the 1st jump) should get 100% of the effect (so 125% recharge). The targets hit by the 2nd jump gets 75% of the effect (93.75% recharge). All other targets get 50% of the effect (62.5% recharge).

Folks tend to forget accuracy. You have only a 5.5% chance of being hit by even con minions and lower. When you factor in rank accuracy mods and relative level accuracy mods, the end number is actually a bit higher. If we looked at a boss that is +4, you get: Chance to hit at softcap: 5% x 1.30 x 1.40 = 9.1% Chance to hit at 44.5%: 5.5% x 1.30 x 1.40 = 10.01% In this scenario, it becomes being hit 9 times out of 100 versus being 10 times out of 100. You might not notice much of a difference there, unless debuffs are at play.

All that being said...it doesn't really matter that much. If you can apply a to-hit debuff or a teammate runs maneuvers, you're set.

No, it doesn't round up. They will have a 5.5% to-hit chance (before accuracy is factored in). The difference between that and being softcapped (5% to-hit chance) means the enemies will hit you 10% more often.

Check my signature for the PPM Information guide. In there I have a link to MacSkull's list of Procs. His list also includes a proc calculator, so save the link.

No idea with Blasters. I find it's most appropriate to let Blasters be compared to Sentinels for their own flame war discussions haha. As for Stalkers, I believe their damage potential would rank higher than Scrappers (but that's more of a mechanics of crit/hide than just throwing AT mods and damage caps into it). Also, Stalkers would rank at the bottom for Survival potential.

That solution quite literally would only buff Tankers more.

yes, that works. Not familiar enough with what type of enemies are in there, but if you can run it with EBs and at saturation, great. Try not to set it so high that you're dying all the time, though. We want times to translate to DPS, not having to travel from the hospital. We already know Brutes are less survivable, don't need to incorporate that variable. The point is to isolate for damage only.

For what it's worth, using the Pylon as the metric is only good in terms of looking at single target DPS (and expectations in an AV fight). Throw in some clear speeds of farms with Elite Bosses (maybe the Brigg outdoor S/L farm, set to +2/x8). Throw in whatever procs your build can handle, and compare the clear speed alongside the pylon times.

If you can show evidence that in general tanks are doing more damage and/or clearing content faster than brutes, then I'll revisit the discussion of Tanks being overbuffed. As of now, I still see the same ranking as before. Scrappers do most damage, Tankers do most survival, and Brutes live in between both. That is an over-simplification, but nonetheless, if those rankings are still intact after all this analysis, then the sky isn't necessarily falling.

Scroll up, you'll see I made the same point about factoring in Fury. And i stand by my statement that all procs add the same value to all ATs. It is agnostic. The delta in DPS does not change, other than if you can slot more procs because of AT opportunity (at the same time, you can slot more mitigation procs for added survival, but I don't see anyone clamoring for that). Fact is, you can't balance around Procs. There is no way to assume how someone will slot for them. They are simply an added bonus that is treated the same for all ATs. Because of the ratio analysis (that everyone is hard up on) those procs will level off the ratios, but again does not change the delta. DPS is a two way street. If you only have enough DPS to match the enemy's regeneration, your enemy will never die. You add a smidgen more of DPS and now you have a net benefit that will cause the enemy to die. So we may have added only 1% of Damage in that scenario, but the time to kill decreased infinitely. So only looking at DPS in terms of ratios is not helpful. It does not directly translate to a ratio in kill speeds. Keep all this in mind.

Fair point. So in some ways it might be a wash in this instance. The % Damage increase for slotting a proc on a brute over an enhancement is superior but you are left with the lost slotting of survival.

I was simply showing that it requires hitting the cap for a Tanker without procs to hit 90% damage potential of a Brute. Less than caps, the disparity increases. Much like how a Brute has to reach the HP cap (and all other caps) to reach 90% survival potential of a Tank. Less than caps, the disparity increases. As for the comment on Brute sitting at same SO mitigation values as a scrapper, you're forgetting the higher base HP, the higher cap HP and higher cap Resistance. Can't only look at Defense when making a statement on survivability.

If we want to factor in Scrappers as well, we can. But the truth is obvious, you'll see the ranking of Damage potential to show: Scrapper > Brute > Tanker 5.625 (not including crits) > 5.25 (not completely factoring in Fury) > 4.75 (not factoring in AoE) And the ranking of Survival potential will show: Tanker > Brute > Scrapper 3534 HP > 3212.7 HP > 2409.5 HP (with 75% capped resists, but higher Regen limits if that means anything).

Ahhhh....you got sucked into my bait 🙂 Welcome to my fly trap. Now let's look at damage buffed only by enhancements (+100% for simple math). But let's give Brutes...what, 90% of their Fury...so 180% damage? Brute: 0.75 x 3.80 = 2.85 Tanker: 0.95 x 2.00 = 1.90 (66.67% of Brute)

I was paraphrasing. My memory of things said last year (last week...last second) is never good enough to offer up something verbatim. In a literal sense, I think looking at caps you get AT Damage Modifier x AT Damage Cap to get the following: Brute: 0.75 x 7.00 = 5.25 Tanker: 0.95 x 5.00 = 4.75 ( 90.5% of Brute ) For survival, they have same hard-cap resistance, same softcap defense, same regeneration cap, which leaves the difference in the HP caps. Tanker: 3534 Brute: 3212.7 (90.9% of Tanker) You can argue Proc Damage closes the gap, but that is only because Procs are AT-agnostic. They help everyone the same, and in doing so, percentage analysis will close all gaps. That's simply math. If you looked at X/Y and made a ratio analysis, then looked at (X+A)/(Y+A), the ratio will trend closer to 1.0 (closes the gap). But folks are misinterpretting that, as Procs are not the problem. Again, they help everyone the same. Your gap in DPS superiority has not changed. You will still do the same amount of DPS greater than a Tank. Also, some may argue that Procs benefit Brutes more than Tanks because of their lower AT modifier. When doing cost-benefit analysis, the difference between slotting a damage enhancement as opposed to a proc has the advantage going to tanks for the damage and to brutes for the proc. The real difference may come down to the inherents. Tanks can hit more enemies more easily with some of their powers. Brutes (as far as I know) get the full benefit of their Fury mechanic while exemplared. So each has their different advantages for different aspects of the game.

Correct. Toggles are basically click powers that are reapplied every couple of seconds and the duration of the effect lasts for those couple of seconds. When you use Scorpion Shield and cast Power Boost, the next tick from Scorpion Shield will be buffed and each tick after that will be buffed the same way, until the effects of Power Boost runs out.

Thanks, I didnt see any follow up from them. I wonder if they misspoke (lots of folks mix up saying degenerative and diamagnetic), or if they thought the extra 60% regen debuff paired with his longbow was necessary. There is an inverse proportion that comes with debuffing regeneration, so not sure if they liked the amount the Iongbow gave and just wanted to squeeze a little more towards capping the regen debuff. If anyone knows longbows numbers, I could show what I mean on that. But basically it would be similar to how getting close to softcap/hardcap becomes exponentially stronger, that regen period grows and grows.

Nope. Just replying to your comments with counter points. I never took offense to anything you said. You said what's wrong about an equivalent 90 DPS in regards to a suggestion of making regeneration debuff 10x stronger. I answered. We actually took our discussion offline to not bombard this thread with talks of Diamagnetic. I never dismissed his idea, though. I dismissed buffing it as high as he suggested. FWIW, he liked the idea of using partial unresistible debuffs. There was no intention to quantify it. It's to remind you that it provides something else in addition to the hypothetical 90 DPS version of regeneration debuff. It is mostly arbitrary, but yes, having 20% to-hit debuffs applied when at max stacks is significant. Even if resisted by 85%, it gives you and the team the equivalent of a Steadfast Protection relative to the debuffed enemy. If not resisted, it gives you the equivalent of an enhanced Defender's Farsight. That's why I brought up the percentages (100/50 vs 75/25), to highlight the fact you can more reliably keep both buffs up on Diamagnetic than you can on Degenerative. Did you think I was referring to any of the secondary effects of Lingering Radiation when I made that comparison? I don't know why you're choosing to use logical fallacy as an argumentative technique, but if it helps to be explicit, my comment on 20% stronger than lingering radiation was in reference to 600% regeneration debuff is 20% stronger than 500% regeneration debuff. No to-hit debuffs and no snare effects were used in that calculation. Not sure what your exact question is here. Are we talking for solo AV hunting, or fighting AVs in teams (assumimg other teammates also have interface procs)? The answer is yes to both. Keep in mind, I also take other interface procs and swap them in and out as necessary. But specific to your AV example, yes, I would use my proposed Diamagnetic in an AV fight. I actually have not seen this. Can you point me to someone on the forums who has made this claim? I'm curious to see their reason and the context they were using. Eh...it's not that bad. But you'd be taking it more for the tohit debuff than relying on it for regeneration debuffs. This interface might be geared more towards support characters, in particular low DPS characters. For them, the added survivability from to-hit debuffs along with not letting the enemy regenerate as quickly can be rather useful in specific scenarios.

You are using the strongest giant killer interface proc as a baseline then nearly doubling that performance with your proposal. So we're going from one OP interface to a more OP interface? Let's also recap the suggestion. 150% regen debuff per stack. That caps at 600% regeneration debuff. As far as I know, there's only one power in the game that does more than that, and we're going to give that to anybody that's level 50? Two other things you're not factoring in. Degenerative's other half is a DoT, so some of that 30-50 DPS you quoted earlier is coming from that, thus making the entire contributions (both halves) of the interface proc total that 30-50 DPS. The other part you haven't factored in is the fact Degenerative is a 75%/25% proc, whereas Diamagnetic is a 100%/50% proc. So yes, it is OP to turn degenerative into a 20% stronger version of a Defender's Lingering Radiation.

Yes it would. A player able to single handedly cause an AV to have their regeneration ticks go from a base of 15s to 150s because of a lone interface proc is too powerful. It's true the regeneration debuff half of Diamagnetic is not particularly useful, but the To-Hit debuff is...atleast for standard enemies. So it does retain use, although it's one that is not nearly as strong as other options. If there is a tweak worth pursuing, you could look to make a portion of the regen debuff unresistible. Of the 15% per stack it does now, you could make 5% unresistible while the other 10% remains as is. That would result is a cap (4 stacks) of 20% unresistible regeneration debuff plus 40% resistable regeneration debuff. Against an AV with 85% resistance, that would result in a total of 26% regeneration debuff. That's powerful without being over-powered.

Entire duration.

That would be REALLY powerful against an AV. Dropping an AVs regen from 100% down to 10% with just interface procs would be a bit much. You might be able to get a buff to 20%. That would cap at 80% against normal enemies, and 12% against lvl 50 AVs.

Pretty much. The base regen of typical enemies (minions-EBs) is already large enough that the die before their regen matters. And the other enemies (GM/AV/Heroes) resist the debuff ~85%. So yeah... stacking 2.25% regen debuffs is probably not gonna be impressive.

Its a common reason for not taking it. No DoT, and the benefits are useful mainly against the enemies that easily resist it. Reactive Radial tends to win out as it does the most damage with the least commonly resisted damage type, and the resistance debuff is always useful. Reactive tends to work good on anything Degenerative is good too with its smaller DoT and debuff Paralytic is good as a debuff. Other than that, the other interfaces don't interest me much. As for Regen debuff, it's useful against AVs but heavily resisted. And normal enemies, the debuffs won't matter as most enemies will die before they get their first regen tick anyways. LTs, Bosses, and Elite Bosses have a base regeneration of 23 seconds. That's nothing to be scared of.