"The Game is not Balanced around IO's"..... should it be?

[Glacier Peak]

4 minutes ago, Galaxy Brain said:

Would *more* ATO options possibly be good? 

That's a really good question. 

 

Perhaps adding a new layer to ATOs, specifically making them bring out the benefits and inherent ability of each AT. Instead of just two sets of ATOs per AT, design and add an entire build worth. This would likely horribly unbalance the game, much like the introduction of IO set bonuses did, then damage procs, but at least AT would remain relevant post level 35.

[golstat2003]

6 minutes ago, Glacier Peak said:

That's a really good question. 

 

Perhaps adding a new layer to ATOs, specifically making them bring out the benefits and inherent ability of each AT. Instead of just two sets of ATOs per AT, design and add an entire build worth. This would likely horribly unbalance the game, much like the introduction of IO set bonuses did, then damage procs, but at least AT would remain relevant post level 35.

Hmmm, balance issues notwithstanding (cause you're right I can think of a few ideas that would outright break the game post 35 . . . well even more so LOL) but I think things LIKE the stalker one, would be great. It could change how some ATs play. 

 

One idea I always had was Corrupter ATO Damage to Heal for Scourge.

 

Basically a percentage of scourge damage would come back to the Corrupter as a heal over time. The longer scourge goes the more potent the heal over time, to the point where it becomes an AOE heal for the team, and eventual adds an absorb shield to the Corrupter. Obviously it would help more in longer fights like AVs, for both the corrupter and their team.

 

(This ofcourse sounds like a nightmare to code and possibly something game breaking as I type it. LMAO).

 

But you get the idea. new ATOs that add uniqueness to ATs, or improve their inherent in some way, as you also mentioned.

Edited February 4, 2021 by golstat2003

[Glacier Peak]

I'd say the biggest factor in all of the talk of balance comes down to damage. Playing on SOs, damage is pretty balanced. If a player starts adding set bonuses, however, damage is going to increase one way or another (sets that increase end recovery allows more attacks to be activated, sets that increase recharge allow more attacks to be performed, etc.) When players start adding damage procs, it gets completely unbalanced and there is no way to undo it without the player consenting. 

[Erratic1]

49 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

My gain is not expecting to be a taunt bot when I don't want to be. Teams are more accepting of Brutes not having taunt. I can't say the same for tanks without it.

Most teams are not going to notice. They want you to take  the alpha. The group I just got out of before posting this? I was the only melee, and my scrapper was leaping in first.

[Erratic1]

57 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

As far as I'm concerned they've spent enough time tweaking Tanks and Brutes. There was actually discussion and rounds for months on this on these forums during the last time they were tweaking tanks (with some tweaks for Brutes) .

 

They have better things to do. With other ATs needing help. Time to move on.

 

Fine, you've voiced your opinion.

 

Others feel differently.

 

And for anything else on the topic, I'll be in the thread in the Brute forum

Edited February 4, 2021 by Erratic1

[DSorrow]

10 hours ago, Glacier Peak said:

Damage procs need nerfed or even removed from the game entirely. 

I'd have to disagree with this. Looking back at the introduction of IOs, the only things that were readily available and useful to a wide variety of characters were +Rech and to a lesser extent +Def (positional). Unless you had positional Def to stack with bonuses, everyone built for +Recharge because there were no competitive alternatives. The way I see it, the first iteration of IOs was boring. Everyone, regardless of AT or powersets, built for the same thing because only one category of exceptionally useful bonus (+Rech) was easily available.

 

After that, we got typed Defenses sorted out, no longer coming in just Fire or Smashing, but paired to S+L, N+E and F+C, and a bit later the mirroring of typed and positional Defenses. Many more characters were now able to leverage the IO system beyond just stacking +Recharge because any type of +Def could be stacked. At this point, the IO system was already much more interesting because there were alternative ways to build characters which leads to trade offs, but the system strongly favored characters with high base damage and Defense based survivability tools, or Scrappers with certain secondaries, basically.

 

Finally, +Res bonuses were made much more common so that Resistance based characters could also better utilize the bonuses in concert with their powersets. 

 

Up until that point the only things that you could actually do with IO sets were global +Rech and survivability through Def or Res. This system obviously favors ATs with high built-in offense, because there was no way to significantly increase the damage of your individual attacks beyond what the scalars said and you could just shore up weaknesses in +Def, while characters that did not need that much patching in the survivability department, couldn't really get any boosts in their offense.

 

With the introduction of PPM procs this was finally changed. Damage procs allow ATs with high built-in survivability to shore up weaknesses in offense. Or they allow ATs with high built-in offense to go all in on that. But most importantly, they introduce trade offs in builds: if you want to slot more than one damage proc in a power, you're giving up a potential set bonus for it, and because the highly desirable bonuses (+Rech and +Def) typically come in at 5 or 6 pieces, it's actually quite difficult to get a lot of both. So instead of aiming for maximum survivability and +Rech by default (because there were no competitive options), now you actually have to decide whether you want to maximize +Rech, survivability or offense, and what the balance between them is.

 

Options are great and damage procs give that. Are they too powerful? I guess that's a matter of taste, but personally I think they're in the "ok" range. Nerfing them significantly just brings the system back to the "set bonuses can give you +Rech and survivability" stage, at which point anyone who already has a lot of survivability just can't get that much out of IOs.

 

If I had to change something about damage procs, I'd probably consider making them partially unresistible in PvE to reduce the impact of -Res on procs. However, this might make procs quite powerful in niche cases against highly damage resistant enemies, but I guess that's not a too bad trade for somewhat more balanced proc damage between characters that have access to -Res and those who don't in all situations.

[Parabola]

2 hours ago, DSorrow said:

I'd have to disagree with this. Looking back at the introduction of IOs, the only things that were readily available and useful to a wide variety of characters were +Rech and to a lesser extent +Def (positional). Unless you had positional Def to stack with bonuses, everyone built for +Recharge because there were no competitive alternatives. The way I see it, the first iteration of IOs was boring. Everyone, regardless of AT or powersets, built for the same thing because only one category of exceptionally useful bonus (+Rech) was easily available.

 

After that, we got typed Defenses sorted out, no longer coming in just Fire or Smashing, but paired to S+L, N+E and F+C, and a bit later the mirroring of typed and positional Defenses. Many more characters were now able to leverage the IO system beyond just stacking +Recharge because any type of +Def could be stacked. At this point, the IO system was already much more interesting because there were alternative ways to build characters which leads to trade offs, but the system strongly favored characters with high base damage and Defense based survivability tools, or Scrappers with certain secondaries, basically.

 

Finally, +Res bonuses were made much more common so that Resistance based characters could also better utilize the bonuses in concert with their powersets. 

 

Up until that point the only things that you could actually do with IO sets were global +Rech and survivability through Def or Res. This system obviously favors ATs with high built-in offense, because there was no way to significantly increase the damage of your individual attacks beyond what the scalars said and you could just shore up weaknesses in +Def, while characters that did not need that much patching in the survivability department, couldn't really get any boosts in their offense.

 

With the introduction of PPM procs this was finally changed. Damage procs allow ATs with high built-in survivability to shore up weaknesses in offense. Or they allow ATs with high built-in offense to go all in on that. But most importantly, they introduce trade offs in builds: if you want to slot more than one damage proc in a power, you're giving up a potential set bonus for it, and because the highly desirable bonuses (+Rech and +Def) typically come in at 5 or 6 pieces, it's actually quite difficult to get a lot of both. So instead of aiming for maximum survivability and +Rech by default (because there were no competitive options), now you actually have to decide whether you want to maximize +Rech, survivability or offense, and what the balance between them is.

 

Options are great and damage procs give that. Are they too powerful? I guess that's a matter of taste, but personally I think they're in the "ok" range. Nerfing them significantly just brings the system back to the "set bonuses can give you +Rech and survivability" stage, at which point anyone who already has a lot of survivability just can't get that much out of IOs.

You make some good points here and I see where you are coming from. However as I see it all other set bonuses can only work within the boundaries of AT modifiers and caps. Procs are the exception in that they ignore modifiers and are flat damage amounts for everyone. This is where it gets sticky in terms of AT balance.

 

Blasters have a much higher ranged damage modifier than defenders. No amount of slotting with recharge, defence or even damage can get around this. You can build a defender who does more damage, in greater safety, than they did before but spend the same on a blaster and they will still do handily more damage.

 

Procs though ignore the modifiers and now a defender can leverage their greater survivability base to circumvent their poor damage mod and catch up with the blaster in a way that no other slotting allows. It's true that you have to build specifically for it and sacrifice other areas, but the AT's that have been specifically under the microscope here are particularly well suited to that process. Defenders because of self buffs, debuffs and high self support modifiers, and tanks because they are so damn tough they can function without slotting for it.

 

Now I don't think a defender can surpass a blaster in damage output as a general rule but they can close the gap. The AT that really loses out is corruptors who are squeezed from both sides and I feel are struggling for their place in the game. The same is true on the melee side, I don't think anyone would argue that tanks with procs can routinely outdamage scrappers but they are certainly putting the squeeze on brutes to my mind.

 

Maybe the answer is obvious: make damage procs follow AT damage modifiers. I wouldn't like it, I enjoy the hell out my proc monster builds (who doesn't like building tankmages?), but I am uncomfortable with the overall game balance and see procs as being part of the problem.

 

2 hours ago, DSorrow said:

If I had to change something about damage procs, I'd probably consider making them partially unresistible in PvE to reduce the impact of -Res on procs. However, this might make procs quite powerful in niche cases against highly damage resistant enemies, but I guess that's not a too bad trade for somewhat more balanced proc damage between characters that have access to -Res and those who don't in all situations.

Are you suggesting that proc damage might ignore target resistance whether that be positive or negative? One of the further ways defenders get to leverage procs is with handy sources of -res. They don't need to be fighting a highly resistant enemy to gain the benefit of that. I think this is what you are saying? As things stand there might be mileage in this (as you say the heavily resistant enemies would skew performance though), but if procs followed AT mods then I think there would be less need overall.

 

 

@Galaxy Brain, I know you've felt this thread has been dragged off topic but it seems to me that it's difficult to seperate the 'what IO's allow us to do' from the 'should we balance around IO's'. One of the arguments for toughening up parts of the game is to make fights last longer and give support players more to do. One root cause of this is the blizzard of damage that is output by everyone at high levels including some suport players! The discussion around procs feeds directly into this to my mind.

[DSorrow]

1 hour ago, parabola said:

Procs though ignore the modifiers and now a defender can leverage their greater survivability base to circumvent their poor damage mod and catch up with the blaster in a way that no other slotting allows.

But isn't the same true for all survivability bonuses? Scrappers get the exact same +Def and +Res bonuses as Tankers despite their lower defensive modifiers, and thanks to their better offensive base values, they can catch up with the Tanker defensively if they don't go for an offense focused build. Basically, I don't really see a huge issue if one AT that is strong offensively and weaker defensively invests a lot to shore up defense ends up closing the gap to another AT that is weak offensively and strong defensively but invests in improving their weaker offense.

 

1 hour ago, parabola said:

Are you suggesting that proc damage might ignore target resistance whether that be positive or negative?

Exactly this, but I'm not sure if I'd allow them to completely ignore it. Like you point out, support ATs do get a lot of mileage out of procs because many of them are capable of reducing enemy Resistances by quite a bit.

 

As for the highly resistant enemies, I don't mean that those need to be present for the benefit to be obtained, but rather that completely unresistible procs might just be a way for all ATs to bypass mechanics that are designed to make enemies tougher (e.g. Unstoppable). Then again, those enemies are quite rare and procs typically don't amount to insane damage on their own, but in some edge cases they might, and these edge cases are why I'd make them partially unresistible: lower the maximum potential when -Res is available but not make them a strict counter against high resistance enemies.

 

As far as procs following damage mods go, I like the principle but the one AT where I think it wouldn't work is Brutes. Their damage scalars are designed around Fury, and as long as +DMG wouldn't affect procs, they'd get the short end of the stick.

[Parabola]

29 minutes ago, DSorrow said:

But isn't the same true for all survivability bonuses? Scrappers get the exact same +Def and +Res bonuses as Tankers despite their lower defensive modifiers, and thanks to their better offensive base values, they can catch up with the Tanker defensively if they don't go for an offense focused build. Basically, I don't really see a huge issue if one AT that is strong offensively and weaker defensively invests a lot to shore up defense ends up closing the gap to another AT that is weak offensively and strong defensively but invests in improving their weaker offense.

Yes everyone does indeed get the same bonuses for things like defence and resistance. I don't think a scrapper can get that close to a tanker in mitigation terms though, they will always have less hp and lower resistance caps regardless of slotting. Purely on defence numbers they can close the gap but they will generally have less DDR to protect that defence. But damage output is much more one dimensional, you only have more or less of it and the caps that are there aren't often hit in regular play (and procs also get around that cap). It seems to me a tank can approach much closer to a scrapper in damage terms than a scrapper can approach a tank in damage mitigation.

 

46 minutes ago, DSorrow said:

As far as procs following damage mods go, I like the principle but the one AT where I think it wouldn't work is Brutes. Their damage scalars are designed around Fury, and as long as +DMG wouldn't affect procs, they'd get the short end of the stick.

Yes, very true. Brutes would need it to work slightly differently. If procs were also affected by +dam it would sort out a couple of anomalies like SS characters being able to use procs to ignore the rage crash (from an offensive point of view)...

[Coyote]

I agree with @DSorrow completely on one aspect: damage Procs help lower-damage ATs more than higher-damage. But Defensive set bonuses help lower-defense ATs more than higher-damage ones. It doesn't seem fair to consider an adjustment to damage procs because they help low-damage ATs do more damage... and not adjust Defensive set bonuses because they help low-defense ATs achieve higher defenses. In fact, I think that the outlier in terms of performance is by far a Blaster with soft-cap compared to a Blaster who only uses common IOs, rather than a Defender who uses damage procs versus one who only uses common IOs. The set bonuses help the Blaster increase their survivabiliy five-fold or more, while the damage procs might possibly help the Defender double their damage, but probably not even that much. So the imbalance is much greater on the defensive side of character building, and it seems unreasonable to start by looking at the offensive side of IOs.

[golstat2003]

53 minutes ago, Coyote said:

I agree with @DSorrow completely on one aspect: damage Procs help lower-damage ATs more than higher-damage. But Defensive set bonuses help lower-defense ATs more than higher-damage ones. It doesn't seem fair to consider an adjustment to damage procs because they help low-damage ATs do more damage... and not adjust Defensive set bonuses because they help low-defense ATs achieve higher defenses. In fact, I think that the outlier in terms of performance is by far a Blaster with soft-cap compared to a Blaster who only uses common IOs, rather than a Defender who uses damage procs versus one who only uses common IOs. The set bonuses help the Blaster increase their survivabiliy five-fold or more, while the damage procs might possibly help the Defender double their damage, but probably not even that much. So the imbalance is much greater on the defensive side of character building, and it seems unreasonable to start by looking at the offensive side of IOs.

I agree. I would leave both procs and defensive set bonuses alone for now.

Edited February 4, 2021 by golstat2003

[Glacier Peak]

7 hours ago, DSorrow said:

I'd have to disagree with this. Looking back at the introduction of IOs, the only things that were readily available and useful to a wide variety of characters were +Rech and to a lesser extent +Def (positional). Unless you had positional Def to stack with bonuses, everyone built for +Recharge because there were no competitive alternatives. The way I see it, the first iteration of IOs was boring. Everyone, regardless of AT or powersets, built for the same thing because only one category of exceptionally useful bonus (+Rech) was easily available.

 

After that, we got typed Defenses sorted out, no longer coming in just Fire or Smashing, but paired to S+L, N+E and F+C, and a bit later the mirroring of typed and positional Defenses. Many more characters were now able to leverage the IO system beyond just stacking +Recharge because any type of +Def could be stacked. At this point, the IO system was already much more interesting because there were alternative ways to build characters which leads to trade offs, but the system strongly favored characters with high base damage and Defense based survivability tools, or Scrappers with certain secondaries, basically.

 

Finally, +Res bonuses were made much more common so that Resistance based characters could also better utilize the bonuses in concert with their powersets. 

 

Up until that point the only things that you could actually do with IO sets were global +Rech and survivability through Def or Res. This system obviously favors ATs with high built-in offense, because there was no way to significantly increase the damage of your individual attacks beyond what the scalars said and you could just shore up weaknesses in +Def, while characters that did not need that much patching in the survivability department, couldn't really get any boosts in their offense.

 

With the introduction of PPM procs this was finally changed. Damage procs allow ATs with high built-in survivability to shore up weaknesses in offense. Or they allow ATs with high built-in offense to go all in on that. But most importantly, they introduce trade offs in builds: if you want to slot more than one damage proc in a power, you're giving up a potential set bonus for it, and because the highly desirable bonuses (+Rech and +Def) typically come in at 5 or 6 pieces, it's actually quite difficult to get a lot of both. So instead of aiming for maximum survivability and +Rech by default (because there were no competitive options), now you actually have to decide whether you want to maximize +Rech, survivability or offense, and what the balance between them is.

 

Options are great and damage procs give that. Are they too powerful? I guess that's a matter of taste, but personally I think they're in the "ok" range. Nerfing them significantly just brings the system back to the "set bonuses can give you +Rech and survivability" stage, at which point anyone who already has a lot of survivability just can't get that much out of IOs.

 

If I had to change something about damage procs, I'd probably consider making them partially unresistible in PvE to reduce the impact of -Res on procs. However, this might make procs quite powerful in niche cases against highly damage resistant enemies, but I guess that's not a too bad trade for somewhat more balanced proc damage between characters that have access to -Res and those who don't in all situations.

Great post, I'd extend your suggestion to PvP as well. 

 

Edit: Continued further...

 

Since PvP is a part of the game and balance is very important. Where damage is and has been king since issue 12 or 13. Single target damage spiking is the name of the game and for ONE Blaster to output more than 1606 damage without outside buffing is my definition overkill for any squishy AT. Now with additional buffs from outside sources that same Blaster is hitting damage caps during spikes. In a well coordinated team, that's multiple damage capped blasters spiking a single target. Only mitigation is dropping equal or greater healing to outpace the incoming onslaught. 

 

All this to say that damage is the key to balance in this game. Biggest impact (either positively or negatively) comes from adjusting damage scalars. 

Edited February 4, 2021 by Glacier Peak

[arcane]

I can understand why people would think procs aren’t ok right now, but it’s not like they don’t come with a sizeable cost. Good luck slotting ~25 damage procs and all the other goodies AND playing the high +recharge + soft capped defense forum meta all on the same build.

 

(Proc monster tanks are an outlier to this statement here since they can’t exactly be squishy)

Edited February 4, 2021 by arcaneholocaust

[tidge]

42 minutes ago, arcaneholocaust said:

I can understand why people would think procs aren’t ok right now, but it’s not like they don’t come with a sizeable cost. Good luck slotting ~25 damage procs and all the other goodies AND playing the high +recharge + soft capped defense forum meta all on the same build.

 

(Proc monster tanks are an outlier to this statement here since they can’t exactly be squishy)

I agree. There are compromises (for all AT) to be made when choosing to slot %procs: It could be sacrificing Global  +Recharge or +Accuracy or Endurance (MaxEnd, Recovery, Discounts)... It's just my suspicion, but sacrificing those sorts of common (and useful!) set bonuses for more %damage dice rolls is often covered by Incarnate choices... and I don't think anyone should be considering balancing the ATs with Incarnates (or Accolades) in mind.

 

I don't think it is worth getting upset because an inherently-low DPS AT has the capability to 5-slot a Very Rare set (with a %damage) and then add a sixth slot with another %damage.

[SwitchFade]

The game should be balanced around pie.

 

Because pie>cake.

 

What flavor, you ask?

 

Well, well... Therein lies the TRUE question!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nerf Regen.

[Apparition]

2 hours ago, tidge said:

I agree. There are compromises (for all AT) to be made when choosing to slot %procs: It could be sacrificing Global  +Recharge or +Accuracy or Endurance (MaxEnd, Recovery, Discounts)... It's just my suspicion, but sacrificing those sorts of common (and useful!) set bonuses for more %damage dice rolls is often covered by Incarnate choices... and I don't think anyone should be considering balancing the ATs with Incarnates (or Accolades) in mind.

 

I don't think it is worth getting upset because an inherently-low DPS AT has the capability to 5-slot a Very Rare set (with a %damage) and then add a sixth slot with another %damage.

 

Slotting one or two damage procs in attacks isn't what's happening though.  There are Defender builds where most attacks are slotted almost entirely with damage procs, and thanks to the higher Defender defense numbers from the primary and pool powers still remain at or above the defense softcap and have very high global recharge so there's no real sacrifice nor compromise made.  This allows them to both have higher defenses than a Blaster, and have nearly equivalent damage.  There's no real justification for that, IMO.

Edited February 4, 2021 by Apparition

[golstat2003]

29 minutes ago, Apparition said:

 

Slotting one or two damage procs in attacks isn't what's happening though.  There are Defender builds where most attacks are slotted almost entirely with damage procs, and thanks to the higher Defender defense numbers from the primary and pool powers still remain at or above the defense softcap and have very high global recharge so there's no real sacrifice nor compromise made.  This allows them to both have higher defenses than a Blaster, and have nearly equivalent damage.  There's no real justification for that, IMO.

Ughhh, is this even fun to play? That sounds very not so. (But I hate most things that involve RNG).

 

I think I better go take a look at these builds as folks are continuously referencing Proc Monsters. Want to see what the actual fuss is about.

[Bill Z Bubba]

22 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

Ughhh, is this even fun to play? That sounds very not so. (But I hate most things that involve RNG).

 

I think I better go take a look at these builds as folks are continuously referencing Proc Monsters. Want to see what the actual fuss is about.

It's a whole thing. I still haven't done it at all but I get how the builds lean on tactics/focused accuracy to cover the tohit side and leaning on extra slots in conserve power and ageless for recovery. I don't do it. Generally my attacks at the end have the 5th purple proc and an extra proc and that's that. Edit: If I can get away with it I'll use the dam from the purple set instead of the dam/rec but that's a rarity.

Edited February 4, 2021 by Bill Z Bubba

[golstat2003]

14 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

It's a whole thing. I still haven't done it at all but I get how the builds lean on tactics/focused accuracy to cover the tohit side and leaning on extra slots in conserve power and ageless for recovery. I don't do it. Generally my attacks at the end have the 5th purple proc and an extra proc and that's that. Edit: If I can get away with it I'll use the dam from the purple set instead of the dam/rec but that's a rarity.

Yeah I've seen a couple of these builds now and ..  . they just seem not fun to me. I don't like my damage relying on RNG. But that's just me.

 

But yeah I can see WHY some folks love this AND why some are saying they are ridic. LOL

[Arbegla]

17 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

It's a whole thing. I still haven't done it at all but I get how the builds lean on tactics/focused accuracy to cover the tohit side and leaning on extra slots in conserve power and ageless for recovery. I don't do it. Generally my attacks at the end have the 5th purple proc and an extra proc and that's that. Edit: If I can get away with it I'll use the dam from the purple set instead of the dam/rec but that's a rarity.

To add to the idea, there is a third (or maybe fourth?) area of IOs that haven't been brought up much. The Franken-slotting aspect.

 

IOs are more then sets, and more then procs. They were the original way to get around ED, as you can get the same values with less slots.

 

That aspect still exists, and is leveraged by those who swear by procs, as they can use 3 slots for some triple/quad IOs, and then the rest in damage procs.

 

Heck, the entire point of the Alpha slot is to have one giant ED proof enhancement buff to ALL your powers. You just get to pick what things you're enhancing.

[Yomo Kimyata]

16 hours ago, Galaxy Brain said:

I think ATO's may be a good starting point still for the general IO discussion, as I feel they have the strongest impact on some AT's (Scrappers/Stalkers) and not so much on others.

 

Would *more* ATO options possibly be good? 

I still think this is going to get lost in the shuffle, but I'm going to say yes and no.

 

Yes, insofar as more options are generally better than fewer options.  Controllers and dominators got the short end of the stick, since slotting for control hasn't been in vogue since the Charleston was sweeping the nation.  I think it would be nice if every AT got two sets that offered a recharge bonus, and one that did not.  I also think it would be nice if every AT got at least one decent bonus at 2 or 3 slots to justify splitting a set.

 

No, insofar as ATO sets are already ridiculously overpowered for the price and adding more would probably result in more power creep and more FOTM min max builds.  If I had my way, *all* packs would go to 25mm a pop, leaving merit prices alone.  If one actually plays content rather than rush to 50 and then slot, you can see how powerful they are in comparison to the alternatives.  Good to great set bonuses, and slottable at level 10, and you never need to upgrade or replace them until you hit 50 and catalyze them.  A levelling set progression for a ST ranged attack might be nothing until 17, then Entropic Chaos, then Decimation, then maybe Thunderstrike or Apocalypse.  Or you can slot Blaster's Wrath in your ranged attack.  Or unslot them and put them in your PBAoE attack, etc.  They are tremendously flexible and have a tremendous advantage over most of their "next best" alternatives.

 

my 2 inf

[golstat2003]

34 minutes ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

I still think this is going to get lost in the shuffle, but I'm going to say yes and no.

 

Yes, insofar as more options are generally better than fewer options.  Controllers and dominators got the short end of the stick, since slotting for control hasn't been in vogue since the Charleston was sweeping the nation.  I think it would be nice if every AT got two sets that offered a recharge bonus, and one that did not.  I also think it would be nice if every AT got at least one decent bonus at 2 or 3 slots to justify splitting a set.

 

No, insofar as ATO sets are already ridiculously overpowered for the price and adding more would probably result in more power creep and more FOTM min max builds.  If I had my way, *all* packs would go to 25mm a pop, leaving merit prices alone.  If one actually plays content rather than rush to 50 and then slot, you can see how powerful they are in comparison to the alternatives.  Good to great set bonuses, and slottable at level 10, and you never need to upgrade or replace them until you hit 50 and catalyze them.  A levelling set progression for a ST ranged attack might be nothing until 17, then Entropic Chaos, then Decimation, then maybe Thunderstrike or Apocalypse.  Or you can slot Blaster's Wrath in your ranged attack.  Or unslot them and put them in your PBAoE attack, etc.  They are tremendously flexible and have a tremendous advantage over most of their "next best" alternatives.

 

my 2 inf

Yeah I don't deal with advanced IOs until 50. Until then it's just common IOs, SOs and regular set IOs.

 

I seriously doubt most players are dealing with ATOs until much later in their superhero/villian career.

 

(The stalker one being the exception probably).

 

EDIT: It would be an interesting thing to datamine.

Edited February 4, 2021 by golstat2003

[tidge]

2 hours ago, Apparition said:

 

Slotting one or two damage procs in attacks isn't what's happening though.  There are Defender builds where most attacks are slotted almost entirely with damage procs, and thanks to the higher Defender defense numbers from the primary and pool powers still remain at or above the defense softcap and have very high global recharge so there's no real sacrifice nor compromise made.  This allows them to both have higher defenses than a Blaster, and have nearly equivalent damage.  There's no real justification for that, IMO.

I'm not ignorant of putting many %damage procs in powers for low-damage scale ATs, I do it myself on some builds. Those builds end up sacrificing something, and typically do not sustain the damage numbers of a DPS for lower endurance costs at the same accuracy.

[arcane]

2 hours ago, Apparition said:

 

Slotting one or two damage procs in attacks isn't what's happening though.  There are Defender builds where most attacks are slotted almost entirely with damage procs, and thanks to the higher Defender defense numbers from the primary and pool powers still remain at or above the defense softcap and have very high global recharge so there's no real sacrifice nor compromise made.  This allows them to both have higher defenses than a Blaster, and have nearly equivalent damage.  There's no real justification for that, IMO.

There is no way you can achieve all of those things at once on just any defender build. Time defenders definitely. But most builds with that many procs can’t possibly get that much defense and recharge too. So let’s not treat outliers as norms.

Edited February 4, 2021 by arcaneholocaust

[tidge]

13 minutes ago, golstat2003 said:

Yeah I don't deal with advanced IOs until 50. Until then it's just common IOs, SOs and regular set IOs.

 

I seriously doubt most players are dealing with ATOs until much later in their superhero/villian career.

I can only speak for myself, but until around level 30, I don't have the SLOTS or set bonuses to franken-slot attacks (or controls) to get reliable uber-offense from anything other than non-%proc pieces. I will however, typically try to leverage at least one ATO set.

 

Are some folks considering the 5 P2W 'universal damage' %procs that conk-out in the 20s to be part of the 'problem'?