BellaStrega

Cicle, could you repeat what you're trying to post?

I imagine it's about the difference between when scrappers didn't do anything well on a team and when they were overpowered and everyone wanted to nerf them, but without seeing your actual post, I can't have a decent conversation with you.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This has been said about every hero AT. Scrappers just have it said about them by others, usually.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Scrappers seem to be one of the easiest to determine their role. They go nuts and kill stuff. They can also take a few hits along the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was a time in the game's history where scrappers didn't really do anything well enough to merit a team slot over other ATs. This was after the purple patch and before issue 1. Criticals and the addition of levels 40-50 helped.

[ QUOTE ]
Tankers, in the Devs eyes, are supposed to take the damage from the enemies, unless there's too many enemies, or the enemy is really large and could one-shot a squishy (if you could one-shot anymore), or if the enemy deals damage you're weak to (per Statesman's example, which I don't succumb to).

I've played just about every AT to about level 20 (not that that's a definitive mark) and lowbie tankers are the only ones that seem to baffle me as to what it is they should be doing in a group. Now even high-level tankers without the ability to hold AV aggro without taunt makes me wonder what their role is.

[/ QUOTE ]

A tanker's role is to serve as a focus for buffs and heals while smacking his fist into his palm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget those herding Inv scrappers of times past Kali .

[/ QUOTE ]

That was a most explicitly different time - mostly post-issue 2, which is when blasters and tankers were baying for scrapper blood.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why bother changing it for giant monsters? They already bypass aggro control by having multiple huge AoEs. Heck, I don't recall ever seeing a single-target attack from a giant monster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, Lusca has a pretty mean ST attack with the tentacles. And I think that the Chronos Titan has one or two ST attacks. Still, most GMs use AoEs or PBAoEs as you stated.

Have Fun!

[/ QUOTE ]

How much damage do those attacks do?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This has been said about every hero AT. Scrappers just have it said about them by others, usually.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Scrappers seem to be one of the easiest to determine their role. They go nuts and kill stuff. They can also take a few hits along the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was a time in the game's history where scrappers didn't really do anything well enough to merit a team slot over other ATs. This was after the purple patch and before issue 1. Criticals and the addition of levels 40-50 helped.

[ QUOTE ]
Tankers, in the Devs eyes, are supposed to take the damage from the enemies, unless there's too many enemies, or the enemy is really large and could one-shot a squishy (if you could one-shot anymore), or if the enemy deals damage you're weak to (per Statesman's example, which I don't succumb to).

I've played just about every AT to about level 20 (not that that's a definitive mark) and lowbie tankers are the only ones that seem to baffle me as to what it is they should be doing in a group. Now even high-level tankers without the ability to hold AV aggro without taunt makes me wonder what their role is.

[/ QUOTE ]

A tanker's role is to serve as a focus for buffs and heals while smacking his fist into his palm.

[ QUOTE ]

True but then I remember that Tanker attacks had a bug that wasn't letting them hit moving targets for 3-6 months so there is a bit of a vibe that Tanker concerns are on a "When hell freezes over" schedule that makes some of us cranky.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's be accurate here:

Issue 3 introduced a bug that prevented tanker attacks from hitting moving targets. I first experienced this while messing around with my 8th level Inv/SS tanker on the test server, posted about it, got told I was imagining things, and posted a demo showing what was happening. At first I thought the streakbreaker was failing, but the lack of a "miss" message showed it was something else. I submitted the demo to Vyvyanne, and she confirmed that this was a bug...and as far as I know, it was fixed some time between issue 3 and issue 4.

It was reintroduced later, and explained as a bug that prevented AoEs from hitting moving targets. Since all tanker attacks are AoEs (even with zero radius) because of gauntlet, all tanker attacks were affected.

So, like many other issues - it came back as a legacy bug and stuck around much longer the second time.

I sent this PM to Castle and Positron but I'm not holding my breath on a reply since it involves the Tanker AT.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A post that could use clarification
.
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showf...art=1&vc=1
.
With AVs and players being immune to Tanker taunt Auras and their Inhererent does that mean that those powers are only meant to be usable on pets, minions, LTs, and Bosses?
.
I'm unsure if Elite Bosses are affected by Taunt auras and Punchvoke.
.
Does that mean that it is meant that a Tanker has to take taunt because his Inherent and aggro aura are not allowed to be used on Players and AVs? If so Tankers are getting the shaft all round by being the only AT with an inherent not allowed to work any time it is applicable.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's hoping.

[ QUOTE ]

Yep, that's the event I'm talking about. I can understand them changing it so that GMs are unaffected by inherent taunt, since there are potentially dozens of different targets applying the effect. However, it doesn't make sense for AVs that appear on mission maps, since there are normally only one or two players with an inherent taunt effect on any given team.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why bother changing it for giant monsters? They already bypass aggro control by having multiple huge AoEs. Heck, I don't recall ever seeing a single-target attack from a giant monster.

NM, Iakona's right.

We shouldn't have to live with it. Tankers have gauntlet and taunt auras so that they won't have to take taunt or provoke in order to hold aggro. Gauntlet was added in issue 3 for precisely this reason, and this change completely negates that change...and it's a stealth nerf.

[ QUOTE ]

3 days ago I stood in the middle of 4-6 members of the freedom phalanx on the last mission of the RSF, holding aggro with footstomp alone. When someone would sleet them, they would all run away, I'd go after the main target, hit them, and all the others would generally come back after me when they turned around, with the occasional encouragement of using mu lightning on a hero that deceided a corruptor looked like a better target (given that they are +4 Hero's and the AV/Hero targetting change, mu lightning should not distract them without taunt, right?).

[/ QUOTE ]

This one I can explain: Brutes have taunt in their attacks. They don't have gauntlet.

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, this is borked. Most of my tanks are tauntless, many because of RP reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dropped taunt on my ice/stone because the animation was too long for the result, and I could gather and hold aggro fine with everything else.

Of course, I did this long ago, probably before the change was introduced.

I want to say that this seems really odd, but after other tanker changes over the past year or so, it's pretty much par for the course.

What do the devs want tankers to do? Not supposed to take aggro from a full spawn, not supposed to hold aggro on GMs and AVs. What is a tanker's purpose?

This is a poor design, as it negates the point of giving tankers tools other than taunt to manage aggro.

[ QUOTE ]
On those saying corr have it so much worse with the 75% of our base ranged, I call shenangians. Every corruptor set comes with -resist and/or -defense which put their base damage at our level if not higher. Along with that they get debuffs, buffs, heals, defense, etc. Even /traps which is similar to /devices has defensive powers and acid mortar. Then corruptors get scourge which adds a sweet chunk of damage, and kicks butt on AV fights.

The only difference is that they do not all have Aim+Buildup, which is what all blasters but /devices (and the topic of this discussion) get. Also, we aren't all about burst damage. Play an AR/Dev, which is more about laying on AoE and sustained DoT than anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, it could be said that corruptors have it bad. However, if you want a high-damage corruptor build (say, Fire/Dark), you'll see they don't suffer all that much.

[ QUOTE ]

But really, the thing is, comparing devices to another secondary that acts completely different is in a nutshell, a bad idea

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect. Comparing them is the only way to determine if they're balanced against each other. They don't have to be identical in performance in all situations, they just need to provide sufficient benefits that they're useful in a relatively equal number of situations. One of the problems this game has is that some primaries or secondaries in every AT are significantly weaker or stronger than the other powersets for that AT, giving characters with those powersets a noticeable performance boost in play (PVE or PVP, depending) over other powersets.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

and the accuracy increase from TD adds more damage potential than most defensive corr sets, and the 25% more damage is far more useful if you actually team.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't compute.

[/ QUOTE ]
you miss less, or you can slot more recharges... or damage, doesnt matter, all are an increase to DPS

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't slot more damage, unfortunately. You can slot more recharges instead of more damage, which can increase your output some. However, I don't think it's quite worth a 25% increase in damage.

[ QUOTE ]

and the accuracy increase from TD adds more damage potential than most defensive corr sets, and the 25% more damage is far more useful if you actually team.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't compute.

[ QUOTE ]
Funny, up until ED everyone said it was bar-none the best blaster secondary out there. Suddenly after ED everyone's saying it wasn't that great before... Funny how revisionist history tends to happen on things like this...

[/ QUOTE ]

For as long as I can remember seriously participating in the blaster forum, /energy has been considered the best blaster secondary out there, with (for various reasons), /electric and /devices being fairly good. /Devices hasn't been considered to be the best since the Great Smoke Grenade Fix of I2, and people didn't really catch on to how good /energy was until a bit before or a bit after that.

/Devices lost a lot of its strength with the addition of stealth suppression, the global defense reduction, and ED. It never "suddenly" lost its prominence as one of the better secondaries. Rather, its strengths were whittled away over several updates.

Gothbat, at what level did you one-shot evens with 2 damage SOs?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or is this somehow related to using TP Foe on the bunker turrets in RV?


[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the case, then Thorizdan may have to eat his words about it not being a PvP issue. Man would players howl, for just cause too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, 'cause it couldn't also relate to TP Foe'ing all the other turrets in PvE zones...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if it is to keep players from circumventing the threat presented by Malta turrets, I'd like to know why a minion's pet needs to be such a threat.

Also, Concern responded to my comment asking if it related to the PVE turrets, or was it a matter of the turrets in a PVP zone, and said "If it is, then..."

Edit: If the problem is teleporting Malta turrets around low-level zones, the better answer is to just have them despawn after a period of time, or have them despawn when their owner dies - or both, to be consistent with the player version of the power. There's no good reason for them to hang around after the engineer dies, and never was. They're a nuisance item for players who are in the right level range to deal with them, and a needless hazard for low-level characters coming across ambush remnants.

[ QUOTE ]

As for the change itself, there was an exploit involving TFoe and various stationary entities (like Auto Turret.) In fixing this, the player versions of these entities were locked down as well. I do realise this impacts one of the tactics Devices players used to bypass the limitations of the set. I'll be keeping an eye on this to see if the change hampers the gameplay too severely.

[/ QUOTE ]

What the heck? Are auto turrets planted by AoE enemies meant to be some hugely dangerous thing? I remember when Malta turrets were altered to not despawn when the engineers died, which didn't make them tougher, it simply meant you had to spend more time battering the damned things down. So, using TP Foe on them is somehow a bad thing as well? Or is this somehow related to using TP Foe on the bunker turrets in RV?

I don't get it.

Also interruptible.

It's pretty much a hearthstone, as in WoW. The only limitation being that you can't set it to different places, and the advantage being that it recharges much faster.

The jump jet seems fine to me.

Best of wishes, Cuppa. It just ain't right that you're going, but I hope it counts a promotion and pay raise in some way. Demand better benefits and a banstick that delivers electric shocks through the internet.

[ QUOTE ]
glad to know that this is overpowered, but IW, power boost, conserve power, TF, earth's embrace, hibernate, power build up, PFF, FoN isn't. I could've been fooled.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be the first time you've said something I violently disagree with.

The rest of your list provokes varying but lesser degrees of disagreement.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That's a very defeatist attitude, and wholly ignores the fact that major bugs have repeatedly "squeaked" through QA, only to be caught almost immediately by the playerbase on Test, then often to once again "squeak" through to live.

[/ QUOTE ]

This happens because bugs reported only on the forums are prioritized below all bugs found by QA - apparently this is required by NCSoft and was noted in a Dev post recently (I think it was Positron's, yep, found it). They basically have to work on their lunch hour or on a weekend to fix anything players find, it seems...

[/ QUOTE ]

If that is the policy then that is lunacy. Bugs should be priorities on their importance regardless of where they come from.

The way some bugs have been reintroduced suggests to me a weak testing methodology, poor version control or someone messed up CVS

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect it's a change. There was a time when you could take a bug and evidence of that bug to QA and get the bug addressed fairly quickly.

It seems to point to a lack of sufficient staff now, but also some flaws in the QA process.

[/ QUOTE ]

DOOOOOOOoooooooOOOOOOOWWOOWMMMMMMMMM

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that NCSoft recently laid off several QA people on their side...

Also, it's not "Doom" to point out that the current QA is just plain insufficient. Nor is it "Doom" to point out that the process used to work.