Zubenelgenubi

Yes, we are all well aware of your position on this.

You lost. It was inevitable that eventually you would. Get over it.

Did you know:

Initially, at some point, apparently, the big maximum security prison in Paragon City was to be named "The Brick." It is from this that the zone "Brickstown" got it's name (which makes little sense now that the prison is called "The Zig").

Last I knew, there is still a mission in which the contact refers to the prison as "The Brick."

[ QUOTE ]
Funny thing is: I'm a horrible Stalker lol

[/ QUOTE ]

It's your mouth-watering, meaty aroma. We can always tell when you're close by.

[ QUOTE ]
Zub's awesome.

That's not irony or sarcasm, just plain damned fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

I've been trying to piss you off for MONTHS!! You mean it's NOT WORKING??!!??

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, what the heck is schadenfreude?

[/ QUOTE ]
Schadenfreude: A malicious satisfaction obtained from the misfortunes of others

[/ QUOTE ]

HA HA HA HA!! It makes me so happy that you didn't know that! Now you look stoopid!

[ QUOTE ]
i don't mind having a blaster kick my [censored]. I do mind mechanics that make me unable to properly defend against that blaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh. You know, this is almost exactly verbatim what I’ve said many, many times with regard to stalkers. But when blasters complain about stalkers, we’re universally told “Stop whining! Grow up! Learn to play! There are Things You Can Do to counter stalkers! It's your problem, because you just suck!”

I’m not trying to threadjack. But someday later on, when toggle-dropping changes are a done deal, all the reasonable melee players will see blasters complaining about stalkers AS'ing them and auto-placating and not being able to defend themselves. On that day, I would ask members of the melee community to say to themselves, “Hmmmm… that’s exactly how we felt when dealing with toggle dropping.” And on that day I would ask our melee cousins to join ranks with us and demand a change to correct another game-breaking, unreasonable mechanic.

[ QUOTE ]
No anger here, just a little righteous indignation .

[/ QUOTE ]

Well… please try to be a little more careful. Righteous is in the eye of the beholder. I’m trying reeeeal hard to not stir up unnecessarily harsh emotions over this emotional issue. (Eight “?” was excessive. Six would have been plenty. )

[ QUOTE ]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, any 100% TD attack is ridiculously overpowered in the CoX world we currently live in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m not arguing against that at all. In fact, I specifically went out of my way to agree with this opinion. But I’m saying that the current percentages are so low as to give melee-going blasters little hope. And make no mistake… my blaster is supposed to go into melee (5 out of 9 power choices in my secondary, after all)!

Even now melee AT’s are better at melee than blasters. Stronger defenses, more hit points, the same availability of stun and toggle-dropping attacks as many blasters, high damage, and more useful inherent powers too. (Brutes may complain about not building fury fast enough in PvP… but defiance doesn’t even start until I’m knocking on death’s door.)

I predict that even after the toggle-dropping nerfs we will still be seeing melee types complaining that a blaster was able to defeat them. And we will still be hearing the same attitude that says “When a brute has to run from a blaster, that’s just sad.” (An actual quote from another thread.) For many melee, even one defeat at the hands of a blaster is unacceptable.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So here’s my challenge:

(1) Explain exactly WHY an AT with so many melee powers in all their different secondaries should not be effective in melee.

(2) Explain exactly WHY it is bad for a brute’s secondary powers to be ineffective in PvP, but it’s OK for blasters’ secondaries to be made ineffective.

[/ QUOTE ]Last time I checked, those Blaster melee attacks still did a heck of a lot of damage. Far as I can tell, the toggle drop rate changes didn't remove any of that damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so it sounds like blasters’ melee-based secondaries are considered effective in PvP.

So then why are so many melee players saying that it’s unfair for blasters to be effective in melee range? (Not singling out Uberguy or Snakegandhi as saying this.)

I guess it’s this point I’m interested in addressing.

I understand the many posters who are saying that current toggle dropping levels are too high. I can see that now. Yes, I have actually come around to agree with the other side in a forum debate! I think that the proposed changes are too much, but I can see that some change is necessary.

Still, that doesn’t address what I see as a significant problem with the perspective of many (not all) melee players here. That’s the attitude that says “blasters should not be as good at melee as I am.” or “I am a brute, squishies must all fall before me or there’s something very wrong with game balance.”

[ QUOTE ]
No my stance boils down to, Blasters shouldn't outmelee melee based ATs.


[/ QUOTE ]

And this is the attitude that I’ve challenged here and elsewhere.

Blasters shouldn’t outmelee melee based AT’s? Then why oh why did the devs put so many melee attacks into blaster secondaries? The brute players in this thread repeatedly say “Why should my whole secondary be negated?” Well… why should blasters’ secondaries be negated?

Let’s look an */energy, since that’s one that gets so much attention.

You have:
Power Thrust
Energy Punch
Build Up
Bone Smasher
Conserve Power
Stun
Power Boost
Boost Range
Total Focus

Out of 9 powers, that’s 5 melee attacks. And ZERO ranged attacks.

The other blaster secondaries are also heavily weighted toward melee attacks, except for devices. And even those blaster secondary attacks that are not, technically, beating on someone with your fists are zero or very close to zero range.


So here’s my challenge:

(1) Explain exactly WHY an AT with so many melee powers in all their different secondaries should not be effective in melee.

(2) Explain exactly WHY it is bad for a brute’s secondary powers to be ineffective in PvP, but it’s OK for blasters’ secondaries to be made ineffective.

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone's opinion is right!

[/ QUOTE ]

But some opinions are righter than others.

[ QUOTE ]
Did I say always win?

No, I said out-meleed. It's one thing to be jousted to death with ranged attacks and the occaisonal blap, which has been done to me before, and hey, I didnt complain.

When I have /EM blaster walk up and three shot my EM/DA Brute with nothing but pure melee attacks, it shows something was wrong with the old system of toggle drops.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might just show that the blaster gets lucky occasionally. How often has a blaster walked up to you and you handed him his [censored]?

I’ve seen it before, and I’m seeing it here too. The attitude that says a melee toon being defeated by a well-played blaster is “wrong.” As if melee should walk like gods among the squishies. As if it should be right and good that several squishies should be required to defeat a single brute.

I exaggerate here for effect, and I’m not trying to single you out specifically, Haetron. Heck, just this past week a brute player in another thread flat-out stated that brutes should never have to run from a blaster. From my perspective… my blaster perspective, of course… this is a very prevalent and very arrogant attitude.

Having said all that… Yeah, it seems that an adjustment was required. But this goes too far the other direction.

In my squishy opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
Was I unclear? Yes. Was I condescending in my response? Yes. Am I sorry? For jumping on him, yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

THERE we go. Honestly, I didn’t think you had it in you. You proved me wrong!

[ QUOTE ]
A smirking behavior is, ultimately, why I will offer you no apology.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never asked for one. I said you owed one to Bayani. And he got it. As for me, I made my point, so I’m happy. It’s un-cool for you to jump on someone’s [censored] for reasonably paraphrasing what you said and responding to it.

But I will offer an apology (albeit a small one) to you. When I first responded to your response to Bayani, I said “Sorry, but our judges have awarded this round to the Challenger. Here's a copy of our home game and don't let the studio doors hit you in the [censored] on your way out!” I should have left out the part after the phrase “home game.” It was unnecessarily inflammatory.

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, please quote, exactly, where I made this claim. Come on. Do it. Quote my claim, verbatim, that "Bonesmasher drops three toggles 100% of the time."

[/ QUOTE ]

I did quote you. You just don’t like the fact that you overstated your case, and got called on it.

NOWHERE Did I ever say that YOU said, “Bonesmasher drops three toggles 100% of the time.” Those are words that you’re putting into my mouth. The exchange went as follows:

You said:
[ QUOTE ]

In testing with a buddy he dropped 3 toggles every time he touched me with Bonesmasher.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then Bayani said:
[ QUOTE ]

As for your example, that's just dead wrong. It's not a 100% chance to drop 3 toggles. Either you're overexaggerating or you used a small sample size of 2-3 attempts. Bonesmasher does not drop 3 toggles 100% of the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

To which you replied:
[ QUOTE ]

Did I say 100%? No. I said "very reliable". Thanks for playing, though.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which I found to be not only rude and condescending, but also revisionist. As any reasonable person would conclude that “every time” = 100% of the time.

And so I said:
[ QUOTE ]
In the post he was responding to, you did not say "very reliable." You said:
[ QUOTE ]

In testing with a buddy he dropped 3 toggles every time he touched me with Bonesmasher.


[/ QUOTE ]

every time = 100%

Sorry, but our judges have awarded this round to the Challenger. Here's a copy of our home game and don't let the studio doors hit you in the [censored] on your way out!

[/ QUOTE ]

(You will note that I used the same snippy little “game show” cut down on you that you used on Bayani, revised slightly for originality. I did this just because you were being rude to him and I wanted you to taste your own medicine.)

At which point you pulled out your big philosophical and rhetorical guns and called me an [censored]. And you started backpeddling on what you said, and tried to say that what you clearly said was not what you meant.


I’ll say it again, and I will challenge anyone OTHER THAN YOU to say this is an unreasonable interpretation:

every time = 100%

You jumped on Bayani’s [censored] for assuming that when you said “every time” you meant “100%.” This was unjustified, unreasonable, and uncalled for on your part. And I busted your chops for it. Now you’re backpeddling and trying to reinterpret your own words to wriggle out of the embarrassing situation that you’ve put yourself into.

And you’re accusing me of sematic gamesmanship when it is you driving the argument in this area. Here it is again, straight from you:
[ QUOTE ]
Dude, please quote, exactly, where I made this claim. Come on. Do it. Quote my claim, verbatim, that "Bonesmasher drops three toggles 100% of the time."

[/ QUOTE ]
If you want to discuss the merits of your ideas, then stop demanding that we argue about semantics. Not a difficult concept, is it?



The actual mature thing for you to do at this point would be to admit that you overstated your case, and/or exaggerated. It would also be cool to apologize to Bayani for being rude toward him. You know, that IS allowed on the forums.

But of course you won’t.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the post he was responding to, you did not say "very reliable." You said:
[ QUOTE ]
In testing with a buddy he dropped 3 toggles every time he touched me with Bonesmasher.

[/ QUOTE ]

every time = 100%

Sorry, but our judges have awarded this round to the Challenger. Here's a copy of our home game and don't let the studio doors hit you in the [censored] on your way out!

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome to asshattery 101, folks. Where someone who introduces a contrary opinion will have their words dissected by self-appointed lords of What I Meant who will explain your own posts to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome to backpeddling 101, folks. Where we will criticize someone for misquoting us, only to have the accuracy of our own words pointed out, causing us to make crude insults toward the person who pointed out our own inconsistencies. In this class we will also learn to conveniently ignore our own little snarky sniping comments (things like “thank you for playing”) while at the same time castigating those who do just as we do. Bonus points will be awarded to those of us who learn how to manipulate the English language and rules of logic to try and make it appear that we did not actually say what we clearly said.

Thank you, and goodnight.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for your example, that's just dead wrong. It's not a 100% chance to drop 3 toggles. Either you're overexaggerating or you used a small sample size of 2-3 attempts. I've been playing a fire/energy blaster since the summer of 2004, and I've tested and played energy against my sg mates. Bonesmasher does not drop 3 toggles 100% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say 100%? No. I said "very reliable". Thanks for playing, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the post he was responding to, you did not say "very reliable." You said:
[ QUOTE ]
In testing with a buddy he dropped 3 toggles every time he touched me with Bonesmasher.

[/ QUOTE ]

every time = 100%

Sorry, but our judges have awarded this round to the Challenger. Here's a copy of our home game and don't let the studio doors hit you in the [censored] on your way out!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the melee can run away until his toggles come back up.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Run away every few seconds? No thanks, not fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome to my world.

Running is perfectly fine for the squishy AT’s, but it’s beneath almighty tanks. Not-fun tactics are for those who are not you. My bad.


[ QUOTE ]

2) Oops, can't run away I'm perma-feared. Oh well, guess I'm being defeated again by a bad arena kludge called toggle dropping. Bleh, never mind this PvP stuff, it's no fun as a tank.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm… I wonder why I’ve never been able to fear a melee toon. Oh, wait, I don’t have that power. I guess I’ll just have to respec the fear power into my energy blaster build. I hope we get a free respect so I can do that.

Riiiiiiight.


[ QUOTE ]
I only run four toggles on my tank. Five with sprint. I'm not gimping my build just so I have more toggles running.

[/ QUOTE ]

TRANSLATION:
“My PvE build is just fine for PvP. In fact, my build is perfect the way it is. Anything that happens in a PvP zone that shows off a weakness in my build is by definition unbalanced and unfair.”

[ QUOTE ]
Blasters needed to have their toggle dropping nearly outrigt removed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got your wish.

[ QUOTE ]
I was getting sick of having my Brute out-meleed by a ranged attack class.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. It sure is tiresome when those other players are able to defeat you. You choose the melee class toon, therefore by design you should always win against a "ranged attack class."

Sigh.

Seriously.

Dropping a toggle is far away from defeating an opponent. An attack like Bone Smasher is (was) assured to drop one toggle, has something like a 50% chance to drop another, and a much lower chance to drop a third. Even if it drops three toggles, the blaster still has to lay out the damage to take down the melee. But the melee can run away until his toggles come back up. He can pop a green of two. He can hit the blaster with a stun attack of his own (which will stun the blaster and drop all of the blaster’s toggles). And melee players have learned to run lots of toggles in PvP zones as a defense against blasters and controllers. So I dropped three toggles? let’s see, I got sprint, combat jumping, and just one of several defensive toggles. Hmmmm… And what happened to me, the squishy blaster, who just closed to zero range against a scrapper or brute?

Since PvP encounters tend to be very fast and very furious, just a few seconds of survivability makes all the difference. If I need 8 hits to take down a tank, odds are very good that the tank will not go down. He will either flee, beat me down instead, pop a couple of greens, or his teammates will save him and slaughter me.

As the melee toon on the receiving end of toggle drops, it may seem hugely effective against you, but from the blaster side (who can’t see your trays) I may not see much difference at all. All I can see is your little green bar, and if I don’t get it to black then my attack chain failed, whether or not I dropped most or all of your toggles.

It seems that some adjustment was indeed necessary, but this is just draconian. I’ll get a 22% chance to drop a single toggle if my attack lands, and a far lower chance that it’ll be an important defensive toggle (as opposed to sprint or CJ). And then I still will need to beat down the melee toon with far more hit points that I have before he can beat me down or run away?

Sounds like it’s back to the early days in the Arena.

[ QUOTE ]
My fire sword went from dropping at least 1 toggle 100% of the time (yes I did several tests on several different brutes, aswell as several different stalkers, this is of course IF my firesword hit) to a 5% chance to drop 1 toggle ? A 1 in 20 chance of dropping 1 toggle ...

[/ QUOTE ]

WOO HOO!!!

After 25 failed attempts I was able to drop a toggle!! And it's SPRINT!!! Prepare to be pwned, scrapper!!

[ QUOTE ]
I've gone and lowered the costs of all the Empowerment buffs. There was a bug where the data was seeing Tier 2 Salvage (created by the Tier 1 salvage you collect) as Tier 1 quantities, i.e. the player would have a lot more of it.

The new Empowerment costs should be much more in line with what you guys were thinking. Sorry.

This will get up to the training room in the next major patch.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to say that I like the new Lead Designer!

I remember previous patches where everything was set in stone once it was up on the test server. Time on test was just, apparently, for fixing bugs. Player feedback did not result in any tweaks or changes to any of the major or even minor features or nerfs.

But here, already, Positron has responded to player concerns and promised significant changes here and over in the storage thread.

Outstanding. Thank you!

[ QUOTE ]
Edit:

For the OP, in regards to power pools. I believe you forgot to mention that Hover and Acrobatics provide knockback protection, a VITAL asset to a Kineticist. As a Kin/ or a /Kin, you'll be spending a lot of time in melee where your powers are most effective. You'll be severely hindered if you don't have some KB protection.

I think that Acrobatics is a better option, personally, but it requires 3 power picks. If you were going to go this route, I'd take CJ, SJ, and Acro, and skip Inertial Reduction.

Hover doesn't have a prerequisite, so it is a better option sometimes. I run Hover + Inertial Reduction in my respec build (with no conventional travel power). It's not perfect, but it alows you to fit in an extra power if you're tight on space in your build.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice take on this also.

I just started a rad/kin corruptor, and I really don't know how tight her build will be yet. But from here it looks like I'll need to be skimpy on the pool powers. TP Foe is a must, I believe. But most of my toons have hover-fly, so SJ is one I'd like to work with.

Will Inertial Reduction increase the height and speed of CJ?

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. Siphon Power will self-stack, both on the debuff, and the buff. Same with Siphon Speed, too. Even Fulcrum Shift will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will it stack if I hit the same villain with it, or does it have to at least be different targets?

[ QUOTE ]
Siphon Power: GET THIS POWER FIRST. This power gives you a +25% DMG buff, and gives the mob hit a -25% DMG debuff. Great to help you out in the first few solo levels of your superhero's life. When teaming up, the +25% DMG buff is PBAoE, so all team mates close to you will recieve the buff, as well. This is, IMHO, a staple of the Kinetics line, since it's all about killing as fast as possible. What better way to kill faster than with a DMG buff?
Recommended Slots: +ACC, -RCHG


[/ QUOTE ]

Stupid question: Do your own siphon powers stack, if you get another one off before the first vanishes?

Did you know…

In the Shadow Shard (FBZ) there is a cave off to the right as you exit the portal. This cave contains another portal that takes you to a second cave in Cascade Archipelago. The cave in Cascade Archipelago has two contacts standing around in it: Dr. Huxley (who passes out Kora Fruit missions) and Sara Moore (who starts one of the SS TF’s).

When the Shadow Shard first came out, both caves appeared to be entirely empty of equipment, walls, floors, and even the portals themselves! Every non-cave item in each one was invisible. The contacts and soldiers stood around floating on air. You would try to move around in the caves and continually would bump into invisible barriers. It was several issues before this odd bug was fixed.

Did you know…

For quite awhile there was a mysterious, floating piece of debris located in Crey’s Folly. It’s gone now, but it used to be behind that big, long warehouse you see off to the left as you run into the zone.

It was about head-high, not very big, and from a certain angle, sorta looked like a book. You could jump up and stand on it if you wanted to. It took the devs several issues to finally remove it.