BellaStrega

[ QUOTE ]
But it wouldnt require DA stalkers to delve into the stealth pool to achieve the same effect every other stalker has in PvP solo.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, and that would be the point of leaving it in the set. After all, other sets have powers that make certain power pools less necessary. I don't think it's a guarantee that they'll leave CoD in, although I bet they seriously considered it, and I don't think it's a guarantee that they'll take it out, either.

Also, lacking information != stupid.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If your curious about the stealth cloak of DA being left in just look at the differences between stalkers EA and Brutes EA.

I would not hold your breath on it being left in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... EA for stalkers was designed first, and then it was altered to be brute-suitable. In that case, Hide was replaced with Energy Cloak, not the other way around.

If DA simply ends up as a gloomy clone of EA, that'd be disappointing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually Hide was probably replaced by power shield, repulse by energy cloak. But thats beside the point.

Again I would not put bets on cloak of darkness being left in. That one power would make DA significantly more appealing than any of the other sets. Hide+Cloak+Stealth tell me there wouldn't be issues there. Yes I am aware any stalker can get 3 stealth like powers on them, but the third takes another party.

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell are you talking about? Cloak of Darkness can't stack with Stealth.

[ QUOTE ]
If your curious about the stealth cloak of DA being left in just look at the differences between stalkers EA and Brutes EA.

I would not hold your breath on it being left in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... EA for stalkers was designed first, and then it was altered to be brute-suitable. In that case, Hide was replaced with Energy Cloak, not the other way around.

If DA simply ends up as a gloomy clone of EA, that'd be disappointing.

[ QUOTE ]

We both hoped that Cloak of Darkness would die, but maybe it's graphics would be used for Hide. CoD (and /DA) had some unique looks, would be fun to make /DA have a unique Hide look.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why you'd hope that. After all, if DA has the ability to stack Hide + Stealth within the secondary, that would distinguish it further from each of the other sets, especially considering the relative lack of defense.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Shadow Maul goes, it won't be due to its cone status.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then what will it be due to? I'm not seeing the issue with Shadow Maul. Don't forget that Dark Melee's attack powers are individually stronger than other sets because it only HAS four real attacks, as opposed to the six or seven that other scrapper sets get.

[/ QUOTE ]

It'll be because they didn't want to remove any of the other powers to put in AS. That's it.

[ QUOTE ]
My expectations: the obvious, Confront becomes Placate, Soul Drain becomes Build-Up. I'm thinking Touch of Fear and Dark Consumption will both get the axe. One becomes Assassin's Whatever, the other will be turned into a more conventional attack. All attack powers will get toned down a little from their Scrapper counterparts, since that will put DM Stalkers on even ground with other sets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, what I don't get: How is Touch of Fear any worse than Cobra Strike or Stun, or...heck...Total Focus? I mean, when it comes to mezzing attacks?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't talking about prioritizing melee over armor sets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then, I misunderstood you.

Personally, I think Tankers and Scrappers are both hurting about equally for new powerset love. Scrappers have fewer sets overall, true, but more primary sets. I'd call that a wash.

Others will, of course, value one of those factors over another thereby feeling one AT deserves love more than the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do think that scrappers and tankers could use a new armor set. I think tankers could use a new melee set. I would like to see scrappers get two, though.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Scappers need some help there too. Only 4 secondaries to choose from.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree, but the issue is bigger if you are talking about your primary. Heck even masterminds are getting a thug set to bump up their set count. Even so i do think scrappers should at least get a variant of Ninjitsu

[/ QUOTE ]

However, with tankers sitting at 7 melee options and scrappers at 6, don't you think it's a bit strange to prioritize new melee sets for tankers over new melee sets for scrappers?

[/ QUOTE ]

With tankers and scrappers both sitting on over half a dozen melee sets each but only 4 armor sets apiece, I think it's a bit strange to prioritize more melee sets for either AT over more armor sets for them?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't talking about prioritizing melee over armor sets. I was responding to the "tankers need new sets more than anyone else." Since tankers have as many armor sets and more melee sets, it could be argued that scrappers are in more need of new stuff than tankers. This is because one or two posters went on about how tankers and apparently only tankers need new powersets.

Also, to nitpick: only tankers are sitting at over a half dozen melee sets. Scrappers are sitting at exactly a half-dozen.

With issue 7, brutes and stalkers will each have a half-dozen melee sets.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the point people are making in referring back to the "separate design teams" posts is not that they care much about the org charts at Cryptic, but that that behind-the-scenes peek into the org chart was given to us to assure us that the development of CoV was not going to stop the forward progress of CoH.

So, when we all rabble-roused that CoV was taking time away from developments promised for CoH, the devs came along and said "Not true. Look at our separate design teams. See, a whole design team just of you! So, don't worry about getting short shrift for you CoHers. All is well."

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to make a comment about how we haven't heard anything from Lord Recluse or Captain Mako for an unusually long time, but as many of you may have already seen:

Alexa posted:
[ QUOTE ]
We regret that the Ask Lord Recluse portion of our "Ask A Dev" series will not have a set of final answers from Zeb Cook. Zeb is no longer at Cryptic Studios and we wish him the best in his future endeavors. The CoH/CoV community thanks Zeb for all of his hard work and support.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

It's NOT about ego, it's NOT about me bring right. It's about asking people to at least think about some of the paranoid crap they're spouting, and actually consider the possibility that the devs might have a good reason for operating the way they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

What gets me are the posters who are trying to shout people down for being disappointed in the second issue in a row over a period of 6+ months that doesn't add anything to CoH's PvE game. It's almost like some posters are telling other posters what they should care about.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Scappers need some help there too. Only 4 secondaries to choose from.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree, but the issue is bigger if you are talking about your primary. Heck even masterminds are getting a thug set to bump up their set count. Even so i do think scrappers should at least get a variant of Ninjitsu

[/ QUOTE ]

However, with tankers sitting at 7 melee options and scrappers at 6, don't you think it's a bit strange to prioritize new melee sets for tankers over new melee sets for scrappers?

[ QUOTE ]
the idea of it nice but won't happen often since it's a AoE type move

[/ QUOTE ]

If Shadow Maul goes, it won't be due to its cone status.

[ QUOTE ]
Inv for scrappers and tanks use different numbers. Brutes and stalkers use the same numbers as scrappers but with different HP(I think so anyway). That is just how the devs decided it should work out. It isn't because there is no ability to seperately balance sets. By all rights energy aura could be ported directly from brutes without a single change. It would be quick. It would be easy. There is no reason why it shouldn't happen

GRRR!

[/ QUOTE ]

Inv for scrappers and tankers uses exactly the same numbers. Those numbers are then modified according to AT.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And for the record, it's highly frustrating to see all this good news about how wonderful I7 is going to be and have the immediate reaction be, 'This isn't enough!'

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that the only reaction?

[/ QUOTE ]

For those who don't like CoV, don't own CoV, or for any other reason only want to play CoH, is there another reaction to be had?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but that's really not the point - the reaction is justified, not immature, and not overly harsh. No reason to try to stamp it out.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if the response is 'There isn't enough'. I think the response is 'Where's the balance?' There's a fair amount of content in Issue 7 as it's shown, however a LOT of it is geared to just Villains. If it was divvied up between Heroes and Villains I would't mind.

The biggest example I have is these new kinds of missions for Villains. As far as I know, they've never made previous mention of that kind of mission. However, they've been making note of CoH's content gaps for months now. Rather than taking care of what they've already pointed out, they add something completely (as far as I know) unannounced in an issue that's main focus was -already- new content for Villains.

That's my complaint.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, the mayhem missions have been discussed since before CoV was in stores.

[ QUOTE ]
And for the record, it's highly frustrating to see all this good news about how wonderful I7 is going to be and have the immediate reaction be, 'This isn't enough!'

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that the only reaction?

I'm looking forward to the new powersets and the addition of 41-50 content for CoV. I'm sure quite a few people are. I really want to check out Lord Recluse's Victory. However, for people who don't have CoV, there's really very little content for them in the patch - new costume parts and Lord Recluse's Victory. If you're not into PvP, that limits it further. The new base options are nice, but are not available if you don't have CoV.

[ QUOTE ]
Completely off-topic, but. You owe it to yourself to throw F.E.A.R. into that list if you can. That game is pretty incredible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have FEAR, too, but the numerical progression of the other three shooters made me forget it.

Seriously.

[ QUOTE ]
I think we all need to chill out, sit back, and wait for it to get on test.

Now take up a chair. I have enough Big League Chew for everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not big on that, but if you have some jalapeno chips, I'm right there with you.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what you mean by 'optional content' since every activity in CoX can be considered optional. You don't have to do missions, you don't have to street hunt, you don't have to enter hazard zones, you can choose your contacts, and if you never want to see Hamidon...you never have to. Heck, you even have the option to stop paying $15 a month and you never have to deal with this again. Your argument is flawed. You want specific PvE content for CoH and call everything else optional when, really, everything about CoX is optional. If your highest level toon was 25 and this issue was full of level 50 content would you complain because it wouldn't effect you?

Do you see what I'm saying now?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the problem isn't that Pilcrow isn't seeing what you're saying - because he is. He's not stupid and he's not typically given to blindly defending a position against all-comers just because he can't be bothered to change his mind.

I think the problem is that you're telling Pilcrow that he has no reason to be disappointed with the apparent lack of CoH PVE content in issue 7, and that's not even a rational argument. Throw in a random slippery slope (all content is optional!) and you're all set for a potential flame war.

Pilcrow's position is reasonable. There's no reason to attack him for it. He's not wrong nor is he a bad person for wanting CoH content.

[ QUOTE ]
But isn't all content, in and of itself, optional?

What's the difference between people complaining that every issue is PvP based or people complaining that there aren't any new scrapper/tanker power sets or that Croatoa is too EQ-like.

It comes down to the simple fact of: you can please some of the people some of the time but you can never please all of the people all of the time.

If issue 7 included Grandeville, Recluse's Victory, and a new zone for heroes (maybe the Egyptian one that's been rumored) along with new brute/stalker and tanker/scrapper powersets, we'd still have an equal amount of people complaining that the powersets aren't for their AT or the new zones aren't for their level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly, all complaints aren't created equal. Having hero and villain PVE content would be nice, because it'd give people in both games something more to do. That's not quite the same as complaining that the content you get isn't to your taste.

Generally, I think people who get annoyed at magic in a comic book superhero game are a bit weird.

I still need to finish Half-Life 2, Doom 3, Quake 4, Vampire, and...lots of others.

CoH and WoW keep distracting me.

[ QUOTE ]
So your argument is that since the new PvP zone includes villians it's not good enough for you and should be CoH only? When CoH already has 28 zones? What?

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy Straw Man, Batman!

[ QUOTE ]

Neither side is right. Neither side is wrong. Both sides do deserve the attention, though, since everyone's 15 dollars is as good as everyone else's. There's some of us who don't even PvP exclusively that are waiting for Recluse's Victory just to get PvP zone badges. Surely your desires are no better nor worse than mine. And neither of ours invalidates the others.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care about badges, I just want to stack Cloak of Darkness, Focused Accuracy, and Tactics and hunt Stalkers in Recluse's Victory.

Well, I want to do other things, too.

[ QUOTE ]
I am angered.
Why?

New Power Sets! (Villains Only)

[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC, originally the Trick Arrow, Archery, Sonic Resonance, and Sonic Blast sets were listed as Defender only.

[ QUOTE ]
O_O

Who..

*thud*

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm right there with you.

[ QUOTE ]
One more vote for extra flight speed.

I don't mind leaving Hover as it is. You're hovering, not flying. Pre-ED, some people were six-slotting Hover to fly around, bypassing the need to take Fly as a travel power. That wasn't right.

[/ QUOTE ]

It didn't really bypass the need to take fly as a travel power. Hover's base speed is way too slow.