Angry_Citizen

I think it could indeed be a very interesting issue. I'm going to withhold praise on Issue 11 until I actually see it, just like I'm not going to give criticism, however. It's unwarranted, and it's very much unwise to assume you will like or dislike something when you look at its cover.

That said, I9 was, easily, the best Issue to ever hit CoH/V. Loot turned into a very wonderful idea. I10 became a smash hit with the Rikti Invasion, which continued the story of CoH/V, which I9 neglected to do. For that, I praise the devs.

Frozen Aura should be more like Poison Trap, I think. A high magnitude, short "hold" that's a brief respite during a battle. Something that wouldn't drop toggles, and would nail an AV past the triangles.

I wonder, Brev, if you're planning on updating this guide for Inventions?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Welcome, Drizzt Do'Urden clones.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what I was going to say.

They just don't really look feasible, I wanted to try them but they just look absurdly long and thin. A katana was a two handed weapon for most people, using two (which is what they look like) is just not right.

Oh well, there's always willpower.

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome, overly paranoid psycho folk.

Seriously, you want to be paranoid about something? Be paranoid about the fact that a good majority of all the "new" sets that have been released since the game's release have sucked, royally.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I suppose I can understand why he thinks that way. Which is why I've tried, and apparently failed, to bring his attention to what my analysis has shown.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've not 'failed' -- I just haven't had time to address Stalkers issues, even just the ones I *can* do something about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. As long as I know that, given adequate time, the issues will be addressed, whether with Stalkers or Ice Tanks whatever, I'm happy.

Also, it's getting kinda funny having to hound you in other subsections of the forums to get comments on Stalkers.

I really like the Dual Blades. They're a little less curved than I expected, and my god they're bloody huge... but they look neat. Hows'a'bout releasing the power list?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Guess I'm the minority, my Fire/Ice seems powerful enough to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that's the point, and has been heavily discussed in the 3 threads on Fixing Ice Melee. No one is debating Fire/Ice isn't fine in the dmg department, but that's mainly due to the one trick pony of Ice Patch+Burn.

Someone suggested datamining Ice Melee's performance after *excluding* Fire/Ice. Seems like a good place to start.

Let me add: fixing the pause after GIS is more of a bug than a balance issue IMO. If GFS was fixed, so should GIS...and fast.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't exclude Fire/Ice from balancing. If Fire/Ice is "pretty good" now, then if /Ice receives a buff, it goes from "pretty good" to "potentially overpowering", depending on how they do it.

Some sets tend to have natural pairings. Some sets are balanced around those natural pairings. DM/DA, for instance. /DA is a horrible end hog, and can have difficulties with survivability unless played "right". DM provides an end recovery power and numerous survivability powers that tend to mesh with what you're trying to work with in DA. Now, while /DA is hardly gimped... you cannot argue that it operates far more efficiently with DM. Just like Fire/Ice. Like I say, /Ice needs work... but leaving Fire out is dangerous at best.

I'm inclined to believe my own personal opinion, yes. My mathematics I don't fully trust, but if it's flawed, I'm sure it will be pointed out by more knowledgeable individuals. He's seen my points. I haven't seen his. He tells me such-and-such is this way. I tell him such-and-such is that way, and try to show him why. I'm guilty of not doing that in my original posts, but in subsequent posts, I have attempted, and possibly failed to rectify that. I'm told "Stalkers have issues, but are generally fine". I run basic, very simple mathematical calculations that show very interesting results for burst damage, and noone pays any attention to that - including Castle (not to mention yourself and any real forum numbercruncher). I try to factor in the variables that a Developer must take into account, but anything I run shows a rather glaring power disparity between the two "cousin" Archetypes - Stalkers and Scrappers.

I don't see his numbers. He sees mine. That is where a lot of mistrust comes from, from the playerbase. And that is why I do not give his datamining the benefit of the doubt. I give it the respect it deserves, because those calculations do determine what will happen. Whether they're right or wrong is open to speculation, but the power they have over developer minds is undisputed.

As for:

[ QUOTE ]
So from his perspective, he has no reason to disbelieve his own datamining research, over the subjective judgements of any particular player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose I can understand why he thinks that way. Which is why I've tried, and apparently failed, to bring his attention to what my analysis has shown. I doubt I'd believe a random forum-goer either, but I would hear him out. All evidence thus far has shown he hasn't read a single thing I've written. If I had access to his datamining, I could potentially understand his perspective more, but as that is strictly forbidden, I don't exactly have much hope of seeing his analysis'.

Arcana: Personally, I think you put a little too much faith in datamining. Statistics can be skewed far too easily when taken as a whole; granted, it's not nearly as often as we, the players, think. As for whether there's a problem, whether with Stalkers, Tanks, Ice Melee, Energy Aura, Energy Assault, whatever; I suppose it's dependent on their view of what an Archetype is supposed to do. If Archetype/Power Set "x" does "y" sufficiently, it isn't necessarily balanced. If Archetype/Power Set "x" does "y" better than Archetype/Power Set "z", then there's a balance problem, unless Archetype/Power Set "x" does "a" better than Archetype/Power Set "z". The issue is taken to levels of complexities when there are more things to consider than "y" and "a". Suddenly you're having to consider "y", "a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f", and a huge host of other things. I think a great deal of our frustration with datamining comes from the fact that what we, the players, consider the "ideal 'y'" is not always what the Developers consider it to be. As an example, we cannot know if the slight level of extra control in Ice is "balanced" in their minds. Whether Ice underperforms in value "y", or whether Stone overperforms value "y", we simply cannot know. As a result, we could see a nerf to Stone instead of a buff to Ice. I think the trick is to change their perception of the "ideal 'y'". Because trying to change their perception of "x's" "y" value in relation to "z" isn't going to work.

Is there a problem with Ice Melee? Yes. Is it difficult to prove? Yes. Is that because its values aren't provably worse than, say, Stone Melee's? No. Just casual math thrown about in this thread proves that sufficiently. Is it because of the way Castle must try to convince his superiors? Probably, since Ice's problem isn't easy to quantify through datamining, as, like I said, statistics can be skewed.

To sum this up: I think you're spot on, Arcana.

Edit: No wonder you write these; wall of texts are pretty.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*** snip ***


Tankers, as a whole, do better than average, and this includes Ice Melee. My focus is on those AT's who, as a group, underperform.

*** snip ***

[/ QUOTE ]

Sooooo, according to your data mining, which ATs underperform?

[/ QUOTE ]



Yeah missed that the first time. I'd like to know too. Pretty please Castle dear. *bats eyelashes*

[/ QUOTE ]

The odd part is, if you believe the defiance changes that he's working on, Blasters underperform tankers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think most people would agree that Blasters are underperforming compared to Tanks. Tanks' problem is the fact that, though they perform their role very capably, it's simply not always a useful role. Buffs and debuffs (and controls, for that matter) can replace the need for Tanks far too easily. The fix to this is very complex and beyond my capabilities to analyze or even to suggest. I would put forth the opinion that, in order of attention, they should go Blasters --> Stalkers --> Tanks --> Dominators. I'd put Stalkers ahead of Blasters barely, but since they actually are fixing Blasters as we speak, it's rather pointless to even suggest to them that they should fix Stalkers, or Tanks, or Dominators before Blasters.

Since Tanks as a whole could use a boost in a non-statistical fashion, trying to ascertain the proper method of boosting them is rather complex and will need a lot of thought. As a result, it will be pushed to the backburner.

Remember, this is our Devs we're talking about. They have limited resources, and they can't always fix multiple problems simultaneously. As a result, they prefer quick fixes to long-term, difficult-to-analyze fixes.

This "too-long; didn't read" post can be summed up with: Tanks need a buff, not just Ice Melee; but unfortunately, it's a long way off, given its complexity.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That's precisely the point. If Stone must, why can't Ice Melee?

[/ QUOTE ]

That presupposes that stone must. How many people actually slot Seismic for hold at all, barring HOs? Permahold SS is a neat party trick, but so what? Stone can kill or maim a boss in the default hold duration, plus follow up with Fault or Tremor or Stone Mallet or Heavy Mallet for KD if additional control is needed.

[ QUOTE ]

As for Fault, I'd really like to know exactly how much of a threat a [EDIT]group of[/edit] minion[edit]s[/edit] is to a Tank. If it's "not that much", then that's undoubtedly factored into the Developer mindset.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a sufficiently large spawn, minions can account for a very large portion of the incoming damage. And if we're not talking large spawns: who cares? When has a small number of minions ever been a threat to a tank, unless it's Vanguard or something with substantial end drain?

The question is how much relative value do those powers bring in a team environment? Which one stops more AoE? Which one is better at keeping those 45-second stun grenades off the blasters? Do you know how much knockdown Fault provides? Tremor? The ST attacks? Stone is not hurting for KD, either. And do you know what happens to Ice Patch if you're teamed with so much as one person who gets giddy over knockback powers?

Interesting point: the larger the spawn gets, the more powerful /stone's control gets relative to /ice. If you really want the details, I again refer you to earlier threads as we've been over it multiple times in great detail.

Anyway, that's all I have to say. I have nothing new to add, and I, and others, have answered the exact same objections, multiple times, in prior threads, and I no longer care about trying to convince other players. At this point people are convinced or they aren't, and frankly Castle's the only one that really matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if we're talking about, say, three bosses? Would they be more dangerous than ten minions? I'd think so. And Ice Patch would easily deal with those bosses, whereas Fault would merely offer a temporary respite from conflict.

As for Stone, yes, they have a plethora of KD/KB powers, but none that offer a repetitive KD/KB like Ice Patch. It's one use, then the enemy gets back up.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then your Freezing Touch is not slotted as well as your Seismic Smash, because Freezing Touch lasts longer (I'd say around 20% longer) and recharges 20% faster.

[/ QUOTE ]

try again. I know, I added the slotting after you replied.

FT has a 1 sec cast, Seismic has a 1.5 sec... not a big difference, especially when you look at how much damage the two do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, I'm not comparing the two themselves, I'm simply saying: add that 1.5 seconds (*3 since it's three uses) to the recharge, and you suddenly aren't able to perma-hold three bosses.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I shall, again, state that Ice Patch is skewing their analysis of the matter, as it is a permanent control as opposed to the four second knockdown that Fault provides.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "control" from Ice melee comes fro Frozen Aura. Ice Patch is a nice bonus power that "may" remove 5 enemies from a fight temporarily. Just because it has 5 enemies on it does not mean that they will stay or that they cannot attack. Enemies do stand up and fire an attack and enemies do run off of the ice patch.

Tremor does knock down ten enemies and Fault does knock down ten enemies. Fault may stun then as well, and with slotting and recharge bonuses, it may stack.

What I would like for the set is more damage, because GIS does not compare, not even remotely close, to other tanker sets high damage attack. Frozen Touch I wish was burst damage. I wish it was a mag 4 like other sets get as well, or at least a percent to become a mag 4, similar to Total Focus. (not the damage, just the %for mag 4)

And Frozen Aura should be made some sort of AoE damage power. I would be happy with making it like Combustion. Or a Cold damage toggle. (Blazing Aura anyone?)

Adjust GIS and(/or) FT. Add AoE damage to FA.

Pyre mastery does more damage than Ice Melee.

I would like to not rely on Ice Patch/Burn for my damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Total Focus, in all its incarnations except Dominators', is mag four. I agree that Freezing Touch would be made an amazingly good power if it were mag 4, as suddenly you could quite easily perma-hold two bosses.

[/ QUOTE ]

But to do this, you'd be giving up slotting one of your most damaging attacks. If you're going to say that slotting SS for control is a waste because it lowers your damage to do so, you have to do the same for FT. The control is a secondary aspect of the power, especially for Ice Melee, since it needs all the damage it can get.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it worth it to slot the damage, or do you believe it'd be easier to focus on control?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Total Focus, in all its incarnations except Dominators', is mag four. I agree that Freezing Touch would be made an amazingly good power if it were mag 4, as suddenly you could quite easily perma-hold two bosses.

[/ QUOTE ]

you mean just like Seismic Smash can now?

My Seismic Smash has a 6.21 recharge and an 18.21 duration... sounds like 3 Bosses to me...

my FT is 8.73 with a hold of 23.2. Longer Duration, but slower recharge, and you have to hit that second time to get a boss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then your Freezing Touch is not slotted as well as your Seismic Smash, because Freezing Touch lasts longer (I'd say around 20% longer) and recharges 20% faster.

Also, you're not factoring in animation times to your "mez three bosses". That 1.5 second animation to Seismic Smash would eliminate that hope.

hah

Believe me, I know how ya feel

Being told I'm "generally" fine when I know I'm not (and can prove it) is actually quite annoying.

That being said, I think you raise interesting points. I don't think Stone should out-burst-mez any Ice Melee tank. It's simply not right for Ice Melee to sacrifice a tremendous percentage of their DPS and burst damage in order to achieve a mitigation potential that is actually not much higher than Stone's, if indeed it's higher at all. It's quite similar to my Stalker issues; we're suffering DPS for a level of burst damage that is simply not capable of offsetting our weaknesses.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the point is the fact that Ice Patch can do that at all times. While granted, it's only five targets, that's five targets that can essentially be permanently removed from the fight.

As for Stone, while yes, Seismic Smash can remove a boss from the fight temporarily, Freezing Touch can remove one permanently, if given a chance to stack (if my mental math is correct). It's also able to be selected some ten levels before Seismic Smash, which all factors into the Developer Datamining, as shown by Castle's words above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm...as was pointed out, SS can take a boss out of the fight permanently (while doing more damage than FT) if slotted for it. FT cannot, as it is lower mag, and the duration is not long enough to keep a permanent hold on most bosses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then it would need to be slotted for accuracies, -recharge and hold duration, which would destroy its ability to solo efficiently. If people are truly slotting Seismic Smash as a control power, then more power to them. Ice Melee is still going to be controlling more and better, judging from what I've seen.


[/ QUOTE ]
Well I slot my seismic smash Acc/mez HO, 2 dam/mez HOs and 3 makos, dam/rech, acc/end/rech, acc/dam/end/rech and I'm gimped on this power how ? According to mids, this gives me 18.6s hold duration with a recharge of 9.76s when hasten is not up (I have some +rech set bonuses), and 7.27s when it is. If I didn't bother with the extra makos set bonus and but a pure recharge in instead of the dam/rech, would be even better and double stackable all the time without hasten.

Also remember fault will combine with boxing (10% chance) and stone fist (10% chance) to stun bosses even when they're not held, and in fact fault will self stack most of the time anyway. Mine lasts 16.9s and with hasten up recharges in 7.8 (10.7 without) so you can AoE stun bosses as well as hold them (and perma stun even con bosses).

Lady Lahar 50 ice/stone Virtue and 13 other 50s

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not say slotting damage is gimping you. You must also realize that that's well over thirty million influence in enhancements, or so I recall. That's a big investment, and it obviously paid off.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I shall, again, state that Ice Patch is skewing their analysis of the matter, as it is a permanent control as opposed to the four second knockdown that Fault provides.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "control" from Ice melee comes fro Frozen Aura. Ice Patch is a nice bonus power that "may" remove 5 enemies from a fight temporarily. Just because it has 5 enemies on it does not mean that they will stay or that they cannot attack. Enemies do stand up and fire an attack and enemies do run off of the ice patch.

Tremor does knock down ten enemies and Fault does knock down ten enemies. Fault may stun then as well, and with slotting and recharge bonuses, it may stack.

What I would like for the set is more damage, because GIS does not compare, not even remotely close, to other tanker sets high damage attack. Frozen Touch I wish was burst damage. I wish it was a mag 4 like other sets get as well, or at least a percent to become a mag 4, similar to Total Focus. (not the damage, just the %for mag 4)

And Frozen Aura should be made some sort of AoE damage power. I would be happy with making it like Combustion. Or a Cold damage toggle. (Blazing Aura anyone?)

Adjust GIS and(/or) FT. Add AoE damage to FA.

Pyre mastery does more damage than Ice Melee.

I would like to not rely on Ice Patch/Burn for my damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Total Focus, in all its incarnations except Dominators', is mag four. I agree that Freezing Touch would be made an amazingly good power if it were mag 4, as suddenly you could quite easily perma-hold two bosses.

[ QUOTE ]
A_C: here's my point:

Seismic Smash does much more damage than FT and can hold a boss in one hit. In fact, it does so much more damage than FT, that it can do this: be slotted for control and STILL do more damage than FT

SS: 158.38 smashing damage
FT: 6 * 12.46 damage (74.76 total)

FT 3-slotted for damage: 146.53 damage

So, even if you slot SS for control, you get much better control than FT, and still do more damage with each application. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Compared in a vacuum, of course. I suppose Seismic Smash is the "Total Focus", compared to Freezing Touch's "Shocking Grasp". It does both less damage, less burst mez, and is of a DoT nature. The difference is between the sets themselves, and as a developer, you must balance each set to each other. I, again, think they made an error somewhere along the lines, and the fixes to Ice Melee are numerous and wholly dependent on the desires of each poster making the suggestion; unfortunately, what will actually be implemented is entirely dependent on how much time Castle has. He's already said that, if he has time, he could try to look at Ice Melee, which tells me it's on his "list" of things he'd like to get around to. I'm no more happy about this than you are, because Stalkers are in the same boat. Or so we think, because Castle's never actually bothered commenting in our neck of the woods.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll be brief, since I've already been over this in previous incarnations of this thread

Ice Patch is powerful, yes, but in no way does it equate to permanently removing things from the fight. Based on empirical testing I did around the time I9 came out, Ice Patch prevents, on average, about 60% of the attacks from "normal" sized enemies and about 70% of attacks from big lumbery things that take forever to stand up (Freak Tanks and Warhulks being good examples). If you want to see my preliminary results and methodology, they're reposted on page 3 of the Fixing Ice Melee 2.0 thread, and the subsequent tests I did more or less confirmed what's there.

To put that 60% in context, during the testing I found that two +1 Cor Leonis Adjutants would kill me before the ice patch tests were complete unless I used Dull Pain and a few greens.

Fault, incidentally, can easily be slotted to stun minions permamently, using no Hasten and only SOs. Lieutenants can theoretically also be permanently stunned, although it's only 50/50 odds to hit mag 3 with Fault.

As for Freezing Touch, the "if given a chance to stack" bit is not trivial. At level 50 it has a base duration of 11.92 seconds. It recharges in 16. Slotting 1 hold/1 recharge Freezing Touch will allow it to stack...for under four seconds...against even cons. A 2 rech or 2 hold slotting will allow even less overlap. In order to make FT nearly perma (again, against even cons only) requires four slots devoted to some combination of hold and recharge. Even then, it will take at least 9 seconds to stack on a boss, compared to the 1.5 second animation time of Seismic.

Four slots is a lot, given that Freezing Touch is the second most powerful attack in the set. Sacrificing that much damage is not a trivial decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's precisely the point. If Stone must, why can't Ice Melee?

As for Fault, I'd really like to know exactly how much of a threat a [EDIT]group of[/edit] minion[edit]s[/edit] is to a Tank. If it's "not that much", then that's undoubtedly factored into the Developer mindset.

As for Ice Patch, I think, if you wish to see a significant amount of more damage, this power is going to need a rebalancing. It is a great mitigation ability, and I think its main use is the fact that it can prevent so many attacks from multiple high-threat critters, like Bosses. Whether Stone is too powerful or Ice is too weak in their respective mitigation methods is a matter of speculation, given the fact that each method is both similar and different.

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I couldn't get a boss even close to perma-held with Frozen Touch until I paired it with the ancillary power pool hold. I slotted FT for damage, because that's what I needed. The hold was a byproduct. I see most people slot that way, actually. So you've got pretty similar slotting between SS and FT. Except, SS can hold a boss in one app, while FT would need two. And SS would still do more damage for the same slotting.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true, that's true. However, I'll do a bit of math here.

With two level 50 IO's, Freezing Touch would recharge in 8.69 seconds.

And with three SO's, Freezing Touch lasts 23.36 seconds. That's more than enough to stack it onto a boss. Unless I'm quite mistaken, that should provide enough to perma-hold a +2 boss.

mmm, lemme check my math on that. Yep. Your powers only affect +2's by 80% their normal values, so Freezing Touch would last 18.69 seconds, which is more than enough to stack.

By comparison, Seismic Smash would recharge in 10.87 seconds, and would last 18.48 seconds, and drops to 14.79 seconds when used against a +2. So, slotted for control, you're doing the same thing.

I think you guys have a point that Seismic Smash has more "burst" control, as evidenced by the quick math doodle above, but comparing two powers in a vacuum is undoubtedly going to lead to anomalies. The devs balance the entire sets with one another, as opposed to power vs. power. I shall, again, state that Ice Patch is skewing their analysis of the matter, as it is a permanent control as opposed to the four second knockdown that Fault provides.

So, in essence, I think the most buff you guys will get will be upping Freezing Touch's magnitude to provide the "burst mez" that other sets can. Whether this is right or wrong is entirely dependent on what you folks want: do you want mez and mitigation, or do you want a damage increase?

Edit: This is really great, by the way. You guys wanted a troll to poke at, so I figured I'd oblige. And I get to learn a bit more about Ice Melee, which has always intrigued me. Win/Win, ya?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my only losses were in SG v SG events and my 1 on 1 against Pohsyb's Ill/Kin Controller.

[/ QUOTE ]

/em flex

\o(^_^)o/

[/ QUOTE ]

*LOL*

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the point is the fact that Ice Patch can do that at all times. While granted, it's only five targets, that's five targets that can essentially be permanently removed from the fight.

As for Stone, while yes, Seismic Smash can remove a boss from the fight temporarily, Freezing Touch can remove one permanently, if given a chance to stack (if my mental math is correct). It's also able to be selected some ten levels before Seismic Smash, which all factors into the Developer Datamining, as shown by Castle's words above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm...as was pointed out, SS can take a boss out of the fight permanently (while doing more damage than FT) if slotted for it. FT cannot, as it is lower mag, and the duration is not long enough to keep a permanent hold on most bosses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then it would need to be slotted for accuracies, -recharge and hold duration, which would destroy its ability to solo efficiently. If people are truly slotting Seismic Smash as a control power, then more power to them. Ice Melee is still going to be controlling more and better, judging from what I've seen.

Like I said, I have no issues with Ice Melee being buffed. I'm simply trying to look at it from a Dev perspective, which is something I've been forced to do very often in the "Stalker Crusade". If a set has a high degree of mitigation, it will usually end up with a low level of damage to balance it. That is, almost certainly, where they're getting their opinion. Ice Melee, undoubtedly, has a high degree of mitigation potential. Arguably more than Stone, in an AoE. I think they simply overcompensated for the mitigation potential, and overly nerfed Ice Melee's ability to inflict damage; which, curiously enough, is the ultimate "mitigation".

I think the point is the fact that Ice Patch can do that at all times. While granted, it's only five targets, that's five targets that can essentially be permanently removed from the fight.

As for Stone, while yes, Seismic Smash can remove a boss from the fight temporarily, Freezing Touch can remove one permanently, if given a chance to stack (if my mental math is correct). It's also able to be selected some ten levels before Seismic Smash, which all factors into the Developer Datamining, as shown by Castle's words above.

[ QUOTE ]
Im not paticularly fond of ice melee. Its lackluster, kind of like mace. It feels generic. I agree, something needs to be done to bring it up to snuff. The devs went out of thier way to bring everything low in the name of "balance" and at least one year later very little is balanced. The devs have shuffled off at least one member of thier staff(i wouldnt imagine it being a large staff) if not more to work on Coh2 or whats known as Marvel Universe, so not even the fan boi's can actually expect much to get done.

The best Tanks can do is post videos of Ice melee decimating large spawns of Ai, and winning all the team pvp battles to even get ice melee thought of being looked at. That and beating stalkers senseless since thier whinning and clamouring for Dev attention isnt helping anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the attitude that's going to win you support, since I know damn well how weak Stalkers as a whole are, even though you, obviously, do not. However, this isn't the thread for it.



On Topic: I've never played Ice Melee, and hate the concept of Tanks. That being said, I have to wonder if Ice Patch is the thing that's skewing the Dev's opinion of Ice Melee. No other set can cause everything in melee range to permanently flop around like fish. Which just so happens to include Bosses, unlike Stone Melee's Fault.

I'm not saying you guys are wrong and don't need any fixes, but a good chunk of my life is based around trying to figure out what other people think, and I think the above is precisely what the Devs are thinking in regards to Ice Melee: "It's fine, as it has the most mitigation of all the sets." Whether they're right or wrong is not the issue; whether you can PROVE they're wrong is the issue, and making them actually read what you've written is the other.

Edit: And hi Castle! How about going one section up and saying something for Stalkers!

[ QUOTE ]
this is wonderful and its really helping with my ninja stalker
you should do a dual blades/ninjitsu guide when it comes out!

[/ QUOTE ]

Fully plan on it.

And a DM/Ninjitsu, too, once I can safely say I've actually played it to 50.