BrandX

Originally Posted by Silverado

Quite the contrary actually, they tend to cause a lot of scatter (Lightning Field being the biggest offender), which is the exact opposite of holding aggro

Originally Posted by Mercator

Do we have a strong side-by-side comparison of the secondaries for Scrapper?

I'm mostly curious on the current issue breakdown between Dark Armor, Invulnerability and Super Reflexes. But I was considering how most the guides at the top are all from just after ED (shakes fist at Cryptic).

Understandably, Shield Defense is the new favored what with some of it's amazing options. But i'd think we could get some experienced veterans of the battlefield in here to sketch out their feelings and maybe some of the numbers or suggested slotting on the other great secondaries available.

Originally Posted by New Dawn

I think it's a nice build that has some TLC go into it. If anything I'd say its a taste thing.

Fearsome Stare and Darkest Night stacked means that there is a lot of -tohit which made me go for other things than defense. Due to the fact that Shadowfall can take a steadfast protection I think you could go either way, def or res. I went res because I could get +end out of the IOs and had thought that for my purposes I am able to dish enough -tohit. Your better def does make it more likely that you would get both tohit debuffs off so it's not something I would say change.

Looking at Moonbeam, instead I'd of probably gone for Assault or perhaps combat jump for a +7.5 rechg Lotg.

Originally Posted by Panzerwaffen

This is a good point. Even if just about every serious powergamer out there was trying to run TF's at max speed for merits (which I don't believe for even a moment is true), the ratio of those serious powergamers to the rest of the player population is very likely so small that it wouldn't skew the averages at all.

Originally Posted by HellsPixie

I have to wonder why anyone would want the same name as some other already active character on a server. First of all, it doesn't fit the comic book standard. Every hero and villain has a unique name. Yes, there have been times when different people were behind a particular mask, but there was still only one of that character.

Secondly, even if the Devs employ some sort of system ID tag that operates behind the scenes, players tend to link the name to the behavior of the person running the character. Do you really want to be linked to the possible bad behavior of another? Since all characters can have multiple costumes (and now even different body types) names are what people work from. If someone with a character who has the exact same name as you give themselves a bad rep, there will be other players who WILL link you to that same rep. Some griefers may even use it to intentionally copy another player's character to do just that. And don't try to tell me that it'll never happen; you'll never lose betting on the worst of Human nature.

Originally Posted by Megajoule

Although the Devs have stated on several occasions that their metric for reward merits is "one per three minutes of play", and have rebalanced and tweaked TFs and Ouro arcs as necessary to fit, players have still managed to come up with ways to increase their rate of merit gain. Some teams can apparently cut this down to as little as one minute per merit, a threefold increase.

My suggestion is that the Devs may wish to implement a hard-coded limit which makes it impossible to gain more than one merit per three minutes. Since these merits are awarded at the end of the arc or Task/Strike Force, it seems to me that the most appropriate solution (if the Devs do wish to enforce their game design) would be to set the merit award to either the default value or the actual completion time divided by 3, whichever is lower. (Extra merits should not be awarded for extra time, lest players leave themselves logged in overnight before completing the arc or task force.)

Originally Posted by MeleeMadness

Is it possible to put our guns, swords, axes or whatever, on our backs instead of nowhere?

I think it would be cool....not all characters look right with wings or capes...

I didn't know where to post this so I did it here.

Originally Posted by Panzerwaffen

Damnit! You mean I'm not going to get to play my Mind Control/Whip Assault Dominator?!?!?

Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow

This is where your train of thought breaks. I said "I guess I'm used to Fire and Archery" not as evidence that the set solos poorly, but as evidence that my judgement may not be objective. I'm well aware Archery and Fire are considered overpowered, which is why I felt it necessary to point out that, yes, my subjective experience may be coloured by unreal expectations.

That the set solos poorly has nothing to do with Fire and Archery, and all to do with the fact that it kills me in places where my other Blasters (Blasters OTHER than Archery and Devices, Blasters such as Rad, Psi or Energy) do not. I mentioned Archery and Devices as a caveat. In retrospect, I should have used this as a trap to see how many people will jump down my throat as soon as I so much as mentioned Scrappers in this thread, because that's what you guys did - you ignored context and train of thought and latched onto a single sentence.

Then when "someone" who's been basically taking pot shots at anyone who doesn't run his posts through a PR check took my post completely out of context and said "But Archery and Fire are overpowered!" even though I said as much multiple times, I didn't feel like giving that point the light of day, so I stuck in a non-sequitiur there, expecting that people who have been obviously following the thread like you have would pick up on context and know what I meant, but apparently I painted myself into a corner by not writing up a long explanation of exactly what I meant and exactly why I meant it.

And you know what the most fun part is? The moment I take the time to write up a clear, unambiguous, exhaustive explanation of my entire train of thought in the finest detail so that no-one can wilfully misunderstand it, I'll simply get accused of being long-winded and told that no-one wants to read my walls of text. Charming, isn't it?

Let me spell this whole storyline for you, because I'm tired of seeing you act below your your level.

Step one: I state that Dual Pistols is weak at soloing. It doesn't suck, it's not necessarily underpowered, it isn't even bad. But when I play the sets, I know which ones are good and which ones aren't, and this one is on the low side. It has decent attacks, but everything takes so long to animate that I take MUCH more damage than I have any business taking. I said this before, and I stand by it now.

Step two: I so much as MENTION Archery, Fire Blast and Scrappers. I establish clear context that I am not using this to judge the set's objective, practical validity, but everyone ignores this. I bring them up not to compare to Dual Pistols, but to express my preferred level of solo play. As I've explained numerous times, I'm dissatisfied with the entire AT and where it's balanced, as I feel Blasters are still far too dangerous to solo for what they bring to the table, and if I had my way, their baseling performance would closer to that of Scrappers. I bring up Archery and Fire Blast to explain what it would take for Blasters to reach this performance, but I am simultaneously aware that they ARE outliers, which is the point - if it takes an outlier overpowered set to reach the kind of performance I'm looking for, then there are more problems than JUST Dual Pistols.

Step three: I get called out on a claim I never made. I blow it off and apparently shoot myself in the foot by not providing seven paragraphs of explanation, safe in the knowledge that if I had, I'd have shot myself in the foot for providing too much explanation no-one would read anyway. I'm accused of wanting Dual Pistols to be overpowered like Archery and Fire Blast, which not only did I not state as such, but have actually stated I do NOT want. My reply to compare to Scrappers was more a comparison between BLASTERS AS A WHOLE and Scrappers than between Dual Pistols and Scrappers, which I didn't feel I had to specify because I thought comparing one set from one AT to AN ENTIRE OTHER AT would be so stupid no-one would assume that's what I meant, but apparently I have the reputation of a very stupid man who's likely to make those connections. Too bad, so sad.

Step four: I get pissed off at people intentionally misreading things I've said and people refusing to read into context, so I spend half an hour writing up an over-long explanation no-one is going to read about exactly what I meant when I said "Scrapper" and why I placed a comma there instead of just leaving a space. I wouldn't have thought this was necessary, but since you guys are so adamant about misquoting me, there you go.

And, by the way, when I said "quote where I said," I meant just that. Quote the sentence where I said what you claim I said. Not alluded to, not suggested, not inferred. SAID. And you point me to fairly large posts that seem to maybe suggest what you're saying I said, but when I read them, they still read just fine to me. Could you maybe point me to WHAT I said that led you to believe this? Because I re-read my old posts, and I still don't see it.

*edit*
Just for the record, the "Archery/Fire" comment was not in response to your post. It was a post script addendum intended to clarify my own post and provide a bit of context. It was most certainly not me responding to you that "Oh, you're wrong because I'm comparing this to Archery and Fire Blast." Not only did I not actually say anything even remotely like this, it was not an answer to you, which is why your sequence of events breaks there.

*edit*
Oh, and then there's this that I didn't see the first two times I read your post:



Really? Is that what I said? Let's follow that link, then:



Where in this post do I mention Dual Pistols? I mention "it," but even if you check the quote I was responding to, you will not find any explanation what "it" actually is. You assume "it" is Dual Pistols, but "it" is actually Blaster performance in this case, since that's what the quote of the quote of the quote was talking about. Theoretical, overall Blaster performance. Archery and Fire Blast is where I feel Blaster performance should be. Not in terms of damage, but in terms of "I am not afraid to enter into a fight" feel of reliability. Most Blasters don't have that. Most Blasters I play make me feel reluctant to pick fights because I know that even if I don't die, I'll be seriously hurt. Fire Blast and Archery allow me to have the kind of confidence in my ability that a Scrapper would give me.

Dual Pistols is only tangentially related to Blaster performance by virtue of being a Blaster set, but when I bring up overall Blaster performance, I can't really talk about just one set, so bringing Dual Pistols in this is out of context. I could have brought it up as an incredibly weak set exception, but it doesn't take a genius to tell that it's not, hence why I didn't feel I needed to specify. Dual Pistols does not compare to Scrappers. Dual Pistols does not compare to Scrapper sets. BLASTERS compare to Scrappers, and Blaster PERFORMANCE compares to Scrapper performance, and neither comes down to a single set.

Just as a general rule of thumb - when you quote people, do quote people instead of trying to paraphrase and rephrase, especially when the point is to bring forth evidence of who said what when.

Originally Posted by Silverado

1.-Locking down a spawn isn't tanking.
2.-Debuffing a spawn's tohit into the floor isn't tanking.
3.-Surviving the alpha and then keeping the aggro on you (usually through Taunt, Gauntlet, Provoke or a taunting aura), and off your squishier teammates IS tanking

All 3 are different methods that lead to the same results, but still shouldn't be confused.

Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow

Wait, says who?

Originally Posted by Nibb_Nibb

Personally, I not only think you were wrong to kick the player, I think you are wrong to come here looking for justification.

You don't know the person's build or slotting. Maybe what she was doing was exactly what she was slotted to be best at. Suggesting another strategy is one thing, but demanding someone to play how you want them to play is quite another and is exactly what you did. So she got a mouthy and threatening when you backed her into a corner? That's completely expected.

I run an Illusion / Kinetics who doesn't have Speed Boost; in part for just what you described. That's not how I built my character. I'm a melee specialist. I can stand right beside most tanks/scrappers and offer them constant protection and support. That's how I'm built. People who think they know more than I do see me run and and instantly start saying, "You're a Controller -- you need to stay back". Wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm not some mindless buff-bot. I'm built to tank and scrap if needed. I'm very upfront about it too. When I ask to join a team, I tell them I don't have Speed Boost. If they kick me, that's their loss.

In my eyes, there are three basic reasons to be kicked from a team: Extended and/or repeated AFKs (leeching), abusive chat (sexual or racial typically), or blatant disregard for the team (constant "train" pulls, wandering off alone, refusal to enter/exit a mission, etc). Bad players will never get better if they just keep getting kicked off teams. I'd rather have seven bad players who are doing "something" than seven players meeting any of the three attitudes above.

So my question to you OP is this: Did you complete the mission?

Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow

OK, this is starting to get in my nerves. Kindly point out to me where I said I wanted to compare Dual Pistols (as opposed to Blasters in general) to Scrappers with the sole intent of proving it's underperforming. Hell, let's make it an easier challenge. Point me to where I said, not alluded to, not implied, but said in straight, unambiguous text "Dual Pistols is underperforming."

Because I'm starting to get sick of being hit with a straw man every time post a single sentence. And especially from you, Dispari. You ought to be better than this.

Originally Posted by Caemgen

This is why 90+% of the time I do not team.

Sure, I'm just a natural loner anyway, like to do things at my own pace and in my own way, but I have occasionally been tempted to team up to try a task force so I could experience it or get whatever...

But then I remember how often I see threads like this.

I'm still relatively new to the game and by far most used to tankers and scrappers.. So I don't know how every different build should be played to maximize it's benefit, I don't know the INS and outs and all the slang and tactics etc etc etc... And since threads like this make me so reluctant to team, well I guess I'll never learn them either.

Team leaders can kick whoever they want, they get that power for running the team. They can have public arguments about it in game and then take it to the boards later - why not? I have no real problem with any of it...

Just, you know, don't be complaining later on down the line about it being hard to find or make teams. There would be at least one more person to join up on occasion if it wasn't so high stress and likely to lead to being kicked and made the subject of public ridicule... Sure, maybe the name wasn't used here but since it was public in game for a while I would guess one could find out if they cared... *shrug*

Anyway, like I said, I have no problem with the OP's actions per se... Just understand that some of those turning down offers to join a team are doing so at least in part because they don't want to be the subject of your next post.

Originally Posted by Thirty-Seven

Well, first of all, none of the players in a TF situation are being asked to run it solo; it seems you are implying that the Kin's buffs are worth so much that the rest of the team might as well be solo without the Kin's help. They are in a situation with a player who isn't using all of their powers to the optimal level. There are still 7 other players on the team.

(Also, I have yet to see a situation where one player failing to use one power has caused a team to fail. Usually, what happens is that one player isn't using a power, the team says something... and then promptly gives up putting in full effort because they see that said player isn't "contributing" as much as others think they should be.)

However I have to agree that the knee-jerk type reaction is annoying, and almost always uncalled for. And yes, they are being uncooperative and selfish. I guess my point is, that it really is NEVER another player's place to say use such and such a power please. It is their place to work around any percieved disadvantages that the team has and try to make it work anyway. If the team is unworkable, then kick/invite accordingly or give up.


Again, in my experience this is a problem of perception. By virtue of you noticing that the team is having a problem with X and player 5 has a power that mitigates the impact of X does not mean that it is essential for player 5 to use that power. Perhaps there is another way to get around the issue the team is having with X, but because you see the issue and ONE way to fix, that must happen, or the team will fail. If that really isn't the situation, then yes, the player should be using the power, but I don't think I have found a situation where any one player can decimate a team by not using a single power but still be contributing in other ways.


But... by definition, it is.

Originally Posted by NightErrant

I -love- Dual Pistols.

And I'm also one of the few people I know who uses Chemical Ammo regularly. Granted, I'm a Dark Miasma/Dual Pistols Defender, which means my secondary effects are stronger, I have a ton of Psuedo-Controller effects, and one of the strongest AOE heals in the game. (And with a few IO Sets I also have a Build Up Proc, which is sexy).

...But yeah. Not only is Toxic rarely resisted (and never defended against), but the -Damage effect goes quite well with Dark Miasma's debuffs.

But then again, most of the arguments revolve around Dual Pistols as a Primary. So yeah.

Originally Posted by Iannis

I could put up with concept builds, but I really don't understand the petless MM. The no speed boost Kin? Dude got SICK AND TIRED of having to SB the team every 20 seconds, probably. Long as he didn't skip Fulcrum Shift: now that would be really dumb...that's why I sorta want to make a DP/Kin corr when GR's special edition comes up for sale but at the same time I know I'd hatehatehate it because they're expected to be nothing but buffbots for the brutes. Screw dat, i'd go Trick Arrow first and then I don't have anything to buff nobody with. Glue and oil, glue and oil!

The petless MM is ignoring the defining aspect of the AT just so you can have a few really poor quality Pulse Rifle Blasts, though--I don't even see how it could function without a team. But in my experience teams only want an MM slightly more than they want Stalkers but would much prefer MOAR DAMAGE or corrs or doms to either AT. But at least no more petless Thug MMs now that DP is in. I expect Pulse Rifles to be proliferated eventually and be some kind of half AR half energy set, and then these petless abominations will be done for.

-edit

Originally Posted by Panzerwaffen

Really? OK, since you like challenges, show us your Master ITF run with the following team makeup of concept & RP builds.

Team Leader: You, with whatever character you choose.
Brute: Any primary/SR secondary. Concept build that takes all attacks, and only the tier one SR power.
Defender: LOLHealorz. Empathy/Dark. Only heals from Empathy, no buffs. Plus medicine pool for extra healing goodness, only tier one Dark Blast, which can't be used since the player is RP'ing a pacifist.
Tank: Invulnerability/EM. Stamina-less build, so takes no toggle powers at all, only passive defense powers.
Masterminds (2): Petless Ninja/Pain.

I look forward to your results...