Aett_Thorn

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we're going to go with the 5-year old descriptions of the ATs, then Blaster's HP should be lowered

[/ QUOTE ]

I was not quoting 5 year old text.
http://www.cityofheroes.com/game_inf...rchetypes.html

[/ QUOTE ]

And off that page, you can see the same things that I was showing. My point was that that text hasn't been edited in about 5 years. Sure, it's still there. That doesn't make it current.

[ QUOTE ]
Darn that was pointed on the first repply and I missed it, too late to edit!!!

That should teach me to stop posting from my iphone, whoever designed it's spellchecker and autocomplete should be shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

err...<ahem>

There is Threat Decay, but we don't know exactly how that works. As such, your Threat value will decrease over time on the enemy if you're mezzed, but exactly how much, we don't know.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i have popcorn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I brought the l'il smokies!

[/ QUOTE ]

With all this food, we need some beverages. **Drops off a case of Pepsi**

[/ QUOTE ]

Pepsi? PEPSI?!?!!? Don't you know I play on Pinnacle?! Where's the booze?!!

If we're going to go with the 5-year old descriptions of the ATs, then Blaster's HP should be lowered, Controllers should be able to "route the enemies away", and Scrappers should have no ranged attacks. After all, all of those are mentioned in the AT descriptions off the main page.

They were invalid day one the game was released. Heck, whole powers listed in the power descriptions in the manuals weren't in the game at release. At the time the game came out, Tankers did less damage (pre-slotting, since ED wasn't in effect back then) than they do now, yet were still listed as medium damage.


As for your calculations, can you explain them a bit more? How does a Scrapper at 1.181 ds go to 0.68, then to 100%, whereas a Tanker goes from 0.8 go to 0.3 go to 30%? If 0.68 is 100%, shouldn't the Tanker at 0.3 be 0.44?

Also, is that truly taking into account the fact that many control powers have very little damage associated with them? Sure, Fire Control might be 'medium' damage, but I doubt you'll find the same to be true of Earth or Ice Control.

Oh god! You said his name!

You fool! You glorious, glorious fool!

[ QUOTE ]
i have popcorn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I brought the l'il smokies!

I would say that it might be better, since the Magic Booster did the same thing as you propose, to have the Science one affect the enemy:

You brew a concoction, throw it at the enemy, and it creates a random buff or debuff. So, you might weaken a spawn, or you might buff it greatly.

[ QUOTE ]
The Holy Trinity (Tank, DPS and Healer) is common place in the fantasy Genre.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's really not. It's common place in fantasy MMOs and games. You're taking your experience with an MMO, and applying it to the genre. Take the genre, and apply it to the MMO, and you'll find it equally short-falling.

The Holy Trinity is much more a product of it being a Game, and less of it being a Fantasy Game. Still, even with all that said, most characters in this game can solo. Sure, some can solo faster than others, but that's always going to be the case.

[ QUOTE ]

Now look at Heros...
Does Batman need a Tanker? What about Wonder Woman?
Does Superman need a Healer?
What is the one thing that stands out about every Hero and Heroine?

They are self sufficient, ever notice with with the exception of Robin, most of the Super Friends work independently?

Show me one Hero that is forced to depend on another (except Robin, Batgirl and maybe Girl Wonder) to protect them and keep them safe?

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, now take this, and apply it to comics where they are focused on a team, such as the X-Men or the Fantastic Four. Those comics are usually written in a way that the team is needed to prevail. However, take the team away, and write about just one member, and they usually still do fine. Why is this? The storyteller can alter the threat against the single character to not be as bad.

It's the same in this game: put more people on your team, and the need for the team increases. Solo, and the threat is much less.

[ QUOTE ]
1. We're not certain that's the entire equation; Castle posted it in a thread some time ago, but as I recall the wording of his post suggested it wasn't the complete formula.
2. We're not certain what floors/caps are involved in the equation

Edit: We do know there's at least a separate equation for AI Mod, and that depends on the AI in question, and that it can include a "kill the healer" value, though no current enemies in the game use it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This. Castle gave us that VERY simplified formula a while back when Tankers were testing just how aggro worked. After doing some looking through the code, it was found that Threat in this game was calculated WAY differently than the Devs had thought. At the time, it was thought that Taunt was a binary state, just like a mez. If you Taunted a mob, he was on you, unless another player was able to stack up more than twice the Taunt duration.

Now we know that this is how Threat generally works. A lot of those values are based on exactly what you're fighting, and we have no idea what some of them are (for instance, we don't know what the RangeMod actually is, only that melee seems to be higher than range).

Most Debuffs have a value of 2, but this is not consistent across all debuffs. The highest that value can go, that I know of, is 8, but I don't think that that is a hard limit, just the most debuffs a single power has.

Most of those values in the threat formula should be floored at a set value higher than zero, but we don't know what that is. I will try to correct that page, since this isn't the first question we've had about that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow - you haven't played in a zone where Freakshow are just hanging out in the streets? let me guess - MA all the way, right? ...

... You may want to go research what is outside the MA a bit - ParagonWiki is your friend. There is lots more to see than the inside of the AE Building in Atlas Park.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get off your high horse, legend. The OP asks a polite question and you're all "Mr. Flame In Your Face" with MA-attitude. With so many posts to your name - you being a legend and all that -- maybe you should read Wiki yourself and discover that this kind of post is against forum rules.

How do you know this poster didn't just get the message in game that said "Kill Freaks, you can find them in Crey's Folly."

You made an assumption based on nothing. Then flamed someone based on your assumption.

Let me guess ... Flame Troll all the way, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pot, meet Kettle.

Yes, the post that you are replying to was a little rude. That doesn't justify you being a LOT rude.

And really? Attacking post count? Sure, like that means anything.

Crey's Folly is off of Brickstown.

There are Freaks in Brickstown that should be lower level than in Crey's Folly, though. Also, Talos Island has lower-level freaks.

[ QUOTE ]
/em backintheolddays

Used to have maintenance every day of the week. Uphill both ways!

[/ QUOTE ]

In three feet of snow!


Dang kids! Get off my lawn! <waves frozen carp threateningly>

Keep in mind, too, that many players don't like having to sit around and wait for attacks to recharge. That would probably have been the greatest hurdle to your idea back then, and now.

Combat in this game is FAST. Being able to only get one or two hits in in a fight probably wouldn't make you feel too super, either. Hitting REALLY hard, then sitting there and waiting for your attacks to recharge would bore a lot of people, I'd wager, especially on teams. This change would also hurt low-level Tankers the most, and that's the group that could probably use the most help.

Also, back in the day, it might not have been too bad to make this change. But with the addition of Gauntlet, and IOs, the situation changes. Gauntlet is a decent way to keep aggro on you, just from swinging your fists. Slowing down Tanker attack recharge values would mean less ability to use Gauntlet, and more of a necessity to use Taunt to keep aggro. IOs allow you to do a lot of things, but one of the best things they do is increase Recharge. If you increased Tanker damage, and increased Recharge values, but allowed them to be fully enhanceable, even with +Rec IO set bonuses, you could see a huge increase in performance from high-level Tankers. I don't really think that would keep them in balance with the other ATs, who can't build to increase damage by that much.

[ QUOTE ]
However, Tankers really can't solo against an AV, their damage is far too low.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just wanted to point this out: AVs are not meant to be soloed. Yes, some players can solo AVs. However, using them as a balancing point probably isn't your best track. AVs are meant to be team content.

In order to even get a solo mission to spawn one, you need to set your difficulty to the highest point, which should say something.



I'm also not thrilled by the idea of doing 1/10th the damage to each foe just because there are ten around me. I'm betting that this would make Tankers feel worse than they do now about the damage they do.

<QR>

Also, to aperture:

Don't get sucked into the MA-farm black hole. It may be easier to find teams there, but you miss out on a lot of the story and content of the game. The MA can be fun, and I suggest going there on occasion, just don't spend your entire time there...you miss out on a lot if you do.

First off, welcome back.

The game is very different now. There have been a lot of changes since you played. I would strongly suggest that you check out ParagonWiki, which has an article that lists all of the changes by issue. If you played at release, that was issue 0. We are now in issue 14, with issue 15 about to drop soon. There was a lot of changes in that timeframe, many more than could be conceivably be listed here in a short time frame.

As for what you can do at max level: don't think of it like that. This game is not about getting to 50 and then the game begins. There is content at all levels here. However, once you get to level 50, there are high-level task forces, PvP, raids, and the ability to go back and do any content that you missed.


As for the major selling points for me: the character creator (yay for lots of customization not linked to 'gear'!), the fun people, the ability to play as a super hero, the ability to make any team whatsoever, and still be able to go through content, and the ability to create lots of alts. But that's just me.

A Perma Dom is a Dominator that is able to get their inherent Domination up so often that it's on all the time.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, yeah, I'm completely against Tanker changes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say that. I said that's the front you most often present.


.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am against changes that I think will unbalance things, either individual sets or whole ATs. That's the only front I present.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have also historically been for changes to Invuln post-ED (and especially once the Devs fixed the bug in Invuln which was the problem in the first place), and to Ice Melee. I am NOT against all change. I am against THIS change.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you weren't Aett.

You used to come in my threads about Inul and argue against every change suggested by me or others. INCLUDING the changes Castle eventually went with. That's how I first encountered you, for crying out loud.



You, and a handful of others in this forum, don't seem to post unless it's to oppose a change or suggestion.

That's not true? That's the front you present. That's exactly what it seems like you're doing here



.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I argued with your suggestions to Invuln. I was not opposed to all changes to Invuln, and supported a fair number of them.

I have posted for changes to Tankers before. If fact, I supported your Tank-omination suggestion as decent, if I still don't think it's completely needed. I posted for THREE YEARS trying to get Ice Melee fixed up.

So, yeah, I'm completely against Tanker changes.

<steals DumpleBerry's coffee>

[ QUOTE ]
Aett, like I posted before, No one is really "hurting", then again I would need your definition of that word in game context. Besides that, AT's don't need to be "hurting" for a change to be made, or even for additions to be put in. Were WP and DA Tanks put in because tanks where hurting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, yes, yes they were. Well, at least WP was, and Shields. How were Tankers hurting? Before Powerset proliferation, Tankers had not gotten a new set since the game released. Same was true for Scrapper secondaries. Scrappers also had the fewest Secondary options of any AT, and Tankers were tied for having the fewest primary set options. The Devs wanted to create new sets, because people like those, and as such, they decided to give them to the ATs that needed new sets the most.

So, yes, WP was designed BECAUSE Tankers and Scrappers were seen as hurting.

Also, adding new, balanced sets does not disrupt the inter-AT balance as much as adjusting the balance of all of the Tanker secondaries.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not asking for Overpowered this or that. Merely more addition's that add to the heroic feel of tanks, or any other AT for that matter. It's not a matter of "fixing", I never said they needed to be fixed, you need to read my posts again.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are asking for a change which would directly throw off the balance between ATs. I know you don't seem to see this, but I have mentioned it before, that with the recent change to Taunt giving it -range, adding Ranged attacks to Tankers earlier on, allowing them to develop a fairly full ranged attack chain in the upper levels, would allow them to Blast at range with potentially little to zero chance of incoming damage. That's a huge balance factor right there.

In addition to this, you would need to remove current powers in the set to add these ranged attacks. No matter what you do, or what power you replace, there's going to be balance issues there. Take a look at this list of powers that would 'likely' be removed if ranged attacks were added to each set. You'd be advocating for either a loss of damage or loss of utility from each set, to gain an unequal amount of utility. There's another balance issue.

With that in mind, in order for this change to be seen as keeping Tankers balanced with other ATs, you need to show one of two things: 1) Tankers are out of balance right now, or 2) That this change would alter Tanker balance, but not enough to imbalance it. As of now, you have not shown either of those two things.

[ QUOTE ]
Its fine that you see Tankers "fine the way they are". Thats your opinion, your obviously entitled to it. So why bother posting?, I'm not here to argue so your looking at the wrong post. I'm here to post my opinions on said matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you are allowed to post your opinions on the matter, but I am not, just because I disagree with it? I don't think so.

I will advocate for changes that I believe in. I will advocate against changes that I think will hurt the game. This is one of the latter. I am fully entitled to post my feelings on the subject if I disagree with a matter.

I also do not think that all Tanker sets are fine as they are (this is true both historically and currently). At this time, I think that Fire Armor could still use some help. Not much, but a little. I have also historically been for changes to Invuln post-ED (and especially once the Devs fixed the bug in Invuln which was the problem in the first place), and to Ice Melee. I am NOT against all change. I am against THIS change.

[ QUOTE ]
I see you just want to be cynical and argumentative.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm really not. I have pointed out specific problems with the OP's idea that I see. I have tried bringing up specific examples of what I'm talking about when I could. That is not being argumentative. That is actually trying to show the OP exactly what I'm talking about, so that maybe he can see where the opposition is coming from. I give credit to Ultimo_ for sticking through this thread as much as he has with the various threadjacks that have gone on about increasing Tanker damage. That was not what this thread was about. I have tried to keep talking about the actual suggestion of the thread where I can.

If you think that is cynical and argumentative, then you're welcome to your opinion, but it was not my intention.

[ QUOTE ]
My idea isn't as radical as most people think, especially since I'm not askinf for an "I win" button or overpowered defense. I understand you may not like mine or anyone else's ideas but being sarcastic about it won't help your case. You want numbers, but as I stated in past posts, somethings don't need numbers to prove that they need to be changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I have pointed out exactly where this could imbalance Tankers. Please try to refute those claims before saying that you're not looking for overpowered Defense. A Tanker, with their higher HP, higher defensive numbers, and a decent number of ranged attacks, combined with -range on Taunt, could be extremely imbalanced. Sure, they won't do as much damage as a Blaster, but they could do it in absolute safety, which is imbalancing.

2) Yes, my idea was sarcastic, but it was an analogy to prove a point. Not all ideas are good ones, even ones that have some support. And it is perfectly okay to point out potential flaws in an idea.

3) If you are asking for a change to an entire AT, it generally helps to have data to back you up. Even the Devs don't do anything unless they have some numbers to back them up. Players can dislike the feel of an AT. But if the AT is still played a lot, it might not be a problem. Changing balance solely on feel tends to not be such a good thing, as it can quickly lead to an out-of-balance AT.

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, I'm not asking for a total revamp of the whole tanker AT, maybe you misunderstood, I'm asking for a very small addition compared to what the expansion will bring. My idea isn't game breaking or even monumental. I guess thats the whole problem here, even a small idea is deemed "wrong" or unsound due to people disliking change. In a way I understand you don't want to change whats already been made whole, but to accept the opinion, that it will always stay like this, is naive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, stop trying to say that people don't want changes. We don't like THIS change specifically. We might be for other changes. As odd as it may sound, I don't think that Johnny's Tank-omination idea was all that bad. Sure, the numbers would need to be tweaked here or there, but the idea wasn't all that bad, and I said so in that thread. It was a change that, while I don't think it's really needed, could work if Tankers were shown to be behind the curve.

What I DO have a problem with is people saying things like, "this wouldn't be imbalancing," when it has been pointed out how it could be, with no rebuttal to that.

What I DO have a problem with is other people mischaracterizing arguments, and dismissing them based on that mischaracterization.

What I DO have a problem with is people thinking that disagreement = insulting.



In short-ish: IF people avoid playing Tankers because of a playstyle issue or because of a lack of damage, then that is not necessarily a problem. For instance, I have a problem with Dominators. The playstyle just doesn't attract me, and I've given up on each one that I've made. Does that mean that there is a problem with Dominators because of that? No. It means that they might not be for me.

IF Tankers are out of balance with other ATs, then that IS a problem. If that is the case, then a change needs to be made to Tankers. What change that is should be based on a few criteria:

1) The change should bring the AT most in balance with other ATs.

2) The change should bring the least disruption to current players.

3) The change should be made that draws the most players to the AT.

Now, it's usually impossible to meet all three of those criteria. Sometimes it's possible, but often times it is not.

My problem with the proposed suggestion is that it meets NONE of those criteria.

1) I believe that it throws off balance in terms of flavor, and potentially vastly imbalances the AT as a whole, especially in the upper levels as the character can get more ranged attacks.

2) Replacing current powers outright can be hugely disruptive to current players.

3) If your problem with Tankers before was that they did poor damage or that the playstyle didn't suit you, this change would do little to alter that.

The problem is the game engine itself. It doesn't lend itself too well to determining collisions. This is why you can't run up walls with super speed, and things like that.

Also, unless wall clinging disabled all other powers, each power allowed would need three new animations for it (one for each 'gender'). That's a decent amount of work to do for a new power pool.


Edit -> Also, how would this travel power stack up to the others in places like Independence Port, Nerva Archipelago, or the Shadow Shard? Each of those places has large areas where there are no walls. How would this travel power work in areas like that?

It took me a whole two minutes. I can do better.

[ QUOTE ]
I am currently using a trial account. I was wondering if to get the free 30 days that comes with a new game, do you need to start a brand new account, or if you are on a trial account will it give you 30 free days to that account?

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, welcome to the game and to the forums!

If you Upgrade your trial account with the full serial code that you bought, then the free 30 days will be applied to the trial account. You don't need to make a new one.