Bill Z Bubba
-
Posts
5701 -
Joined
-
My guess: because you're dealing with two different animations.
Katana's buildup is a specific animation for the katana set.
The buildup you're talking about isn't in the dual pistols set and therefore causes redraw.
Now someone explain to me why some target based toggles that aren't in the primary DON'T cause redraw and it'll all make sense to me. Cuz right now... it doesn't. -
Considering the fact that they are making fitness inherent, I feel that it's probably safe to say that what the original devs had in mind means exactly nothing these days.
EDIT: Also, moot point since we're apparently getting more slots with the incarnate stuff. -
Quote:The waiting is killing me.
But best to just wait till beta. We'll know more then. -
I'm curious as to how they would work around the non-stacking of freespecs. I've not seen anything related to getting more than one myself.
-
When FM was ported over from tanks to brutes, combustion (an aoe) was turned into cremate (a single target attack.) Scrappers got brute FM when it was ported to them.
A while back I did a rather extensive pair of comparisons for single target damage output of brute and scrapper primaries, and brute fire was on top.
Even the rikti pylon thread in the scrapper forum has fm/sd being top dog with competition only coming from dm/sd, but that's only when the dm/sd can also keep saturated soul drain up and running with 10 enemies.
Brute FM is better than scrapper FM because fury buffs FM's damage over time portion while that same DdoT is not affected by crits.
So, if you want a character that never gets hit and rips through a single hard target, FM/SR is the way to go. If you want even MORE ST damage, go FM/SD... but then you have that shield getting in the way of looking sexy. -
Quote:This statement is true and backed by developer communication.Originally Posted by Chaos Creator
The values will be kept exactly the same including being able to be slotted.
I also laughed a lot at the market-merge-is-the-doom-of-us-all crowd. I laughed more at the people against it for roleplaying reasons.
To be fair, however, I was one of the people that stated we would never see inherent fitness, so I'm not innocent on the didn't-see-that-coming front. -
Fire > Energy for damage output but Energy will give the the chance to stack some major stuns if you choose to go that route.
-
Quote:Something tells me that this would be detrimental to life on said planet.Originally Posted by starphoenix
Tractor Beams aren't that impressive. Let me know when they can move a planet across a galaxy in a reasonable amount of time.
-
It is a lot easier to turn off toggles with a single click and a bind that it is to turn them all back on.
I'd be for it, but as I said... I don't see it ever happening. Then again, I said that about inherent fitness as well. -
Quote:Asked Castle about that a while back. (Few years. 1 year. I dunno. Time has turned into a mudpit in my brain.)Originally Posted by Mercury_Down
Inherent fitness being active while in nova or dwarf is one thing but I doubt we'll see toggles being active in the forms. I'd be happy with just having the toggles suppressed in nova or dwarf just so I don't have to spend time turning them all back on once back in human form.
Anyway... Suppressed toggles still cost end. Players would gripe about the huge cost of running toggles that don't function. Ain't happenin. Or so my muddied and damaged memory is telling me. -
Saw that on Fark. Pretty cool.
-
Quote:Lightning Field backed by double stacked rage versus no damage aura at all on SR perhaps?Originally Posted by Exxar
Not sure about that. My claws/SR scrapper takes twice the time to kill the same amount of stuff as my SS/ElA brute. But I don't know if that's due to the small radius, no taunt aura, or doublestacked Rage.
-
Not an "official" patch that I know of. Leandro has a zip file with some modifications that allow for it.
Here's the thread
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?p=3185196 -
Quote:Negative. Damage enhancement is additive. If I have 95% damage enhancement in an attack and have 150% damage buff from fury (75% fury bar) then the base damage is multiplied by 1 + 1.5 + .95Originally Posted by T_Immortalus
Actually, the damage enhancers do modify extra fury damage by modifying the damage fury modifies.
Fury is a percentage damage buff. So, if you slot your attacks to do double damage then fury at 200% buff will double that double damage to 400% instead of unslotted doubling up to 200%.
That's how percentages work.
Example:
Brute claws swipe
Base: 34.62
With 95% enhancement and no fury: 67.509
With 95% enhancement and 75% fury: 119.439
It is not base*(1+enhancement)*(1+fury) -
Yea, I don't have the time nor the drive for it either. I know I can get the reward merits every day in about 2.5 hours. Can probably squeeze that down to 2. Then another hour for tip missions.
That's just one character. Looks like I'd be better off skipping the reward merit conversion and just run 3 characters a day through tips. -
2 months? Get 1.5 a day by trading in reward merits and inf for 1 a day and farming tips for .5 a day.
30/1.5 = 20 days. Or was it 35 HV merits? 24 days. Still less than a month. And then farm with every character you have every night, zerging said tip missions and ouro arcs to get your 50 reward merits. You can get like 10 of em in less than a month. And make 20 billion on the market!!! MUUUAHHHHAHAHAHAHHHA
Well, if you hurry that is. -
T_Immortalus, did you have Triple Buffering enabled in the CCC when you were attempting to use Vertical Sync?
-
I missed that as well, RA.
Please add claws/fire. -
Quote:As was the plan. I'm glad you now understand the point of reducing a power's DPA.
Yes, ETs DPS was always out of wack. But the entire set depended on that particular power in order to keep a decent DPS. As you know Bill, by nerfing that one power it dropped EMs DPS considerably.
Again, we're in agreement. The devs didn't see fit to make fitness an inherent until I-19. Castle didn't see fit to adjust claws damage based on cast time until I-whatever. How long did it take for ice melee's tier 9 to get adjusted again?Quote:Look, I'm not part of some tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theory. I'm not and do not ascribe any type of sinister motivations to Castle or to his actions. ET needed to be nerfed, you and I both know this. I just think that prior to IOs and power proliferation Castle didn't see it as it important or game-breaking.
And here's where it falls apart. It has already been shown that the devs' timetable makes little sense on anything they change. They make changes when they get around to it. Had there been any forethought in place, ET would have been nerfed prior to the introduction of IOs. We the playerbase may accept that AoE is king, but the devs have shown no indication whatsoever of balancing powersets to keep aoe in line or even remotely comparable between sets.Quote:I think that the devs probably thought EM was fine for PvE. Sure ETs DPA was out of line, but EM paid for it by having almost no AoE ability. And as we've seen, in PvE AoE is king.
Again, agreed. This was a PvE change specifically geared toward lowering EM's single target DPS for all archetypes that use EM.Quote:Now maybe PvP factored into it, and maybe not. The timing of the PvP changes makes me think that it probably didn't have much to do with it.
Repeating what has already been refuted in the hopes that folks won't catch it is not going to help your case. Brutes and scrappers benefit equally from IOs. Brutes solo everything that scrappers can solo. Stating that ET got nerfed because EM might some day in the future get proliferated to scrappers while ignoring the massive ST carnage currently being utilized by IOed out brutes with EM is nothing short of dumb.Quote:But then along came IOs and Super Scrappers soloing everything in the game. EBs, AVs, Rikti Pylons, Monsters, GMs, God, etc. Castle knew that EM was going to get ported to Scrappers. It's my belief that's what made Castle finally decide that he had to nerf ET. I'm guessing that EM probably hasn't been ported yet because the devs have been busy doing other stuff - like Going Rogue.
1: No, scrappers do NOT do full damage 100% of the time. Their crits only function 5% of the time for minions and 10% of the time for everything else.Quote:Sure Brutes can solo AVs, but because of the Brute AT damage base, neither Build Up nor Against All Odds has the huge effect for Brutes that it does for Scrappers. Also, believe it or not, some people had a hard time (even before the changes) keeping the Fury bar filled. With Scrappers that's simply not an issue. They do full damage 100% of the time!
2: Base damage means nothing when your inherent is variably buffing your damage 100% of the time.
3: Brutes that struggled with fury generation and maintenance sucked at being brutes. On top of that, did you happen to notice the recent NERF to brute fury? Brutes were SURPASSING scrapper damage output regularly. Well, at least those brutes that didn't suck at it, but there are scrappers that suck at scrapping as well.
Then why are you arguing with me when I also don't think that it was PvP related AND I never brought up PvP in the first place?Quote:I read and posted in more than one thread back then about the ET nerf. I remember Castle saying that it was being nerfed because its DPS was too high. I'm not disputing that. What I do dispute is the opinion, that seems to be held by many people, that it was nerfed because of PvP. The timing of the PvP changes, which Castle had to have been aware of when he nerfed ET, just makes it seem very unlikely to me.
I've already answered those questions multiple times. He did it when he did it because those using EM and heavily IOed builds were overperforming. Its DPS was too high. Reducing the DPA on ET corrected the issue.Quote:So we're both in agreement that ETs DPS was out of wack and that PvP had probably somewhere between very little and nothing to do with why ET was nerfed. So this just leaves us with two questions.
1) The Timing - Why did Castle choose to nerf ET at that particular moment in time?
2) The Method - Why did Castle nerf ET in that specific manner?
Already answered. A broken thing needed fixing. He and BAB had the time to fix it. So they did.Quote:So here's how my brain arrived at my conclusion to this.
1) He had the time. This was probably the biggest factor. Castle happened to have the time at that particular moment and he probably knew that he wasn't likely to have much free time in the future. But then that brings up the next question: Why did Castle choose to spend his time at that particular moment on ET instead of any of a dozen other things?
Do you know how powers are built? A recharge time is chosen. An equation is then used to determine the damage based on that recharge time. Another equation is used to determine the endurance cost based on the damage. Yes, you can rework the second equation to go straight from recharge to endurance.Quote:2) Why didn't Castle simply go into the chart and change some numbers? Recharge and/or damage? That's what they did when they nerfed Ignite. Why did he bring Back Alley Brawler into it and change the animation time? Something that's (to my knowledge, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) only been done once before, with Flares. And with Flares we know that the animation was changed only because they were standardizing all of the Blaster Tier 1 and 2 attacks. Unlike the other animations, where BaB was just able to shave a bit of time off of the animations here and there, they simply couldn't do it with the old Flares animation.
Had Castle done nothing else but lower the recharge, and thus the damage and endurance cost, it would still have the extra damage generated by the self-damage addon and players would have done nothing but spam it more often. Increasing the recharge would have increased the damage, exacerbating the issue further.
Already answered in last sentence. Decreasing the power's DPA was the only fix he could put in that couldn't be worked around by ALL the archetypes using the power. It has NOTHING to do with the non-existent EM using scrapper.Quote:So why didn't they do it that way with ET? Why did Castle choose the one route that most certainly took the most time and effort? And also just happened to be the one way that players couldn't do anything about with IOs?
I have thoroughly explained why the basis of your belief is illogical. Whether you can accept this is irrelevant to me.Quote:So that's why I believe that Scrappers are the reason that Castle nerfed ET. Scrappers base damage modifier, the timing of the change, and the manner in which he changed it. You may not agree with me, but at least you can't honestly say that I haven't arrived by my belief in a logical manner. -
Here's the facts:
Castle decided ET needing nerfing for the game as it exists today. Today, scrappers don't have EM. They don't matter.
Castle decided that the fix for ET was to increase its cast time, thus reducing its DPA.
Several of you state that EM wasn't overpowered in PvE. The facts disagree with you. PF, you stated that Castle must have known about the changes he was going to put into place for PvP when he was making the PvE change. I agree with that assessment. This means that there was no PvP reason for the ET nerf as ET would have been nerfed under the current PvP rules anyway.
This means that there was a PvE reason and one that existed for tanks, brutes and stalkers. Due to the "fix" being an increase in cast time, the PvE DPA of the attack was the problem.
It ain't rocket surgery. -
Why anyone thinks the old ET was fine for a brute but would suddenly be omgwtfbbq broken on a scrapper when the crit could have easily been removed from the power prior to proliferation is beyond me.
Edit: Also, why did you bring up PvP to me? Where did I mention it?
Oh goody, edits to respond to.
So ET got nerfed because of EM proliferation to scrappers, right? Where's the proliferation? If that was Castle's reason to nerf it why don't scrappers have EM? Why bother doing it when he did if his only reason for doing it was due to future proliferation?
Brutes can't solo AVs? Yes, they can, and do regularly. They can also get softcapped.
I'll respond to you in whatever way I see fit whenever I see fit to do so. The reasoning behind your belief is not sound. We all know how slow the devs are to make heavy changes. This is no different than any other change made that took forever to put in place. ET's DPA was always out of whack. If it hadn't been, no change would have occurred. -
ET was nerfed to hell because its DPA was off the charts. That's it. Nothing else.
-
<shrug> My main farming map is council empire. My secondary doesn't have any kind of extra damage output and I tear through them just fine using followup, spin, eviscerate, repeat. I think the small radius on spin is less of an issue that people think.
-
No love for claws. Spin+eviscerate rocks.
-
Quote:Citation needed. Your opinion on the matter doesn't seem related to reality.Originally Posted by Peregrine_Falcon
Not at all.
ETs animation time got changed in preparation for being ported to Scrappers. Castle didn't want an IO'd out perma-Hasten Scrapper to be able to fire off two ETs under the same application of Build Up.