AlienOne

I think what would be cool is if the "major" heroes were actually wandering the zone they're supposed to be in and randomly helping people out... It'd be pretty sweet to have to "find" Positron wandering the zone to start the TF... Of course for the "make everything easy for me" crowd there'd be a major outcry, but I think it would add to the immersion.

"Alien"

Again, Kheldians are not like Defenders, Controllers, or Tanks. They may have some "similar" capabilities, but they simply aren't those archetypes. I would guess that the Dev's argument would be if you want to have a massive buff or debuff, then play a Defender. If you want massive control, then play a Controller. If you want massive HP/Aggro, then play a tank. That's what those ATs are supposed to do. That isn't *necessarily* what a Kheldian is supposed to do.

I still don't understand how someone could look at a maxxed out scrapper's capabilities and then say "why can't a Kheldian do that?"...

... Makes me want to say, "Because it isn't a scrapper?"



"Alien"

OMG Every bit of this.... Especially numbers 1, 3, 4, and 7!!!

"Alien"

Ball handler = juggler, and hair swinging = acrobat.




.....Sorry, best I could come up with.

"Alien"

That's probably the best comparison/explanation I've seen for why people like different forms and playstyles with their Kheldians.

Some of us are min/maxers, some of us don't like form changing, some of us like a specific style (all melee or all ranged, etc., etc.), and still others might feel more comfortable with only 2 out of 3 of the forms. In the end (for most Kheldians I'd say), it's not about the numbers... It's about what Kheldian build "fits" us the best.

One can build an "ultimate" build for a Kheldian (whether tri-form or human form or bi-form), and there will ALWAYS be people who say "I don't like that form" or "I don't like that power" or "I don't like that particular IO set"... Everyone's got their preferences...

What's MOST important is making the Kheldian build that you like be the most effective it can be.

"Alien"

Watch video 3 of the Hero Con opening presentation (Q&A session)... Posi explicitly states that CoP and base raids are "on the table," but are not currently on their "list of things to get done before GR."

"Alien"

/signed

"Alien"

.....So, YOU'RE the one that ruined my game of trying to get the worst -rep on the forums!!!

CURSE YOU!!!



"Alien"

That's a regular tactic of NG's. It's exactly why I have him on /ignore.



I'd really like to see that fixed. If you have someone on /ignore, I'd like the ability to COMPLETELY ignore their existence. I don't want to see that they've posted, I don't want to see that they are a member on these boards, nor do I want to see what they wrote quoted by someone else.

"Alien"

48-month badger here...

First toon I ever made was an Elec/Elec Blaster named "MurderOne"... He's lvl 50 now, but I rarely ever break him out to play him--primarily for 2 reasons: I hate how often Blasters die, and I've found another AT I like better. However, I won't delete him for sentimental reasons. He started out on Justice, and I paid to transfer him over to Freedom when I decided to start playing regularly on that server.

Other than MurderOne, the toon I've had the longest (that I actually regularly play on) has been AlienOne. I believe I've had him for (maybe, can't remember) around 3 years or so. By "regularly," I mean I log him on at least once a week or so...

The toon I log on every single day to play is my Warshade VestigeOne, and his human-form build is my absolute favorite way to play City of Heroes. He's been in existence for approximately 2 years, if my memory serves me correctly.

My love for Kheldians has basically changed the way people know me in the game. When I first started playing CoX, people knew me as "Murder". Now, since playing on Kheldians 24/7 is what "defines" my CoH experience, people know me as "Alien."

I can't find their posting on that, but ok. I believe if they said something along the lines of "wasn't intended," it most likely had something to do with the form change activation times, which they so far haven't wanted to change at all--thus the "can't do much about it" you're referring to.

Now, if they were to shorten form activation times, I'd totally get behind something like that. Not only would you be able to *possibly* avoid a few mezzes while activating, it would most definitely make the form-shifting feel a lot less "clunky" for me.

And yes, I'm highly "vindictive." One can't tell me to "suck it up" when I make a suggestion and not expect me to call BS when I see those same people complaining about a very similar subject, just because THEY'RE the ones "inconvenienced" by it now...

At best, that's highly hypocritical.

"Alien"

LoLz. Not sure what to make of this statement, but what sort of "human-only-Warshade-flagship-dude" would I be if I didn't respond to a statement like this in some way?

Well, if by "disruption" you mean "damage mitigation," yeah, of course it's a neat idea. It's actually more than that, but I won't go into specifics here.

And if any indication from the arguments in this thread that Khelds are supposed to perform like Scrappers have ANY merit whatsoever... I will fight FOR mez protection in human form "to the ends of the Earth." To me, THAT is the underlying difference is between a human-form Warshade and a Scrapper. My human-former can keep up a constant damage resistance cap against the SAME +4x8 mobs any good scrapper out there can take, all while giving some major damage along the way (albeit without crits). It may take me a few seconds longer to take down that mob than a scrapper would, but I would bet you it'd be MORE due to the fact that the scrapper has mez protection and I don't. Sure DPS would factor in (that's blaringly obvious to any dunce out there, of course), but the real difference in long-term performance against ANY of the aforementioned "test mobs" (CoT, Carnies, Malta, etc.) would be the mezzers. A well-built scrapper would not think twice about rushing straight into a mob. A human-former like myself (even though well-built) would have to take an extra second to determine the best strategy/attack chain/enemy target for taking down a mez-heavy mob, as well as deal with the negative effect of standing there mezzed with maxed resists and not being able to do anything about it (if there were no break frees left).

No, there are MANY more factors to consider with a Kheldian going into a mez-heavy mob than there is with a scrapper, so trying to compare the two is a moot point.

*note*
I am not claiming the person who I quoted above was comparing scrappers and Kheldians... I was making a generalized statement to anyone who thinks the two SHOULD be compared for any reason... The "fighting against mez protection in human form" is the best basis why they should NOT be compared to eachother. Give human-formers constant scrapper-like mez protection, and then come to me about whether scrappers and Khelds can compare to eachother.

Well, while I would not go as far as saying VEATs are greater than HEATs (I believe that's a subjective statement, not a "proven by numbers against a specific mob in a specific situation in a specific time, here's the video and the spreadsheet thank you very much" statement, I WILL agree that VEATs having mez protection and HEATs not having it (except in a specific form that isn't comparable to the other forms in a long-term fight) is a huge difference.

Glad you're amused, Bill. Not everyone likes to use math (nor I believe should HAVE to). Math is great, but in the end is only PART of what factors into a Dev's decisions on designing an AT. I believe there's a few other things that factor in there as well. I doubt I'd have to name them off to the likes of you, but I will say that if all the "math" were exactly the same, or only had "minor" differences, we may as well not have varied ATs, right? The whole point of having a "chooseable AT" that might get the same thing done in the long run (kill enemies, go to the next mission) isn't the maths required to get that accomplished (although that's important for balanced gameplay)... It's to appeal to a wider playerbase. Someone like the OP may have at least started out a while ago feeling like Khelds are "fail." Someone like Memphis_Bill may like creating more than 1 PB or WS because he doesn't think they're "fail."

The math isn't going to assure that everyone plays every AT the same way. The math assures that the game remains balanced. The varied ATs and the way that they're designed is what (hopefully) assures that the game appeals to the broadest audience possible.

So, in the end, "requiring" that the entire playerbase use math when stating their "blanket opinion" on an AT, or even merely making statements that you're "amused" when they don't... Is just plain ridiculous.

I submit that "good design" is having a combination of the two (building on my previous point), so a broader playerbase is satisfied. Having both VEATs and HEATs is "good design," as having one appeals to one part of the playerbase, and having the other appeals to another part of the playerbase.

Some people prefer the challenge in "finding the diamond in the rough" performance-wise, and some people don't. That's the way of the world, and game designers are stuck with dealing with that.

Again, I say that's "good design," because VEATs appeal to a part of the playerbase that doesn't prefer the same challenges people like us do, Princess... In the end, appealing to a larger base of players and expanding your subscriber numbers is what the "big picture's" all about.

LoLz. Nice post, Bill... I do love me some sarcastic humor!

Although, I think maybe you should have put the "/sarcasm off" AFTER your last statement...

I believe there is. It's:

E=MCmathdoesnotcompute

And I believe Khelds ARE effective, for the already stated reasons.

ONLY when referring to specific situations with specific enemies in specific conditions with specific time requirements... And ONLY if the entire playerbase can agree that those ramifications you specify are the most fair setup possible when trying to compare ATs (which really shouldn't be done anyway, as all ATs are designed to be "unique").

While I won't say it's "inefficient," I will agree wholeheartedly that it's "clunky," and have been complaining about that for years. It's one of the main reasons (besides the fact that I like my array of human form powers) I prefer to play human-only.

And I would argue that Kheld "capability" is quite effective. I would say that in the extreme situations I've put my Warshade through (the same ones you'd try on a maxed-out Scrapper), a Defender or a blaster, while they may or may not be "capable," would have a much more difficult time of it. Does having a "more difficult time of it in that particular situation" mean those two ATs are "fail" as a whole?

Of course not.

Then why argue that for a Kheld, when it's already been proven they can handle some pretty intense situations? Of COURSE you need to put some thought into building them. Of COURSE you may need to get some help understanding binds and attack chains. Of COURSE it may be frustrating at first for a novice to Khelds... But, isn't that true for just about any AT?

You know what I find interesting?

The fact that some people (not just yourself) say an AT is "gimped," and then name off some extreme situation like "+4x8," as if every AT is supposed to just easily handle that with "just SOs."

That is simply laughable.

I believe it states in everyone's copy of the game on the "tip screen" that "some ATs do well solo. Others do better in teams."

I may not be quoting it exactly, but that's the gist of it. If that statement on the tip screen holds true, why the whole argument about comparing Khelds to any other AT, whether it be Blasters, Scrappers, Tanks, Defenders, VEATs, or Controllers?

I agree... All ATs should play to the strengths of the AT. There are powers out there that do NOT belong to a HEAT powerset that requires other ATs to "play to the strengths of the good powers while ignoring the lousy powers."

So, what's your point, exactly?

It sounds as though I play my Kheld almost the same way you do... Except that I don't think I've "worked around poor design." If the design of the character was to allow for flexibility, and so people could feel comfortable in different playstyles (in the same AT, whether tri, bi, or human-only, as stated by LX's link in this thread to the "original design for Khelds")... Isn't that design working "as intended?"

That said... You really make some good points. I don't mean to upset you in any way by my opposing viewpoints. I just tend to disagree that Khelds are "poor design" by nature. I believe that's a falsehood, if over 12 issues hasn't resulted in any major overhaul of the AT.

As stated before, some people will like it, some people will despise it. I think as with both your case and mine, we like to play it, but begrudgingly, due to either lack of mez protection in human-only builds, or the "clunky-ness" in changing forms.

Depends on what situation you're talking about. If you're talking about a PB's single-target damage vs. a WS's "spiked" AoE damage...Sure, a WS can seem much superior. However, if you're talking about an extended boss fight while solo... PBs would obviously win. A WS's short-term "spike damage" on large mobs shouldn't be the scalar by which everything a PB does is rated. They function on a wholly different scale, and perform differently in different situations.

I have never used a single keybind to "switch trays" on my Khelds. Ever. And I still consider my Khelds to be quite effective.

QFT.

I believe fun is underrated on these forums, as I see it downplayed way more than it's lauded. I think a playerbase's opinion on the "fun factor" (whether it be if they like it for the "math," the "challenge," the "ease of use," the "niche play," etc., etc.) is actually what determines whether a game is successful.

Considering CoX is now considered (in most circles) one of the "longest running" and "most successful" MMOs out there... I'd say their "design choices" have been above-par, and they've been able to make a significant portion of this playerbase very happy with their design decisions--both by creating a variety of things to create (hence, the various ATs), and by listening to those of us who whine on the forums and taking any "legitimate" suggestions to heart.


QFT. This is why this whole thread has become so controversial, IMO... It's because Khelds aren't immediately quantifiable like all the other ATs happen to be that causes this rift among players as to their "effectiveness."

I've said before to other people (in the Kheld section of the forums) that I think Kheld performance really comes down to the player--more so than other ATs.

I think my point is best illustrated in this statement:

If a poorly played VEAT joins the team, a Vet with a trained eye might immediately notice it, but it may not be apparent on a PuG. If a poorly played HEAT joins the team, it will become glaringly obvious who is underperforming.

This is not to say that you have to be "uber" to play a Kheld... Nor is it saying that "playing VEATs is a snoozefest"... What it IS saying is that you *may* have to put some more thought and effort into playing a "specialized" OR "generalized" Kheld than you had to do with any of the other ATs.

Then again, you may all be like EvilGeko and think Khelds are the easiest and most straightforward AT to play.

Considering the amount of posts asking for help in the Kheld forums, I'd say the previous statement would be untrue about the overwhelming majority.

QFT.

It was obviously a specific design choice, and one that they decided worked as-is (with a few minor changes here and there over 12 issues)...

I also agree that it doesn't reflect poorly on the player community. The fact that not everyone can get into the AT doesn't speak poorly of their play skills... It mainly represents that the Devs were trying to reach a specific portion of the player community's playstyle desires.

What?!?!? "Options?" "Variety?"

DOOOOOOOOOM!!!!

Seriously though, I think the first part of your statement may be why I like them so much. I lead approximately 90% of the teams I'm on, and have no problems "spearheading" anything we're doing, up to and including taking alpha strikes from AVs on the STF, soloing the mass of Romans in front of Romulus at the end of the iTF in its entirety, or running headfirst into Rularu, Carnies, or Malta before anyone on the rest of the team. Without dying.

Anyone who thinks that Khelds don't have the ability to "spearhead" a team effort obviously has no idea of the capabilities of a Kheldian.

I agree the low levels can be quite a pain. Not "impossible," but a pain. Does that mean they're not "effective?" Absolutely not.

On the other hand, I don't think Warshades are overpowered. I think they're "late bloomers." Before you start saying Warshades are "overpowered," you might want to look at some of these scrappers who can solo AVs...

Not much to add to that. Staying at the "resist cap" or "god mode" as I like to call it isn't an "afk" playstyle. It requires some active work, strategy, risk assesment, and real-time battle strategy, especially if a mob fight is lasting a bit longer than originally anticipated.

Like, LX said, "when everything works according to plan."

Problem is... It never does.

/Agreed.

Just making a general statement "Khelds are underpowered" is a opinionistic statement that doesn't prove a single thing, especially when I can prove otherwise...

I have absolutely nothing against anyone who doesn't like the AT. I also have the same urge to say "LRN2PLAY" when I hear complaints about Khelds, but on the same token, I have no problem helping anyone learn how to play the AT. However, just making a "blanket statement" that the AT is "ineffective" just because you don't like it....

....I call BS.

Although I wholeheartedly agree that fun is subjective, you seem to be missing the "larger picture" here. If I may illustrate:

Individual's personal opinion on the objective of the game: "Defeat your enemies"

General objective of the game: "Have fun" (no matter if that's "defeat your enemies," "make money at WWs," "chat for hours in AP," "organize events," "hold massive costume contests," etc., etc.)

Overall "objective of the game" (from a Dev/business model perspective): Make sure as many people as possible "have fun" and continue to subscribe to the game in order to continue to receive a paycheck.

Obviously, the "single driving objective of the game" isn't "defeat your enemies" for every member of this playerbase. It's different for everyone. And that is driven by what each individual thinks is "fun." That may be to "defeat your enemies" in the quickest way possible, or it may be chatting for 10 minutes in broadcast to help out a fellow player with something.

Who knows.


Your statement is true, but it also downplays the importance of fun INTO your equasion.

If your playerbase doesn't think an AT is fun, it won't matter HOW sound your math skills are or how "perfectly built" you think your AT is.

That's what this whole discussion is about though... An individual's FEELINGS on whether a specific AT is "fail." (i.e. their quantified belief on fun for the aforementioned AT)

I have posted videos on a Kheldian's effectiveness against "seemingly unsurmountable odds" (I say "seemingly unsurmountable" because of the way Khelds have been repeatedly put down as "underperforming"), but you prefer not to watch them.

I don't think the question should be "as efficiently as other ATs"... The question should be "can they do it effectively," and I believe it's already been proven they can. (please refer back to my original definition of "effective," as this post has gotten pretty long)

I believe once Going Rogue comes out, this will be a moot point, as I *believe* we'll all be able to switch sides anyway... Still waiting for more details on that...

And then there are those like myself who hate the shapeshifting mechanic and DON'T complain about the lack of power--only the lack of mez protection...

So far, neither side really has shown any "evidence" that Kheldians "aren't effective." So, stating one side or the other doesn't have "facts or reason" is pretty baseless.

You are exactly right.

There are waaaay too many variable effects that come up in actual play for Kheldians to come up with an actual quantifiable "This is what Kheldians can do" generalistic statement. If you're testing in a tri-form build, you're not taking into effect the variables that come into play while running Inky Aspect constantly. Or the Leadership powers while playing in human-only form. Or any number of other things I could name...

I can say right now without any testing whatsoever that they won't compare. That's because I don't believe Kheldians are supposed to be exactly like any of the other ATs. Thus, their "unique-ness."

Which is why I don't believe Dwarf is worth it in solo-play even WITH the "break free" effect associated with it.

As stated before, I do not believe Khelds should be "compared" to the other ATs, as they are their own unique AT. A WS cannot hope to reach the "I can solo AVs" level of a Scrapper, so why exactly are we comparing them?

I think you're onto something here...

That's too bad...

Actually, I say the more enemies the better for my Warshade... The fewer the enemies, the worse you'll see me (or any Warshade) perform...

I know, I know... You're coming from a PB perspective...

That reminds me of what Mod08 told me when I met him at Comic-Con this year...

Me: "Hey! I'm AlienOne"
Mod08: "Ah, so YOU'RE the one with the 'casually purpled out Warshade'!"



XD

"Alien"