Move endurance reduction enhancements to schedule C or D

[biostem]

As the thread title suggests, I think endurance cost reduction enhancements should be moved to schedule C or D, (see here for reference).  Your thoughts?  Thanks for reading!

[BrandX]

Aren't they already schedule C?

[arcane]

I cordially and respectfully disagree 🙂 

[biostem]

30 minutes ago, BrandX said:

Aren't they already schedule C?

They are A.

[BrandX]

3 minutes ago, biostem said:

They are A.

 

You're right, but they're the same enhancement value as most enhancements.  Knockback I think is the only one left with D, isn't it?

[biostem]

3 minutes ago, BrandX said:

You're right, but they're the same enhancement value as most enhancements.  Knockback I think is the only one left with D, isn't it?

Yes, so?  I think endurance reduction enhancements could benefit from more bang for your buck, hence the suggestion.  What is or is not in each category currently isn't really of concern in this context.

[Yomo Kimyata]

did I miss something in the beta notes that makes endurance reduction less effective?

[Uun]

I think end reduction is fine as is.

[Greycat]

If there were some overarching endurance issue that can't be fixed by player education, maybe - but I've got to agree, to me they seem fine as is.

 

(Edit: for clarification, I know Biostem's been around and knows how things work, so the player education isn't directed at him.)

Edited August 17, 2022 by Greycat

[biostem]

14 hours ago, Yomo Kimyata said:

did I miss something in the beta notes that makes endurance reduction less effective?

It's more a matter of making slotting end redux more rewarding/effective, as opposed to simply waiting to go with an alpha or hybrid that offers it globally, or slotting a panacea/miracle/numina's...

[lemming]

Gah! Now I know why I never paid attention to this.   Why does it go B,A,C,D in order of strength.   My CDO brain can't handle this...

 

edit: no real opinion otherwise.

Edited August 17, 2022 by lemming
gah! I say gah!

[Six-Six]

I don't mind how it is now. I don't PL my toons, so at the lower levels, I like how I have limited powers, slots, and practically everything else. I also have to prioritise accuracy/efficacy, endurance, def/res, damage, etc. while trying not to get killed. Things usually get sorted out around 30-40, 45 for late bloomers. Moreover, never have I ever looked to incarnates to fix my toons' shortcomings.

In the interest of averting and avoiding power creep, what aspect of your toon (preferably of equal importance as end reduction) are you willing to give up or trade for such a change?

[BrandX]

3 hours ago, biostem said:

It's more a matter of making slotting end redux more rewarding/effective, as opposed to simply waiting to go with an alpha or hybrid that offers it globally, or slotting a panacea/miracle/numina's...

 

I think, with this change, people would still slot those.  I wouldn't be all "OMG!  The game is ruined!"  if it happened, however, not so sure it needs to be done either.  I get by without slotting Incarnates to keep my end issues in check and prefer not to rely on Incarnates for end issues on builds.

[biostem]

1 minute ago, BrandX said:

I think, with this change, people would still slot those.  I wouldn't be all "OMG!  The game is ruined!"  if it happened, however, not so sure it needs to be done either.  I get by without slotting Incarnates to keep my end issues in check and prefer not to rely on Incarnates for end issues on builds.

Many powersets have ways of working around, or at least mitigating, end issues.  I don't dispute that at all.  Still, many other sets don't have access to such tools, and must instead rely on end redux enh's.  It is for the latter group that I think this change would not only be extremely helpful, but also put another tool in your repertoire for future such cases...

[Luminara]

Some napkin math:

 

Assault: 0.39 endurance/second

One Schedule A EndRdx SO = 0.39/(1+0.33)=0.293 endurance/second

Two Schedule A EndRdx SOs = 0.39/(1+0.66)=0.235 endurance/second

One Schedule D EndRdx SO = 0.39/(1+0.60)=0.244 endurance/second

 

One Schedule A EndRdx level 50 IO = 0.39/(1+0.425)=0.274 endurance/second

Two Schedule A EndRdx level 50 IOs = 0.39/(1+0.8332)=0.213 endurance/second

One Schedule D EndRdx level 50 IO = 0.39/(1+0.764)=0.221 endurance/second

 

Bonus: two Schedule D EndRdx level 50 IOs = 0.39/(1+1.4896)=0.157 endurance/second

 

Dragon's Tail (dominator): 15.18 endurance

One Schedule A EndRdx SO = 15.18/(1+0.33)=11.414 endurance

Two Schedule A EndRdx SO = 15.18/(1+0.66)=9.145 endurance

One Schedule D EndRdx SO = 15.18/(1+0.60)=9.488 endurance

 

One Schedule A EndRdx level 50 IO = 15.18/(1+0.425)=10.653 endurance

Two Schedule A EndRdx level 50 IOs = 15.18/(1+0.8332)=8.281 endurance

One Schedule D EndRdx level 50 IO = 15.18/(1+0.764)=8.605 endurance

 

Bonus: two Schedule D EndRdx level 50 IOs = 15.18/(1+1.4896)=6.097 endurance

 

In a 4-attrib IO which includes EndRdx, changing the EndRdx attrib to Schedule D increases it from 18.6% to 33.4%, roughly equivalent to a current Schedule A SO.  3-attrib IOs with EndRdx would increase from 21.2% to 38.2%.  And in a 2-attrib IO, it would go from 26.5% to 47.8%.

 

With single attribute SOs and IOs, one SO or IO on Schedule D is almost as effective as two Schedule A SOs or IOs.  Two level 50 IOs on Schedule D would reduce any endurance cost to barely more than a third of the base cost, without going into red for ED.

 

I think gaining the Endurance Reduction of two current SOs or IOs with a single enhancement is too much.  The end result would be Endurance becoming an irrelevant stat, something no-one has to pay any attention to, at all, even if the player isn't actively pursuing Endurance Reduction.  Endurance cost is part of the balance equation for every power, so the developers would almost certainly be adjusting powers to compensate.  It would also free up a lot of slots for a lot of builds, imposing a significant jump in power creep across the board, leading to more revisions.  And I think it would skew IO set balance (some sets, like Obliteration, are designed to trade Endurance Reduction for other attributes), requiring a significant balance pass to redress that.

 

I don't see this happening.  You might be able to make a case for Schedule C, but not D.

[Yomo Kimyata]

Or, *OR* we could just get rid of ED altogether and make everything Schedule D.  Why bother with balance at this point?

[biostem]

2 minutes ago, Luminara said:

I think gaining the Endurance Reduction of two current SOs or IOs with a single enhancement is too much.

There is a good chunk of players that never dip into IO set bonuses.  Heck, there are a good chunk of players that never even use generic IOs at all.  This is a change geared toward those players.  I can roll up a character using radiation armor, and laugh as the dark armor user constantly bottoms-out their end bar - that doesn't mean that because of the former, the latter shouldn't get a little love because of the near requirement that they slot end redux in every toggle and attack.  I don't deny that there would be some "butterfly effect" from this single change, but I think it would help those underperformers.

[Luminara]

1 minute ago, biostem said:

There is a good chunk of players that never dip into IO set bonuses.  Heck, there are a good chunk of players that never even use generic IOs at all.

 

8 minutes ago, Luminara said:

Assault: 0.39 endurance/second

One Schedule A EndRdx SO = 0.39/(1+0.33)=0.293 endurance/second

Two Schedule A EndRdx SOs = 0.39/(1+0.66)=0.235 endurance/second

One Schedule D EndRdx SO = 0.39/(1+0.60)=0.244 endurance/second

...

Dragon's Tail (dominator): 15.18 endurance

One Schedule A EndRdx SO = 15.18/(1+0.33)=11.414 endurance

Two Schedule A EndRdx SO = 15.18/(1+0.66)=9.145 endurance

One Schedule D EndRdx SO = 15.18/(1+0.60)=9.488 endurance

...

I think gaining the Endurance Reduction of two current SOs or IOs with a single enhancement is too much.

 

[Psyonico]

11 minutes ago, biostem said:

 I don't deny that there would be some "butterfly effect" from this single change, but I think it would help those underperformers.

This is not a small butterfly effect, this would literally affect 99% of powers in the game.

[biostem]

1 minute ago, Psyonico said:

This is not a small butterfly effect, this would literally affect 99% of powers in the game.

You are looking at it from the wrong perspective - it would *only* affect powers that people actually slot end redux into.  Imagine you and I are playing the same AT, but you have a powerset that includes additional sources of end recovery or a global end discount, and I have none of those.  In order to maintain my play, I have to periodically stop and rest, rely on blue insp's, etc.  You don't have to do those things.  Now, if I can get more out of just a single end redux in each power, I can achieve something closer to what you can, yet I still have to devote all those slots to end redux.  You want to slot end redux as well?  Go right ahead, but you didn't need it in the first place...

[Vanden]

If we want to add more ways to manage endurance, I think buffing +Recovery set bonuses is the way to do it. Slotting for endurance reduction is already an effective way to manage endurance; probably the most effective way to do it. +Recovery set bonuses on the other hand, are garbage. They practically might as well not exist at their current strength.

[biostem]

37 minutes ago, Vanden said:

If we want to add more ways to manage endurance, I think buffing +Recovery set bonuses is the way to do it. Slotting for endurance reduction is already an effective way to manage endurance; probably the most effective way to do it. +Recovery set bonuses on the other hand, are garbage. They practically might as well not exist at their current strength.

That's one approach, but it does nothing for people that don't or won't take advantage of IO set bonuses.  It also does nothing to ease the burden of having to devote so many slots for end redux and the subsequent loss of those slots being used elsewhere, when compared to sets that have inherent end recovery or reduction.

[srmalloy]

10 hours ago, biostem said:

That's one approach, but it does nothing for people that don't or won't take advantage of IO set bonuses.  It also does nothing to ease the burden of having to devote so many slots for end redux and the subsequent loss of those slots being used elsewhere

I remember, back on Live, the common slotting of attacks for characters that didn't have a good sustain power being three Damage, one Accuracy, and one Endurance Reduction, with an optional sixth slot being whichever of those three needed more help. Prior to ED, a good sustain power meant that you could skip the EndRdx for more damage or accuracy, and a character with Focused Accuracy could skip Acc in all their attacks, so that with both you could six-slot your attacks for damage. But this 'burden' of having to account for endurance use and slotting to manage it has been around since the game rolled out. And you perceive it as such a crushing burden that you want to effectively hand out a 'free' EndRdx enhancement for every EndRdx enhancement slotted in a power, so you can get free slots to use elsewhere. I'm sorry, but this feels to me like a whine about how unfair it is that you have to work within the game's limits when building your combat monsters, so the game should be changed to let you make your characters more powerful.

[TheZag]

While throwing a bone to those that dont use set enhancements may be all well and good,  those that do use sets can take huge advantage of it.  I could easily drop a slot from stamina and change my alpha on several builds.  I run focused accuracy at .78 end/sec for a 'passive' guassian proc.  I turn it off alot since its an end hog but wouldnt need to anymore.  A different build has me using transference every time its up to prevent running out of endurance - mostly a proc monster attack rotation but so many toggles on a controller eats endurance.

 

Maybe players on SO only builds need a bump but they seem to be doing fine with maybe the exception of a few toggle heavy sets.  I would prefer something that focuses on the individual cases instead of a blanket solution that powers everything up.  And thats assuming there is a problem to begin with - my buddy was rockin' dark armor in 2004-2005 with only SOs and was just fine.