Self-ish vs Self-less builds...

[biostem]

I want to start by stating that this topic is targeted toward people who team, so if you solo, please disregard.  Secondly, if your primary or secondary already includes powers that grant buffs to your team, this is also less directed toward you.  That being said, why don't more people take leadership?  More specifically, I'm referring to maneuver and tactics - those defense buffs really add up, and the tohit buffs means more of your attacks connect, (both being crucially important on harder content).  Is it just a matter of builds being that tight?  Is it just a general lack of knowledge of how good these powers are, when there are multiple stacks?  Is it not wanting to have yet more toggles to manage?  Even on my characters that get lower values for these powers, I still find them immensely valuable.  Thanks for reading!

[Omega-202]

Two main reasons I skip Leadership on certain characters:

1) The marginal benefit and end cost isn't worth it on melee characters.  Melee characters get nearly half the value of a Defender or VEAT and they cost a lot of endurance, especially for sets with bad or no end management (Dark Armor, Invuln, etc.).  10% Damage from Assault just isn't worth the endurance cost on a Stalker that is already running nearly perma BU from the proc, especially in view of....

 

2) The radius is only 60 feet.  My melee characters aren't even boosting parts of the team in a standard fight, let alone fights where the team is split.  If I'm Tanking, I'm leap frogging groups to grab early aggro and the team isn't benefiting from my auras and I'm not benefiting from theirs.  Most fights in content I like running (ITF, Incarnate Trials, TinPex, Market Crash) usually involve the team splitting up a lot.  So why bother running expensive, low value toggles that my team isn't even getting the effect of?

 

That's not to say people shouldn't take Leadership.  I take it on basically all of my Defenders, Corruptors, Controllers, MMs and VEATs (double leadership).  But I totally understand not taking it on Stalkers, Scrappers, Brutes, Blasters and most Tanks.

[biostem]

1 minute ago, Omega-202 said:

The marginal benefit and end cost isn't worth it on melee characters.

Tankers get pretty good values from leadership, IIRC, (at least on tactics, anyway).

 

1 minute ago, Omega-202 said:

Melee characters get nearly half the value of a Defender or VEAT and they cost a lot of endurance

You'll get no argument from me that the end costs are high.  That being said, that cost can be mitigated.  VEATs are an odd sort with regard to leadership, as they basically get better versions in their secondaries.  Keep in mind that I also specifically mentioned stacking the buffs.

 

3 minutes ago, Omega-202 said:

10% Damage from Assault just isn't worth the endurance cost

I used to take assault more often, but given the maneuvers can also mule LotG, I've switched to taking that more often.

 

4 minutes ago, Omega-202 said:

The radius is only 60 feet.  My melee characters aren't even boosting parts of the team in a standard fight, let alone fights where the team is split

Getting your teammates to stick together is another matter entirely, IMHO.  If you're team can't or won't stick together, then that is a matter for that team to discuss/work out internally.

 

 

[Omega-202]

Just now, biostem said:

Getting your teammates to stick together is another matter entirely, IMHO.  If you're team can't or won't stick together, then that is a matter for that team to discuss/work out internally.

 

That's not the point and if that's your take, we're not going to agree.  

 

Teams don't need to stick together on 90% of the game's content and if you're rolling around clustered together in things like Market Crash, TinPex, non hard mode ITF, any of the lvl 10-40 TFs or SFs, then you're moving too slow for my liking.  And if you are a team that is highly coordinated and running Hard Mode content, then you're probably rocking at least 4 Def/Corrs and the marginal benefit of a Scrapper running Manuevers is meaningless.  

[TraumaTrain]

I take Assault on almost every character. I usually pick it up in the mid 20s when I have a few open slots for such things. The bonus damage isn't always super useful but it's there. And when I team and see someone else running Assault, that's awesome.

 

I take Maneuvers on any character who likes defense as their protection, which is most of them. However, it's usually a late build power slot for me. Toughness (to slot the defense IOs) and [the defense one from Fighting] are more important to me. But again, I certainly enjoy when others on the team are running Maneuvers too.

 

I hardly ever take [the +to hit one]. Maybe at 49 if I have no other solid options. 

 

On defenders and masterminds, I'll take all three in my 20s and 30s. The benefits are better here. On my tankers too.

 

I guess my selfish builds can benefit others.

 

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by TraumaTrain

[Nemu]

Leadership toggles cost a lot of end!

 

Proceeds to take focused accuracy...

 

I don't see leadership as selfish or selfless though.

 

I see people skipping or not using clear mind and the like with the justification that "I am busy doing damage and that's helping too" using that lens, however.

 

Oh here is a power that can help about half of all ATs cover a major hole for the majority of their leveling career. Nope, gonna skip it because everyone has access to clarion... at level 50.

[biostem]

5 minutes ago, Omega-202 said:

That's not the point and if that's your take, we're not going to agree. 

You are probably right, then.

 

5 minutes ago, Omega-202 said:

Teams don't need to stick together on 90% of the game's content and if you're rolling around clustered together in things like Market Crash, TinPex, non hard mode ITF, any of the lvl 10-40 TFs or SFs, then you're moving too slow for my liking.  And if you are a team that is highly coordinated and running Hard Mode content, then you're probably rocking at least 4 Def/Corrs and the marginal benefit of a Scrapper running Manuevers is meaningless.  

Then it sounds to me like you play more of a "we all solo, but it just so happens we are in the same instance" style.  I'm glad that works for you.

[Sovera]

Tactics don't matter much (IMO). Everyone ought to be building for 95% against +3 anyway. Places it matters is the ITF with the +defense shouts. Prior to hardmodes it still made no difference since a team without stacked Tactics would still kill those mobs with +defense shouts, it would just take a bit longer.

 

Now with more and tougher mobs there might be a use for Tactics on top of everything else.

 

 

Maneuvers is the same. While on paper it's great in practice the added 24%-ish(?) of a full team stacking Maneuvers only matters statistically (again, IMO). If a build is defense based then it probably is already at softcap since that's their goal.

 

If not working towards defense by themselves then builds would have 24% ish from everyone. I find around 35% is where I start noticing defense doing its thing.

 

 

What this means is that, IMO, yes, stacking at least Maneuvers has worth on a static group (hey 24% is over half point to softcap) that plays together and whose builds complement each other. 24% then both uniques and that's 30%, most people will have Hover or Combat Jumping so that's another 2.5% ish. Suddenly we are in the realm of those 35% ish I mentioned.

 

But a single person bringing another 3% team wide defense is nothing that will make a difference. Even two will only bring 6%. If a static group it is more common to just have one person who provides defense shields.

 

 

P.S. The endurance cost is also a valid point. I've swapped from Maneuvers to Combat Jumping on all builds since one of those is tiny defense dip while being basically free. Full teaming does not really matter since there is always someone using Ageless which takes care of that.

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Sovera

[biostem]

2 minutes ago, Sovera said:

Everyone ought to be building for 95% against +3 anyway.

You use the term "ought", but that doesn't equate to "does".

 

3 minutes ago, Sovera said:

Maneuvers is the same. While on paper it's great in practice the added 24%-ish(?) of a full team stacking Maneuvers only matters statistically (again, IMO). If a build is defense based then it probably is already at softcap since that's their goal.

So that 24-ish% means you're roughly mitigating half of the damage vs even-con enemies.  That'd be less vs higher-con ones, but if we're making assumptions about people's builds, then if everyone had some +DEF from set bonuses, APPs/PPPs or other sources, then it definitely helps.

 

4 minutes ago, Sovera said:

But a single person bringing another 3% team wide defense is nothing that will make a difference. Even two will only bring 6%. If a static group it is more common to just have one person who provides defense shields.

It's sort of a "drop in the ocean" vs a "snowball effect" scenario.  You have to start those buffs *somewhere*.  A single 2% may not be a lot, but now add in buffs from 7 other people, (and from other sources, not use leadership), and then we're talking!

[Sovera]

2 minutes ago, biostem said:

You use the term "ought", but that doesn't equate to "does".

 

So that 24-ish% means you're roughly mitigating half of the damage vs even-con enemies.  That'd be less vs higher-con ones, but if we're making assumptions about people's builds, then if everyone had some +DEF from set bonuses, APPs/PPPs or other sources, then it definitely helps.

 

It's sort of a "drop in the ocean" vs a "snowball effect" scenario.  You have to start those buffs *somewhere*.  A single 2% may not be a lot, but now add in buffs from 7 other people, (and from other sources, not use leadership), and then we're talking!

 

Yep, and I agree, but that's where I mention the static group thing. If player isn't even building their accuracy to 95% what are the odds of bringing Maneuvers or having IOs giving defense?

[Omega-202]

13 minutes ago, biostem said:

You are probably right, then.

 

Then it sounds to me like you play more of a "we all solo, but it just so happens we are in the same instance" style.  I'm glad that works for you.

Not at all how it works, but fine if you want to pretend that.  

 

Again for context, the radius for Leadership is only 60 foot.  Thats shorter than the base range for a T1/2 Blast for most ATs, the same as the base range on Sentinel attacks. Most mobs are more than 60 foot wide, some are easily 120 foot+ (mobs in Apex mission 1 are an easy example).  Two Scrappers hitting bosses on opposite sides of the spawns and a Blaster standing outside the spawn shooting in will all be missing each other's Leadership ranges.

 

You mention lack of knowledge but it seems like you are the one who hasn't studied the real world examples.  

[PeregrineFalcon]

I don't take Leadership on most of my Tankers because the builds are tight and because I don't really want the squishies to be standing that close to me.

 

On Blasters and Defenders I usually do have a couple of the Leadership toggles. In fact, my friends and I have an all Leadership team of nothing but squishies will Assault, Maneuvers and Tactics. Needless to say we don't really miss not having a tank on that team.

[biostem]

22 minutes ago, Omega-202 said:

Again for context, the radius for Leadership is only 60 foot.  Thats shorter than the base range for a T1/2 Blast for most ATs, the same as the base range on Sentinel attacks. Most mobs are more than 60 foot wide, some are easily 120 foot+ (mobs in Apex mission 1 are an easy example).  Two Scrappers hitting bosses on opposite sides of the spawns and a Blaster standing outside the spawn shooting in will all be missing each other's Leadership ranges.

Do you have your basters up front on one side and your melees on the other, attacking in different directions and at different groups?  If so, then it does sound like everyone is soloing within the same instance, only caring about themselves.  If so, and if that works for you, then so be it.  If the mobs are as spread out as much as you say, then you are wasting a lot of AoEs and just slowing things down.  I'm not saying you have to do old school dumpster-diving, but being so spread out seems inefficient.

 

22 minutes ago, Omega-202 said:

You mention lack of knowledge but it seems like you are the one who hasn't studied the real world examples. 

As I've said multiple times now, if it works for you, then fine.  I'm not sure I would ever refer to stuff in-game as "real world", though...

Edited September 16, 2022 by biostem

[Luminara]

1 hour ago, biostem said:

the tohit buffs means more of your attacks connect,

 

We have a streakbreaker that prevents us from missing twice in a row when we're at the hit chance cap, and I still miss three times in a row.  Tactics doesn't help, it just mocks me for taking it with the expectation that it would ever do more than suck on my endurance bar like a ten dollar prostitute who hasn't eaten for two days.

[The_Warpact]

Regardless of solo or teamed I take them for my benefit. 

[Black Zot]

A lot of my characters end up with Maneuvers because the def-all helps get to softcap territory, and defense sets have a ton of desirable bonuses.  Beyond that, it depends what I have build space and end for.  Positional defenses have a lot more value after the typed-defense nerf, so "6-slot Gaussian in Tactics" often feels worth it now (and as a bonus, Tactics largely stuffs those annoying blind effects some enemy groups like to throw at you).  Assault is largely expendable unless I'm playing a Mastermind (pets need all the buffs you can offer, even marginal ones).

[Shred Monkey]

I don't build for teaming specifically, but I also usually end up building with many leadership powers.  Maneuvers is a staple for upping my defense, and to get to Vengeance as a LotG mule, I need 1 other, so either tactics or assault, depending on need.   However, the real reason I'm responding to this thread is to point out I don't understand what's going on.  Is this a problem?  Are people choosing not to use the Leadership Pool?  I can't say I ever look at my teammates' builds.   Quite, literally never.  Why would I?  I see their ATs to know who has taunt, and that's pretty much the end of it.  I mean, yeah... if you're not taking Leadership Pool, you should consider it... it's probably #2 behind fighting for it's benefits and you can take 4 pools, so I see no reason not to grab both.   But again, is this a problem?

Edited September 16, 2022 by Shred Monkey

[Snarky]

I tend to run these on as many toons as I can fit them on.  I solo a lot, and when I team it is semi serious.  These buffs are great.  People who do not value them do not understand the math behind the game face.

[biostem]

18 minutes ago, Shred Monkey said:

But again, is this a problem?

It ties back to the whole "selfish vs selfless" concept;  Assuming you are not playing solo, should you take leadership powers that help you and your teammates vs ones that only help you?  Are the buffs better/worse than alternatives?  Do people skip these powers because they don't know or know better, etc?

[KaizenSoze]

So, I am one of those weirdos who almost always takes leadership:tactics on all builds regardless of AT.

 

Because I absolutely hate two things, missing and getting blinded. 

 

I even have a Psi melee/Ninja Scrapper which I love which has tactics and focused accuracy. This means I hit through pretty much any debuff, 2-3 death mages on you, no problem, Carnies debuffed you, no problem. She is going to hit unless the mob is MOG'ed or invulnerable.  Ninjitsu has an endurance heal power which allows me to handle the end drain. I take Barrier instead of Ageless because of that.

 

Having said all that. I didn't know that a lot of folks didn't take tactics at least. ITF hard mode has really brought this out.

[KaizenSoze]

1 hour ago, Shred Monkey said:

I don't build for teaming specifically, but I also usually end up building with many leadership powers.  Maneuvers is a staple for upping my defense, and to get to Vengeance as a LotG mule, I need 1 other, so either tactics or assault, depending on need.   However, the real reason I'm responding to this thread is to point out I don't understand what's going on.  Is this a problem?  Are people choosing not to use the Leadership Pool?  I can't say I ever look at my teammates' builds.   Quite, literally never.  Why would I?  I see their ATs to know who has taunt, and that's pretty much the end of it.  I mean, yeah... if you're not taking Leadership Pool, you should consider it... it's probably #2 behind fighting for it's benefits and you can take 4 pools, so I see no reason not to grab both.   But again, is this a problem?

I have heard a couple of instances of ITF hard modes going badly because very few players had tactics.

 

The high mob defense in ITF hard mode is causing a lot of missing. I even had a 2 star where people were suffering, even though I had tactics.

Edited September 16, 2022 by KaizenSoze

[Snarky]

10 minutes ago, KaizenSoze said:

I have heard a couple of instances of ITF hard modes going badly because very few players had tactics.

 

The high mob defense in ITF hard mode is causing a lot of missing. I even had a 2 star where people were suffering, even though I had tactics.

Math hard...

[biostem]

12 minutes ago, KaizenSoze said:

The high mob defense in ITF hard mode is causing a lot of missing. I even had a 2 star where people were suffering, even though I had tactics.

Were you the only one running tactics, though?  Getting those team buffs stacked is kind of the crux of this thread...

[BurtHutt]

I think it's rather insulting to call someone selfish if they don't take leadership. Seriously. Having said that, I take maneuvers on almost every build and tactics on many (Gaus procs nicely on a team of 8). I also take maneuvers to help softcap.

 

I understand when people say I don't want to take it due to END concerns. Leadership pool costs too much END and can create a ton of issues for that toon if they have constant END issues (I have a couple of toons like this). There are also some tight builds out there and that toon that doesn't have leadership could have a variety of other powers that are team friendly. Just because you don't take leadership DOES NOT make you selfish.

[Sir Myshkin]

I'd point the answer to this query towards a form of misconception. Here on the forums there will be a lot of discussion on value of Leadership, but in the game proper there's still a lot of people who don't follow the forums, and a lot of people who play character who A) Don't know/use Mid's and/or B) Don't build plan in the first place. In a case where Leadership toggles get tossed into a lot of builds here on the forums (as I have seen) it is to patch holes in a build and not to serve as a group endeavor. I'd dare say there's very rarely a build ever posted where the idea of the Leadership Pool being used for a group-use-exclusivity is ever the purpose of its inclusion into a build. Leadership is almost always a selfish choice of "fix me first, it's just a side benefit for everyone else."