Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="robertliguori" data-source="post: 4243364" data-attributes="member: 47776">I greatly question this assertion.  Depending on the specific monsters and specific situation, different tactics will dominate.  Leaders boost the damage output of other monsters in an encounter, either directly with buffs, or indirectly by making the monsters last longer (and take more swings, therefore doing more damage).  If the amount of damage boost a leader grants is less than the difference between the leader's damage and a brute's damage, then adding a brute instead of a leader will be better.Besides, we've already seen problematic design imbalances.  Swarms, for instance, can only be effectively fought with area attacks; a group of five swarms with complementary abilities (needlefang swarms, for instance) that are directed to endure the Defender's attacks and focus their fire on leaders until the leaders are beyond healing, then focus on anyone who demonstrates area attack potential, and then have the surviving swarms mop up the rest of the party, seem to be a pretty optimal strategy.Of course, such an encounter would fall very quickly and embarrasingly to a party that had five controllers specializing in area attacks.  That party would itself suffer at the hands of a high-defense solo with Resist.  That same solo would squish rapidly if dogpiled by five Defenders, and those defenders stand a good chance of being attritioned to death by the swarms, on account of their resistance to the general Defender bag of tricks.Again, I question the XP pool method of generating encounters.  A monster or encounter that is vulnerable to a particularly squishy class, resistant to other classes, and can inflict significant damage is superior; it can focus fire on its weakness until squish has been acheieved, then sit back and let its numbers carry the day from there on out.</blockquote>

Verification