BlueRidger

I can see handclap's usefulness more red side than blue, what with Brutes being more squishy than tanks. Personally, I don't use it - but I really don't care for SS as a set to begin with. I'm thinking it would be pretty good mitigation for an /Energy Aura Brute (for example) slotted up with taunt/rech/end. Granted, you can only use Energy Drain on mobs that are around you, but a taunt-enriched Hand Clap should bring them running right back to you. Before anyone says anything, YES... I tank with my Brutes and do just fine thankyouverymuch. As far as Tanks go, maybe at the lower "squishy" levels it'd be an ok choice, but generally most Tanker primaries are good enough to not need Knockback mitigation (Note: Knockdown/Knockup is always a great thing).

As I said; Frozen Aura (that would be the AoE sleep) runs the same numbers - damage, recharge, end cost - as Footstomp. The only thing it lacks is Rage to go with it and the fact that it is cold damage.

Edit: Oh yeah, it's radius is a little smaller as well.

Personally, I do not feel as most other people seem to about Ice Melee. I won't go so far as to say that it does amazing damage, but it is not "horrendous" damage, either. If you look at the numbers, most of Ice Melee's damage lines up with other sets. One exception is Stone Melee - which is much more geared towards single target, also Super Strength if Rage is included. You'll even find that Frozen Aura has the same base statistics that Footstomp does. The reason that it seems to perform poorly (in my eyes, at least) is that it really is pretty insufferable against robots. I hate fighting Malta with my DA/IM tanker because those titans just take forever to kill. One thing that ice does have going for it is that it is one of the least resisted damage types in the game. My suggestion is to try it out for yourself and see if you like it. Don't take anybody's word for it but your own.

Thanks a lot, Otto.

You're fired.

Personally, I don't really care what the general public thinks about this. I have a group of friends that I play with, so everybody else can stuff it. I'm more interested to know if they're planning on porting Electric Armor/Electric Melee over to Blue side (to Tankers). Anybody know?

Optimus Prime would have been a lot stronger if he'd have had a Warmace to beat up Megatron with. He wouldn't have died in the first move if he'd have had an Energy Aura, either. He'd also have been much prettier.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You answered most of your questions yourself. The writing is on the wall, all their eggs in one basket as you put it. I5 was the beginning of the transition of turning CoH from a PvE based experience into one focused on the PvP aspects to be introduced with CoV.

A majority of future content, I would wager especially end game content, is meant to be player generated...ie:PvP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Erm. No. PvP will be an optional part of gameplay. Always.

The changes in I5 had very little to do with PvP and a lot to do with boring PvE. It's that simple. No conspiracy there - I think I've stated this several times.

As for the supposed "emphasis" on PvP - I think you'll see that it's just ONE part of City of Villains. It has PvE content levels 1 to 50.

We'll continue to add new PvE content (which I5 did exclusively, I might add) in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, States. I don't buy it. Agreed, PvP will be optional but as for the rationale concerning the changes.... I just don't see it. Personally, I hadn't gotten bored with my Inv/ tank being able to tank nor my Ice/ tank being able to tank. I also didn't get bored with people appreciating force fields (albeit from a controller, so not as good). I do know that some of the consumer base was getting bored... but I also know that a MUCH larger portion wasn't; not as far as powers were concerned, anyway. Ask the people on the streets, States. Perhaps YOU were getting bored, but others weren't. Please don't try to sell this "It's not for PvP" line... it really is an insult to the intelligence of the consumer. Then again, we are all just herd animals are we not? I guess you can say whatever you want to.

I can't say as I'm really suprised. Ice/ has always been overpowered.... right?

Honestly, it never fails to impress me how underhanded the devs can be sometimes. Thanks for putting in the time and effort to come up with some numbers... in all honesty, I haven't run Ice Blocker since the updated for more than about an hour.

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but I don't see Ice Armor shining. Yeah, you could say that glacial armor is shiny from the fx, but that is it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It also shines very will when you get your ice tank between your camera vantage and the setting sun in Talos. It's quite lovely. Aw crap.. now they're gonna nerf that too!

I like astroturf. It's easy to mow. You guys can't honestly expect straight answers... I mean, really. The answers on the other Dev threads show as much as well as the ones in this one. Not to mention Statesman's lame excuses in his address for nerfing everything. "To make everyone feel loved and happy.... " blah, blah. Okay, so he didn't say that, but he may as well have. They'll never give a straight answer for the nerfs to the defensive sets because there is no valid excuse. They were already considered the weakest sets out there, and now moreso. This after having been told that they would be "looking into" them. It's great to have such compitence "looking into" things for us.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll pop in here so you guys have a new target.

The original Task Force Datamine took 3 months to finish. That was to go over 2 months worth of data.

We now have 18 months worth of data. We looked for a more effecient solution, but our estimates still come out at 2 years to datamine and get you your badges.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your situation and, although not super thrilled about it, can understand the impracticality of such datamining. And honestly, on a TF where most of the members are exemplared from higher levels, it really doesn't take horribly long to complete the pre Shadow Shard TFs. The Shadow Shard is another story all together. With so many willing to accept the issue 5 nerfs, why are so many opposed to the badge nerfs? There is very little to be done about the badges, really. One would think that it would be easy to get over.

[ QUOTE ][*]The first novel will be out in October as well. There are currently two other novels planned, to be released in 2006 (I believe April and August, but I could be remembering that wrong.) George Perez will be doing cover art for all three.[*]The initial CCG release will also be in October. (Sensing a theme here?) The first set is 300+ cards, with 33 pre-generated heroes plus the ability to create your own hero. The initial release is CoH-only (CoV will be sometime later).[*]The RPG base system book, plus some supporting material, will release in October. Again, CoH-only to start. I didn't get a good feel for exactly what all supporting books will be available, but I seem to remember some discussion of the Council.[*]The various games will tie together in terms of story, with the same heroes/villains/organizations/etc. In addition, you may be able to affect one game with what you do in the others. For example, there might be a CCG tournament where you could win the right to design your own online hero as a card for inclusion in a later CCG expansion. Or maybe participating in an RPG event could earn you a badge or special cape online. No solid plans for how all that will work yet, but it has definite potential.[*]It was very apparent to me that all these guys play the online game. That may sound like a no-brainer, and for guys like Jack it is, but for the RPG/CCG/novel folks, that's a big deal for people that like consistency across a genre (I include myself in that number). The fact that these guys could talk about their heroes that they play regularly tells me that they'll have a good understanding of the CoH experience, and I hope that translates well into the other formats.[*]Jack made a special point of saying that moving the CoH world into all these other formats (CCG, RPG, etc.) is to interest the gamer audience. The online CoH game is pretty easy to play, and very accessible to the non-gamer that is trying their first MMORPG. Some of that will carry over to the other formats, but for the most part they'll be focused on the audience that already games. For example, people that love CCGs and play CoH online will be a natural target for the CCG. I like this approach, being a RPG and CCG player myself. This sets a high bar for these new formats, since they're targeting the hard-core gamers that pick everything apart with a fine-toothed comb. I have no doubts about the RPG, I'm sure that will come through with flying colors. The CCG is a little iffier, but Dave W. has some good games under his belt (L5R, for example), so if it can be done I'm sure he'll make it happen.[*]The CCG will intially be all hero-vs-hero. Not ideal, IMHO, but it sounds like they are also thinking about adding more mission-based and story-based aspects in future expansions. And of course there will be villains at some point.[*]Outbreak will be used as the basis for the first adventure that is included in the RPG manual, which I thought was very cool. Everyone who has ever played CoH online can relate to that. The first release will have details on the Hellions, Skulls, Council, and Vazhilok - again, mirroring the early game that most gamers will already know something about. Well designed.[*]It sounds like the RPG will have an extremely detailed view of the CoH world. I'm very much looking forward to getting those books, just to read more of the backstory. As time goes on, we'll get more and more detail on all the heroes, villains, and organizations that show up in the online game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the report. Call me paraniod, but it sounds to me like them shoving the MMO into the crapper is intentional. With so many other ways to make money, who needs a hokey computer game that'll die out in a year or two anyway?

If the devs have such problems with Burn, why not just completely change it as opposed to making it useless? Something like combustion, but either more damage or a chance to continue to burn for a little extra damage (while keeping the immob resistance). This would also help out fiery embrace for not /fire tanks. I know that it would be "just another combustion", but AoE's are good for tanks. That way fear would no longer be an issue, Fire/ tanks would still have the most damaging primary (as they should), they'd have another way to hold aggro, it would make a power from the primary usefull to non /Fire tanks, and they'd keep the immob protection. Of course, many will poke holes in my little suggestion, but I'm just tired of seeing all of the hostility. I hope the devs are sick of it too... maybe they'll come around.

[ QUOTE ]
Gang,

Decided to give Permafrost a protection against Slow instead of Toxic...

And we've tweaked Hibernate so that your toggles won't drop anymore!

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, goodie.. so we get no protection from toxic... still.. and protection from slow.. that we already had with Wet Ice (according to the description) and EA (according to the description) and our toggles don't drop in hybernate... that should have already been there since day one. So you gave us.. yet again.. jack squat. How stupid do you think Ice tanks are? Why do you even TRY to make it sound like you've done us a favor? Thanks for nothing. Again.

I could see that that was the direction of Wet Ice (Energy Absorption too, for that matter), but your "somewhat" tends to mean way too little. If you hold true to form (and I think you will) it'll mean MAYBE a 5% boost. Rethink your balancing of Res v/ Def... it's way off. I do like that you're making permafrost usefull, though. Just don't think that by tossing a few crumbs that we'll ignore the bigger issues.

Why not just halve the defense offered by Stealth powers to begin with? This suppression garbage is just that. As someone already stated, "If you're not attacking, what do you need defense for?" I'd like to see the justification on this; I need a good laugh. Also, I could care less about PvP. If stealth is getting nerfed due to PvP, that's just wrong. Supress it in the arena... not when you really need it. Since when were blaster defenses out of hand, anyway? More retarded nerfs. Not to mention the fact that if you attacked while stealth, the inherent aggro from the attack MADE THE OTHER BAD GUYS ATTACK YOU. Must remember to send Nerfsman a thank you note. I bet he'd nerf it and send it back to me.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the real numbers (that's what I get for doing stuff from memory).

Wet Ice
0.5% base
1.265% Defence from Wet Ice with ++ SO's.

17.71% Max Defence from Energy Absorbtion (not what I had earlier).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, golly. It seems that you're trying to turn EA into an end restoration power/taunt and Wet Ice into mobile anti-mez protection. If this is the case, you really need to adjust the numbers for Glacial and Frozen armor. As it stands, I'd say that a Post Issue 5 Ice Tank has less survivability than pretty much anything but a blaster. At least blasters have damage. Honestly though. A controller can lock enemies down, a defender can heal/debuff/buff, a scrapper... well, look at the numbers. Scrappers have much higher survivability than Ice tanks do. Why would you go kick poor ice right in the jimmy when it's already handicapped? If you're thinking that it balances against the resistances of other sets.. you're wrong. Just wrong. I venture to say that you've NEVER run an Ice tank of ANY kind. Try to tank for a decent sized team with your cruddy Issue 5 numbers. Try it with a pick up group.. or a team that doesn't have any buffing to speak of. Currently, it can be done. What you're doing is forcing people to play ATs that YOU want them to play. That's just not right. As it stands, I could go and grab a few friends and we'd run whatever we wanted because there are no REQUIRED ATs currently. The only exception would be with AVs, and that's fine. Ice needs a positive overhaul. Not this garbage. Another thing that needs to be said is that you seem to assume that everyone and everything has hasten. This is untrue; I rarely give my tanks, blasters, or scrappers hasten. The only one that DOES have hasten is my Inv tank, and that's only for conserve power. Think about the bigger picture, enough with this narrow-minded, "Everyone's out to be uber" line of thought. Most of us prefer to be different and unique. Now you're taking that away from us.

Maybe my brother will see yours over there; he's airborne infantry and he'll be there shortly. Good luck to them both; they'll come back just fine. I stand little chance of getting stationed in a War Zone, personally. As for responses, I really don't have any room to talk. I rarely meter my tongue when I see something as wrong ... so I can't reasonably expect anyone else to. Just try to keep us informed; for better or worse.

Running all 4 tanks, I will say that after Issue 5 goes live, I'll be deleting two, probably 3 of them. This change to burn is just over the top. It was crap before with the fear, and now it's just pure garbage. My Fire/Ice was built around it... he really has nothing else going for him. Damage resists are poor (except for fire) and very little defense (6 slotted weave+combat jumping). Devs, you're really doing a bang-up job. I'd say that I'm going to skip it burn and respec into something else, but what's the point? They'll be nerfing the /Ice secondary next. Hopefully with Issue 6 they'll be playable again.

[ QUOTE ]
I also believe that Teleport Foe is an awful power. It almost always misses, and when it does, it aggros everyone on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I've found teleport foe to be a boon to those times when I'm solo'ing around. I've got a 38 rad/rad def, and it comes in very handy; especially during an indoor mission when a mob could be, on the map, right next to your location yet still be a good jog to get to. I'll just run to the mob, target one (if I don't want to fight them all at once), run aaaalll the way back and tp foe. I only have one green SO acc enh in it, but it hits the vast majority of the time on minions and most of the time on Lt's. These mobs are +1, sometimes +2 in my solo missions. Also, if the distance to run is far enough, it'll aggro the rest of the baddies standing next to your target, but they'll give up after a little jog. Bad guys are, after all, a lazy lot. Another thing is it's range. At lower lvl's, it's nothing special but I've found that the range now (at 38) is greater than that of my snipe (proton volley). As a result many times I can teleport foe at about the extent of my range (and it hits) without aggro'ing the rest of the mobs in the area. The only con with TP foe that I've found is that if you target a boss and miss (which is pretty much always) then him and his cronies are ALL gonna come after you. Not that that is a particularly bad thing. At least that way you can get yourself set up at a defensive position and fight them on your terms as opposed to theirs.
Found another handy thing the other day with auto assisting and TP foe. Was walking around in the Gaspee helping out some lower lvl toons when one said, "Uh-oh.. sniper" to which I replied, "Got it targeted?"... "Yeah"..... I Auto Assist the guy that has the sniper targeted and, low and behold, there's a very suprised sniper standing right in front of me. Picture his suprised look as a cosmic burst hits him in the face followed by an Efield and a proton volley. *Sniper hits the ground* In short... I really like TP foe. It comes in about as handy as any other power. (for me, at least)

--end ramble