I happen to think HoB broken fixes work as nice house rules...
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
1) I like normalized, but I think that should be the final posted number, with DPR still being visible somewhere in the build. Partly, because if you are fighting higher level bads or going against solos/elites, you are going to have a better idea of your performance if you can see DPR v KPT. I also prefer total kills by turn x as the standard, instead of how many kills you expect to rack up on an average turn. This gives a better number than your average, since it does not give as much weight to outliers while also not being thrown off by playing the system going for the median. I also think if we are going for a normalized kill metric, we should actually account for overkill. A single target rogue claiming they did enough damage to kill 3 standards in one round isn't the same as actually killing three standards. Accounting for overkill will actually give aoe types like monks and sorcerors a reliable footing to compete since they might actually be able to claim a greater number of kills if under the right conditions. Perhaps as a compromise (since we do want that rogue when we need to kill an elite right now and not 3 standards), what if the metric was over n turns, and accounting for the total damage done to a single target each turn, you list what size of bad you are able to bring down. So a typical build here might say round 1 setup, round 2 nova (elite dead), round 3 nova (elite dead), round 4 (standard dead), round 5 (standard bloodied). It might make using the normalized value harder to rank them, but if so, we could still rank them by raw DPR.
3) Legend is good, but lets use abbreviations. It will be easier for submitters to add it themself at the bottom instead of trying to look up how to give the special key commands for yen. I like your suggestions listed. If we want to include aoe types, perhaps a grouping marking. Seperating level 6 chargers was really just seperating those with the (CH) and (ITM) codes. Yes, they amount to a fair bit of potential at that level (I hate the boar the most), but if we code each submission properly, it will more or less become obvious. But if we do, then we probably need to create an epic sidebar (especially at 30) for revenant/dancing weapon cheese. Its easily far worse and easier to append to any build than charging is at 6.
4) If we do the metric right, we probably don't need a nova section, since a build's nova potential will be right there up for display, plus a lot of the better builds will probably rely on strong novas anyway with the route we are going. It would just be a double list. Unless we want to keep just the AP+Daily nova section. It is different enough it might merit its own list.
5) I think the tag is probably sufficient, although it will probably religate most of those style of builds to the bottom of the lists. I can't decide how I feel about those builds, really. On the one hand, I feel they do a better job of showcasing how solid the character itself is as a frame and gives a better baseline for lurkers looking for a good build to try. The rest of the builds tend to be hypothetical theorycraft that would never be capable of coming together at a real table. But on the other hand....I really, really, enjoy the theorycraft. Plus, there are only so many real options for builds without items. The item builds also serve to highlist interesting and potentially useful combinations others might not have thought of that could end up at a table. Will you get all 9 uncommons you want for crazy build X? No, but you might snag an element from the build and use it with one or two of the items for a still decent and interesting effect.
6) No preference. The handbooks, I guess. But if you need to look at those, you probably shouldn't be digging through the convoluted builds that can get posted in here. Turn by Turn breakdowns, number crunching, and esoteric builds are overwhelming for anyone who needs to sift through a handbook.
7) Date and what was added/removed.
8) No daily anything (item or otherwise). If you can't expect to reuse it every encounter, no matter what, it doesn't count. Use it in your daily nova build. If we must....nothing less than 5 or 6 encounters a day. But even then, (and this is something that will happen to any build with a weakness on here if used at a real table), once the DM realized you only get to use an item 5 times a day, they are going to make you suffer with a 6th or 7th encounter. They will throw lil baby encounters to make you waste uses, long days, and even red herring baby encounters to make you second guess how long a day will be. This is unrelated to this question, but it brings up the same with super nova builds that then do leader level damage at-will. Once the DM knows this, they will adjust to your murder to create a challenge.
9) I think I kind of outlined my suggestion in #1. Looks closer to option Type 1. I think we should have at least 5 rounds, if not 6. Again, for the reason I mentioned above: the DM will adjust to what challenges you. If turns 1-3 are a breeze but you can barely tread water from then on, expect there to be just as many round after round 3, or just as bad, the DM making you second guess yourself and expect 6 rounds so that you hold off and do your round 10 damage for 3 rounds before you realize the bads aren't going to be getting reinforcements and you just wasted the opportunity to nova altogether. And then expected number of actual kills at the end of round n, not just a mean/median.
1.) Normalized. 1b.) My answer depends on how you're going to deal with AEers in each case. I kill two creatures in round 2 that I brought to half health in round 1. Saying I am a 1 TPK striker is inaccurate, but that'd be the average. KPT has a similar issue.
4.) Daily, Encounter, AP Encounter, Solar Flare Daily, Solar Flare Encounter, Solar Flare Encounter+AP. Solar Flare's tend to have more playable assumptions, like built-in movement or an allowance for actually using a move action to move. It'd give a good distinction between practical and theoretical.
5.) Rarity is stupid and I know of a not a single person who uses it outside of LFR, so LFR compliant should be enough of a tag.
8.) 4 in Heroic, 6 in Paragon, 8 in Epic. As you get older you get a longer work day.
DPR = Damage Per round ~= Chance to hit * damage on a hit KPR = Kills Per Round. 1 Kill = 8*Level+24 damage = DPR/(8*level+24) KPNR = Kills Per N Rounds. How many standards can you kill in N rounds?
Re: KPR and pleasing numbers (kills per ROUND, of course).
Would there be a preference for DeciKPR or KPDecaR? That makes the numbers pleasing again...
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way. Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken. Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken. King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong. Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading. Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered. Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square. Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong. Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked. Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic. Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation. Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses. Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent. Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof. Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it. Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways. Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful. The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken. Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered. Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5. Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong. Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken. Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken. Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
I had thought to start a separate thread to cover Averaged Encounter Damage - more of a Real-World character effectiveness comparison. It seems it may be redundant to do so at this point; here is what I had made for notes on what I was going to propose (and get feedback on)...
Builds will be tagged with; CA, Ch, HLW, L#, LFR, Mn, St
CA (Combat Advantage) - the build requires Combat Advantage for at least 50% of its attacks/damage.
Ch (Charging) - the build relies on charging for at least 50% of its attacks/damage.
HLW - the build is made with the Starting at a Higher Level equipment/wealth rules (L+1/L/L-1, L-1gp), rather than an assumption of wealth appropriate to the character's level.
L# (Level) - Entries can be of any level; though the preferred entries will be (based on DPR Kings) 1, 6, 12, 16, 24, and 30
LFR (Living Forgotten Realms) - the build is legal to play in Living Forgotten Realms.
Mn (Mounted) - obviously, the build requires a mount to function as listed.
St (Stealth) - the build requires the character to be hidden, have cover or concealment, or to be in dim light for at least 50% of its attacks/damage
Here are the proposed restrictions for a build;
The build must list damage in 3 tiers; 4 round average, 10 round average, and at-will.
The at-will damage is figured AFTER the resources for 4/10 rounds have been used - so if it is an effect that lasts until the end of the encounter, it can be applied; if it is an effect based on a single target, assume the target is gone by round 4 (or 10 if applied after round 4).
List damage as Total (AVG/rnd) | Total (AVG/rnd) | (AVG/rnd)
For the targeting/damage calculations, assume you always have 4 standard targets of level +2.
Even if you kill all 4 (or more), there will always be 4 targets.
There are 2 targets in burst 1/blast 3, 3 targets in burst 2/blast 5, and all 4 targets in any larger AoE. (Unless you have a method of guaranteeing you pull the targets into a tighter formation as part of the build.)
Unless you have a means of affecting saves, assume a save-ends power lasts 2 rounds.
For each 2 points you can penalize the save, add 1 round.
There are no set-up rounds available, outside of the 4/10 rounds listed.
You are not allowed to use Action Points or Daily Powers, unless you have a guaranteed way of using the AP or Daily every encounter (assume 5 encounters/day).
Item Rarity rules aren't enforced; but can affect whether a build is tagged LFR Legal or not.
Instead of the 4/10/~i damage calcs, I had also thought of 5/10/~i, 4/8/~i, and 3/6/9 rounds. I also notice the trend is to kill count rather than damage - that could just as easily be applied to the 4/10/~i model.
Question 9 type 1 should be Encounter Section with N rounds DPR averaged and a Nova Section with Round 1 Nova (iaijutus/alpha strike) or at the very least 2 turn damage. It's absurd to consider Nova involving a Prep round and then only counting second round damage, it's not representative of intelligent gaming in the least (unless your prep round includes "all enemies cannot do anything") nor actual gameplay.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
I'll only answer the ones that I have an opinion on.
1) Normalized
3) Abbreviations, add a tag for mounts, add a tag for builds with no survivability, add a tag for targeting issues (1000 sustained dpr against an enemy! ...30 dpr against any of his friends), add a tag for using "overlooked" effects/being RAI-questionable (e.g. Lightning Fury was unaffected by zone nerf, rending was unaffected by free action attack nerf)... and then maybe a special tag for builds that require being bloodied/below 0? But that might mostly be covered by Revenants.
Basically, I ran through all the cheese I use and proposed a tag for it
4) Yes to the nova section
6) A table of appropriate wealth by level (there are multiple ways to determine this; pick one and make everyone use it please!)
8) Yes, 5 encounters/day with a special tag for if you couldn't sustain the build indefinitely. In the specific case of consumables, they should be cheap enough that you can easily buy them in bulk (maybe something like 1 encounter's worth of consumables must cost < 1% of a magic item of your level).
9) If you go with type 1, I like 6 rounds. However, I prefer type 2, but with "sustained dpr" being your 10-round average. I don't like "infinite rounds," even for theoryop, because 1) a Great Hunger weapon (or similar effect) gives you infinite dpr, and 2) if you're using a combination that can be sustained until you roll double-1's (or something similar), it has no effect on "infinite rounds" dpr, when clearly for any remotely reasonable usage it works.
I'd also like some way to incorporate bonuses stemming from attacking bloodied enemies, and from dropping an enemy to 0 hp.
I am okay with you saying my argument is stupid, or commits the munchkin fallacy, or any other bad thing you want. Particularly if you give a reason/explanation for it.
However, I will ignore any post that calls me stupid, or a munchkin, or what have you. Not because it bothers me; I've just found that people only start name-calling when that's the best argument they have left.
