BellaStrega

[ QUOTE ]

You're not wrong, Kellis. In fact you nailed it right on the head. We had only an hour to discuss everything related to CoH moving into other formats. Issue 5 is a fine discussion topic - for some other time. I personally didn't discuss it at all with anyone from NCSoft. Someone else may have, which I have no problem with, if they did it outside the seminar that was meant for other things.

[/ QUOTE ]

You had an hour to discuss various issues regarding CoH, and you had five other people who had questions. You took it upon yourself to short circuit discussion you personally weren't interested in, but others were. Given that I5 is where the devs are trying to balance the entire game to their intent, it seems to me that it would be a valid topic.

I would also hope that the devs themselves would be capable of short circuiting the "I hate I5 and demand that you fix it" kind of nonsense, but I suspect that was unlikely to come up.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I find this disappointing, as some fruitful discussion may have resulted with the ability to get immediate feedback. I mean, I can understand not personally wanting to discuss issue 5, but doing your best to make sure no one else gets to either?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno. I suppose it could be because there was only limited time (I'm guessing) for that seminar thing, and a discussion about I5 would have resulted in the usual "I'm right, you're wrong" shouting match as seen on the forums (again, I'm guessing).

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that such shouting matches tend to happen on the forums for several reasons:

* Lack of visual/auditory feedback.
* Lack of the possibility of immediate feedback.
* Dependent entirely upon the other party remaining interested in the thread

People polarize way more easily in online discussions than they do face-to-face. They polarize way more easily in delayed interactions than they do in real time. Yes, face-to-face interactions can get out of hand, but I think the likelihood is much lower.

[ QUOTE ]
Dave Williams likes Issue 5. That was the extent of our Issue 5 discussion. Another audience member started to talk about I5 a little, but I asked a question on a different topic right after that to avoid degeneration into the same stuff we all read here on the forums. I'll leave Issue 5 discussions from GenCon to other posters that may have talked about it with the NCSoft guys. I avoided the phrase "Issue 5" like the plague, myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this disappointing, as some fruitful discussion may have resulted with the ability to get immediate feedback. I mean, I can understand not personally wanting to discuss issue 5, but doing your best to make sure no one else gets to either?

I got a 7% result as well, Robot.

Here's something I posted in the tanker forum:

Without chilling embrace, an even-level metal smasher hit me for 171.88 smashing. With it, he hit me for 159.85. That's 93%, or about a 7% damage debuff.

I found that I could solo an Unyielding Council mission without pausing. The without pausing was due to the end recovery from EA. I found that if I pulled two spawns together, that things would get a bit hairy, and in one case I had to use Hibernate. After that, I found that I could safely pull 2-3 spawns together without too much trouble if I used two lucks beforehand. Testing with and without icicles, I didn't notice any difference in the time it took me to defeat the villains. I spent less time waiting for EA to pop for the end without it, however.

I'm a bit disturbed about needing to use Lucks to survive two spawns, though. There's no way I can tank for a team without having an FF or Sonic defender to boost my def or resist, or having dark or rad to debuff accuracy and damage.

To clarify the bit about two spawns nearly defeating me - I'm not saying that I want it to not be a challenge. However, as soon as I had two spawns beating on me, after I used EA, my hit points dropped to red very fast. I was lucky to be able to use hibernate to recover from the damage and get back into the fight. I somehow doubt that fire, invuln, or stone, would be on the same knife-edge facing 8 +1 to +2 minions at once.

I find that EA's end recovery makes ice a better soloing set, but the loss of defense damages its ability as a teaming set.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also, I would rather people logged into their ice tankers when it goes live, and get a team of eight, and go tanking without the aid of any defenders that can buff defense or debuff accuracy.



[/ QUOTE ]

Say what? There are actually 8 ice tanks on a server? This I've gotta see!

[/ QUOTE ]

I know of eight on Champion, but what I mean is getting into a team of eight with Ice as the only tanker, without an FF, Dark, or Rad defender to bolster the tanker's defense.

The purpose of such things is so that if the devs datamine, they can see the horrifying debt fests that result.

[ QUOTE ]
I think we should all just delete our Ice Tankers as SOON as I5 hits Live if they don't roll back some of these changes or tweak them a bit more.

I wonder what the datamining would look like if a gigantic drop in Ice Tanker numbers happened within hours of I5 going Live.

It'll be like a giant Ice Tanker strike. After all, not playing an Ice Tanker is the only way we'll be able to avoid attacks given I5's defense numbers. <chuckle>

Oy...that's all I have to say...oy.

My faith is melting away faster than my Frozen Armor at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check my I5 respec link in my sig.

Also, I would rather people logged into their ice tankers when it goes live, and get a team of eight, and go tanking without the aid of any defenders that can buff defense or debuff accuracy.

Anyway, check out Statesman's most recent post to the Defender thread for an explanation as to why defense is apparently so good compared to resistance.

[ QUOTE ]
Umm, I'm just back from the Training Room server...

Did they "not" make the changes indicated? I used Hibernate, but it doesn't indicate endo recovery at all. And with most of my toggles running, I was losing endo, not gaining it back.

So, did they not push to server?

- JJ

[/ QUOTE ]

The patch hasn't been downloaded yet.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I feel that giving any toggle less than 5% defense is pretty much not worth it, and giving it less than 7.5% is not worth slotting. IMO, you should be able to feel the difference between the power unslotted and the power six-slotted. As it stands on test, that's simply not possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

A great argument, but irrelevant to me. My Ice Tank is taking and 6-slotting Weave.

It doesn't matter if the power gives only 2.5% (Combat Jumping), if I feel I need more defense, I have no choice but to put my slots there.

If this means that my attacks are one-slotted at 41, that's just a sign that I'm willing to go to bizarre extremes to get my Hero Idea to work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say that no one should slot them. I simply feel that if defense is that low, it's not really worth slotting. So now you're in a position to slot up your defenses for minimal gain, and at great cost to your offense. Awesome.

[ QUOTE ]

But then again, I feel the whole plan of changing Wet Ice in that manner is an extremely bad plan, and as I demonstrated previously in the thread adding 7.5% base DEF vs S/L/E/N/F/C to Wet Ice that was Enhanceable would put us into a much better positon in the defensive powerset rankings, and put us more on par with Invuln and Grante Armor. And it'd make us a little less reliant on Tough, which I think most people will end up having to take in I5 to even function.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel that giving any toggle less than 5% defense is pretty much not worth it, and giving it less than 7.5% is not worth slotting. IMO, you should be able to feel the difference between the power unslotted and the power six-slotted. As it stands on test, that's simply not possible.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems like there's a disconnect between how Ice works and how Statesman thinks it should work. It's like there's some kind of weird idea that it's actually effective lodged in the devs' heads.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ice was effective though I4. It had a lot of quirks, and maybe too much DEF, but that DEF got reigned in too far. I still say had they left all other DEF alone, but removed the DEF from EA and make it a Recovery/Taunt power completely we would have been far more in line with the other Tanker sets for I5 than we are now on Test.

[/ QUOTE ]

I specifically meant Ice with the I5 changes, not I4 and earlier.

[ QUOTE ]
I can tell you right now, I've tried a few different builds on Test, I can't really get anything that feels right for the amount of effort needed to play the build. Its to the point where I'm working on my Peacebringer and my Stone Tank (shhh... don't tell the Stone Tanks who are upset with me) and haven't taken my Ice Tanker out on live but once since I5 hit the test server, and I don't really think I plan to play him after I5 goes live.

Doesn't mean I'll stop being a thorn in the devs side about it.

I signed up to play a Tanker not a low damage Scrapper with a bit more health. That's just how I feel about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm right there with you.

[ QUOTE ]

I just wanted to post this in case anyone though I might have said anything to garner the 45s limitation. As you can see, some of what I said was taken to heart, and some of what I said its questionable if anything got acted upon.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems like there's a disconnect between how Ice works and how Statesman thinks it should work. It's like there's some kind of weird idea that it's actually effective lodged in the devs' heads.

[ QUOTE ]
I figure since at this point Stateman hasn't revealed all the Hibernate changes, and he only asked me to remain quiet on the one point that he already told everyone, I figured I'd post the full details he gave me:

[ QUOTE ]
Hibernate (Tanker and ancillary): Reduced its End Cost. Your toggles will not drop. It has a Recovery Boost. Fixed(improved) its Cast time. You can only stay Hibernated for 45 seconds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please note, that I immediately questioned him on the rate of the Recovery boost and if the Regen boost was changed at all, no response on either of those points. I also wanted to know if we could cancel the power (de-toggle) or if it was now a clicky - I didn't think that part was clear. If its still a toggle, that's cool, because it may, in fact, be the first power that is a duration limited toggle, meaning some new tech.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like most of the changes, but I don't understand the 45s change.

But I like doing silly stuff like hibernating in a public place - or did like, when I played Maiden more.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that SR and Dark Armor have clearly better defenses than Ice, and Regen isn't too badly off, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, with Elude, an SR Scrapper will exceed an Ice Tanker vs most mobs defensively.

Its just another thing that feels wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I had elude specifically in mind when I posted. SR is better without it, though, simply for having Def vs. fire, toxic, and psi.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the devs just hate ice tankers. Why else would they give all other tanks and some scrappers (well, the one with a tank secondary) better defense?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that SR and Dark Armor have clearly better defenses than Ice, and Regen isn't too badly off, either.

[ QUOTE ]

So: Any clue how y'all can set it up so that you can absorb Alphas and still be at risk from the rest of the spawn?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is how it is on live right now. Ice is at risk from the alpha and the rest of the spawn. Definitely more risk than invuln, stone, or fire.

[ QUOTE ]
seems like they want to move towards the eq model of meat-healer-dmg.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that the rendering of tanker defenses as irrelevant in teams is not evenly applied. Stone tanker defenses are completely relevant - they won't need defender support to tank. Fire could use FF or Fortitude to back up its good resists. Invuln could use sonic to bolster its resists. Ice doesn't have enough defense to be decisive, to really count on its own.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ice isn't gimped live, but it's not quite as good as scrapper defenses (my DA has better odds against some AVs, and of course Invuln always does better). Ice is gimped on test.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Ice isn't gimped live... but it is unbalanced.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think "not as good as scrapper defenses" qualifies as "unbalanced."

[ QUOTE ]
On live, I have faced Infernal so many times I can't keep count--I enjoy that mission. And I always outlast any other tank in the mission with me. I've even gone into the mission with a fire tank before and had a little chuckle as he died twice around the portal while I lived (a good example of how important defense is when facing large numbers of baddies).

And yet, you turn around and face DE or Rularuu and BAM!, it's amazing how fast you can go down.

I don't think the issue is that Ice is gimp. I think the issue is the way acc/to-hit buffs/debuffs is an all-or-nothing game. You either look really good (and are too powerful, imo) or you're dead (and are too weak/not enough defense). There just isn't any middle ground for ice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree.

It's just that in I5, there's no margin when you're not facing tohit buffs or defense debuffs. If you want to have defenses to tank, you need a bubbler or two (sonic and/or FF). You don't even need to run any shields.

This is the thing I hate most about I5 - that the devs seem to want tanker defenses to not matter.

Ice isn't gimped live, but it's not quite as good as scrapper defenses (my DA has better odds against some AVs, and of course Invuln always does better). Ice is gimped on test.

[ QUOTE ]

Also we lost our status as being the Anti-Sapper tanker. A sorely missed attribute

[/ QUOTE ]

I miss it.

Maidenfrost was sidekicked into several Malta missions when I last played her, and she wasn't sapped once.

Now...feh.

[ QUOTE ]
<sigh> Look. Ice Armour is not terribly viable when put side to side with the other Tanker sets. Yes that is part opinion and part personal experience. It just doesn't have the resources necessary to make it a reliable tanker. Tweaking defense numbers just doesn't seem to really make any of the problems go away. Perhaps the damage debuff in CE will make a difference, I personally don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ice armor is viable in most circumstances in issue 4. It clearly performs worse than other tanker sets - no argument - but it's not gimped or useless. Its real weakness is facing high-damage high-accuracy enemies (monsters, AVs), or getting a streak of hits before EA takes effect. That's my experience.

In issue 5, both my scrappers can outtank my ice tanker.

[ QUOTE ]
I also never "kept on talking like Ice Patch was attached to the hip with Ice Armour".

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but I wasn't necessarily talking about you, was I? It seems like every single discussion I've ever been in about Ice Armor has prompted someone to go on about Ice Armor as if Ice Melee is a required choice.

[ QUOTE ]
I merely stated my opinion that I believe Ice Patch would increase an Ice Armour tanker survivability (moreso than other tankers in similar situations) and still remain consistent with the rest of the set and provide a patch for some of the gaps that a defense oriented set tends to leave wide open.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it cuts down incoming damage. That's nice, but shouldn't be necessary. It shouldn't be a factor in how Ice Armor works, because any tanker, Ice or no, can take Ice Melee.

[ QUOTE ]
I am also speaking from my own personal experiences, which is as a, as you put it, "kneecapped" Ice/Ice Tanker. I can't dish out damage as well as Stone, or Axe, or EM,

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, except for that part where you're not dishing out that as much damage as Stone or EM. I'm not sure about Axe.

[ QUOTE ]
but the addition of Ice Patch sure does make a helluva difference in my teams survivability. Sure, my xp/hour sucks, but hey, that's not how I rate the effectiveness of a power.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point on the XP/hour was that Fire can not only use ice patch to cut down incoming attacks (which is an issue, with their lack of +Def) and keep villains inside their burn patch for the full duration. Fire increases survivability and kill rate.

When considering what I consider important for characters, I should note that I do not have any Fire/ tankers, and my highest-level tanker is ice... XP/hour isn't my primary interest.

Anyway, I'm not trying to attack you. I am frustrated about Ice.

[ QUOTE ]
If I had my way, Ice Armour would be a completely different frozen novelty. I seriously don't even know what I can say to the Devs that Circeus and others haven't already said. The Devs seem oblivious and it's terribly disheartening. So many good ideas presented, and so many bad ideas implemented. In any case, I shall trudge forward with both my low xp/hour Ice/Ice and because misery loves company, an Ice/Mace tanker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why the devs seem dead set on keeping ice as weak as possible. What do they see in the set that makes up for such gimping?

[ QUOTE ]
If nothing else, at least I'll leave enough shaved ice in my wake to put all of Paragon City's ice cream trucks out of business. Anyone else like blue raspberry syrup on their slushies?

[/ QUOTE ]

So the I5 role for Ice tankers is to sell frozen desserts? I can see that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most people who play Ice/ or /Ice tankers seem to reroll them after they get the idea that the primary or secondary is subpar. Taking both is like kneecapping yourself.


[/ QUOTE ]

(looks down at knees)

[/ QUOTE ]
I have one. I like the concept and the look, but she has problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like ice patch, mind you. I just think that if you're going to go for a powerset, it's good to have other powers that are worthwhile too. Ice damage is very low, and the other control is practically useless (sleep).

At least my Ice/Stone can contribute noticeably to damage against hard targets (bosses and such) and use tremor + fault to keep stuff knocked down and stunned.

[ QUOTE ]

I notice you have Steam (Counterstrike) running...I'll see you in Dust_2 with my Deagle Also, you need to hit the yellow "update" icon

[/ QUOTE ]

Already did the updates. I hate them, though. They're practically daily.

And yeah, I just picked up Half-Life 2. Lots of fun, and I really should finish it.

Robot_Lawyer,

If I5 goes live with the current changes, including the changes Statesman has offered so far, here is my planned respec.

Not meaning to sound melodramatic, but I don't see how Ice can be a viable tanker under these conditions. My scrappers - regen and dark - can outtank my ice tanker right now.

[ QUOTE ]

That's debatable, IMHO. It provides a huge benefit to ANY tanker who takes it. Fire gets a huge benefit in terms of Burn to offset the piddly damage that Ice Melee gets for its attacks. However, I feel that Ice Patch actually provides Ice Armour tankers with a tool that let's them actually tank on par with some of the other sets. The difference I saw before and after Ice Patch with my tanker was like night and day. Your mileage may vary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not debateable in the least. Ice Patch increases an Ice Armor tanker's survivability. Ice Patch increases a Fiery Aura tanker's XP/hour.

[ QUOTE ]

I wasn't saying that an Ice Tanker without Ice Melee was NOT viable. I was merely stating my experiences with Ice Patch. The fact that it makes a hugely noticeable difference in my tanking ability leads me to believe it has a great synergistic effect with Ice Armour. Which it does to the point that I actually think it should be included in the Ice Armour set itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering recent changes, it seems that ice patch is more likely to be nerfed. I'd rather see Ice Armor focused on having effective +defense, rather than try to use what will become subpar control.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised you haven't seen Ice/Ice Tankers, they seem to be the ones I run into most. Different experiences I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ice Melee is very unpopular for being a one-trick pony. Fire tankers take it so they can use ice patch to keep stuff in the burn patch.

Ice Armor is unpopular for reasons covered in this thread. Most people who play Ice/ or /Ice tankers seem to reroll them after they get the idea that the primary or secondary is subpar. Taking both is like kneecapping yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
After I picked up Ice Patch, my life as a tanker became easier. I now had a tool that I could actually count on to keep a large portion of the mob group from attacking me OR my teammates. Could I do my job before Ice Patch? Yes. Could I do it much better after Ice Patch? Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that's no reason to talk about ice patch (or any other Ice Melee power) as if it's joined at the hip with Ice Armor.

[ QUOTE ]

Although I hope they aren't balancing around this, I do hope they take a cue and realize that alot of Ice Armour tankers take Ice Melee for Ice Patch. Ice Patch is one of those skills that just makes the Ice Armour tanker that much more effective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ice Patch provides far more benefit to Fiery Aura than Ice Armor.

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty much everyone I ever talk to just assumes that if yer an Ice Tanker you take Ice Melee, because Ice Patch makes you into a "real" tanker. Sad to say that there is some degree of truth in that statement.


[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much everyone you talk to is pretty silly, then. Tankers have six other secondaries that aren't Ice, and they should all be viable with Ice Armor.

I play an Ice/Stone, and I've teamed with Ice/Energy, Ice/Fire, and Ice/Axe. I've never even seen an Ice/Ice tanker in the game, although I've certainly heard they exist. I've only seen Fire/Ice when it comes to Ice Melee.