Cyber_naut

Well most builds are going to stack rage to some point, so simply stopping the stacking will nerf the damage enough, imo. And on top of that you'd be bringing the to hit down to a bit over 1/4 effectiveness - so like I suggested, if you were going to nerf the damage bonus on top of all that, then I'd like to see a reduction on the end cost to make up for that.

But overall, I like your idea, because I really, really, really, really, really hate the rage crash and have always felt it was overkill for what the power actually did - which is give SS damage on par with other sets, and a to hit bonus that was overkill in most situations. Your suggestion is much better than the last attempt to fix rage by adding a no end recovery to the crash - which is why I'm terrified at the though of the devs trying to 'fix' it again. And judging by their latest powerset, dp, it seems their aiming at flashy but underpowered powersets, which is a bad move, imo, especially in a game where people want to play super heroes.

If players who are unfamiliar with brutes try them with GR, I think there will be a migration to brutes form both tankers and scrappers. I think brutes have an advantage over both tankers and scrappers, in overall strength and performance. Maybe not so much of an advantage that it will be blatant to most players though. I agree with you that the gap between brutes and tankers is greater than between brutes and scrappers. Should be interesting to see what happens when going rogue hits, but I'm pretty sure I'll be adding a lot of brutes to my stable, lol.

Cims are just plain nasty in large numbers. And it's not just about defense with them, because they debuff it big time, so you need high debuff resists against them as well.

I agree, SR io'd out is far more sturdy than some seem to think. Of course primary plays a role too. Do you use shockwave bill? If so that power mitigates a ton of damage. My favorite SR is a DM/SR, and with him, siphon life adds a ton of survivability.

It's not ignorant to refute your claim that the self damage effect of a power is insignificant if only you don't 'mash buttons like a buffon', lol. The fact is, the effect of the self damage is a negative factor that is often ignored when some speak about the one thing the set has going for it, single target dps. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to imply other posters are 'buffoons' or 'ignorant', and accept that other people have different points of view than you do.

And here you are trying to claim the self damage is insignificant, this time by saying it's not used in dps chains like it was in the past. The fact is, to achieve top level single target dps damage, et is needed in the chain. So if we all played the set like you do, then em is not a top tier single target set anymore, while still being a bottom-feeder in aoe ability.

Going further, even with your 'If someone else is using the power whenever it has recharged, then they should build their character to compensate for the self-damage.', the fact that self damage is there and acts as a regen debuff is a huge negative factor that competing sets do not have going against it. So where is em's advantage? That's the problem, it just doesn't have one. That's why the set is subpar and that's why the set needs some work.



Where did I say you don't have the right to post your thoughts? I simply said that it's odd for someone who has claimed they have moved on from this debate to continually show up for said debate, and debate, lol.

But since we're debating things, don't you find it to be hypocritical to complain/QQ about complaining/QQing? Just as you have the right to argue changes are not justified, we have the right to argue for changes we feel are justified.

And as far as the devs opinion is concerned, clearly the past has shown they do listen to their customers, and they do change their minds, so if players feel changes need to be made, they should voice their opinions. That's not QQing, that's called posting your opinion as a paying customer.

See, suggesting changes and stating that the set needs buffs isn't QQing. Or were you weeping when you typed that?

Hey I could live with em being the single target king instead of buffing it's aoe. The problem is, there are several sets that are on par with em in terms of single target that absolutely obliterate it in terms of aoe. So imo, it needs a buff either way. I'd prefer an aoe buff, since that benefits more of the gameplay, but I'd be fine with a single target buff too.

I could live with this, and I love the no 10 seconds of impotence, BUT the damage reduction i'm not sure on. I guess you could reduce it a bit to make up for no impotence period, but I think giving up the stacking ability should allow the damage buff to remain as is. I love the end use to use it rather than on expiration, this way if you're low on end it's in your hands rather than hoping you have enough end in the middle of a fight. But if you force in the dmg reduction then bring the end cost down to 25.

There's 'nothing' you can't handle on a non-soft capped sd? I gotta call BS.

I run into trouble against several enemy groups on my pimped out/softcapped fire/sd that are better handled on other toons. And for pure, all around survivability, sd is absolutely not the best choice, especially if you're not softcapped.

1)How close to soft capped is it?

2)Is it your most survivable scrapper?

You were trying to throw out the self damage as being insignifcant, I called ********, lol.

Should I feel it's 'creepy' that you responded to my post? I hope not, I find your posts entertaining, like this one...

"To be honest, if the self damage is impacting your survivability then you need to do one of two things:

1. stop button smashing like a buffoon
2. reduce your difficulty"

Just because ni correctly pointed out a significant negative to the power in question, doesn't mean he 'smashes buttons like a buffoon' nor does it mean he is a poor player. He is simply pointing out that when those who defend EM as a set constantly tout the fact it's near the top in single target sustained damage, we should also take into account it applies what amounts to a nasty regen debuff, that competing sets do not.

Having said that, this is a thread about calling on the devs to reduce the nerf on energy transfer. I'm sorry if you were shocked to see posts inside supporting this, but what were you expecting exactly, brownie recipes? And for someone who has supposedly 'moved on', you sure seem to appear in these em threads a lot, lol. If you really want to move on, then please do. The rest of us will continue to lobby for em to get some love.

Improving the set's aoe ability certainly would not make it a clone of other sets, lol. It would simply allow it to compete with other sets performance levels. The only thing unique about EM right now is how slow the set plays and how pitiful it's aoe abilities are.

You claim my only option is to not play EM if I don't like it's performance. Again, I disagree. Instead I will lobby for it to be improved so it's performance levels can become competitive with other sets.

Its not an assumption, tests have been done several times that show the damage output of each set. Just look at the damage numbers the individual powers put out and you will see they are subpar without the rage bonuses in comparison to other sets.

Why do so many people play SS? Again, because it's one of the better aoe sets with footstomp being one of the best aoe powers in the game, and the fact super strength is probably the most popular super power since the inception of comic books. And in pvp, the to hit bonus rage offers is a great asset, so far as melee toons go in pvp. Same thing with electric - big time aoe abilities, most notably it's monster teir nine nuke.

Why is aoe so popular? Because 99% of this game is fighting multiple opponents. The whole game is geared towards that. Even solo on the lowest settings, you'll be facing multiple opponents in each encounter. The simple fact is, aoe is king in pve.



I said em was very popular in pvp pre nerf. And that is a fact. I then said it's not as popular now after the nerf and after the changes to pvp, partly because it negated the damage type advantage em had, along with other factors. Again, that is a fact. I won't argue your strawman argument because of course it's not 'gone' from pvp.

And I also said it wasn't that great in pve pre nerf several times. So why change it now? Gee, I don't know, maybe so more players will want to play it? Or maybe to benefit those who already have em toons in that they'll have an incentive to bother playing them again?

Clearly we disagree. A set that is on par with competitors in single target, while being in the basement in aoe ability all by itself, is a problem imo, and it's a problem that should be addressed at some point, especially after facing a completely unnecessary nerf that literally ruined em for many players, including myself.

Asking for EM to get a buff to its aoe abilities is absolutely nothing like the i13 pvp changes. If there is a similarity in your mind, please explain how.

I agree with sanc, it sucks, lol. To take advantage of AAO, you need near or softcapped defenses (or lots of insps). And with AAO's taunt power, you're going to get some aggro, and if you can't deal with it, you're dead. This is obvioulsy most noticeable while leveling up vs large mobs, usually on teams. Obviously once you get shield charge things start to look a lot better, but getting there isn't much fun, imo. Clearly, people play this set for it's late game, IO'd up power.

If you couldn't soft cap shields would you play it? I don't think I would.

Meh, it's no more 'cheating' than using AAO fuel or picking SD for that matter. You just used a game mechanic to your advantage, nice job, imo.

I believe the issue was stacking rage, not perma. Again, without perma-rage, SS would do subpar damage vs competing sets.

I'd support removing rage's ability to stack if they threw out the ten seconds of not being able to do any damage. Hell, if they dropped that ten seconds of no damage, they could even bring the to hit bonus down. I hate not being able to smash for ten seconds every two minutes...

The sudden end crash should be penalty enough for the 'bonus' of being able to do damage on par with other sets and a to hit bonus, imo.

Ha, that explains a lot.

And yeah, the last time they tried to 'fix' rage, they added a no recovery to the crash. People screamed bloody murder but it went to test anyway, and sure enough, death after death occured as the crash left players with empty blue bars, and consequently, no toggles, and sure enough it was reversed. But just the simple fact that a dev couldn't see how broken that kind of change would be and had to test it really shocked me.

People see 80% dmg bonus and are shocked by it without understanding the dmg bonus only puts SS on par with competing sets dmg wise. The power does nothing more than put SS on par with other sets dmg, while giving a great to hit bonus (which is overkill 99% of the time in pve) that is paid for with a def penalty (which can be negated by stacking the power, though I feel the penalty is overkill to begin with) and an end crash (that can be dangerous in the middle of a battle, especially while leveling if you don't have your end fully worked out yet), and 10 seconds of doing virtually no damage every two minutes which is really frustrating on a damage dealing toon. In short, rage is not as great as many believe it to be.*

*Obviously the to hit bonus is huge in pvp, but pvp is another game now entirely.

First of all, Ive got a 50 tank, brute, 2 blasters and stalker that all use EM, so when I talk about the set, I'm talking from experience not mids.

Secondly, nobody said the set is unplayable. We're saying it's sub par when compared to the sets it competes against. And it is, especially on the aoe side, which is more valuable in far more situations in this game, than its top notch single target ability is. That is why we are suggesting a buff to its aoe ability. So I'm not sure how you can argue this change is 'stupid and pointless and wouldn't do the set any good'... lol.

In regard to SS, it sounds like you should take your own advice and play a set to fifty before commenting on it. Because in terms of SS, if you nerfed rage in the manner you discusse, SS would be hands down the weakest set in the game. Why? Because SS flat out relies on rage to simply do damage on par with competing sets. The only edge rage gives SS is the to hit bonus. And while that bonus is nice in a few instances in pve, and allows for lower acc slotting, you pay for it with the rage crash which is at best annoying and at worst a pain on your blue bar. So if the devs did decide to nerf rage, they would need to rework the entire set.

And finally, most of the sets get lots of play. Obviously the aoe heavy sets get more play because again, aoe is more valuable than single target ability in this game becuase you are almost always facing more than one foe. Thats partly why SS (though as I said earlier, ss also benefits from being a very popular comic book power), elec and fire are so popular, and even SD which offers a great aoe nuke to pair with any alternate set. That's a big reason why we are arguing to buff EM's aoe abilities. Sure people played EM before the nerf, but that was primarily becuase it was so dominant in the old pvp format, which is now gone, along with any advantage EM had on competitors.

I dunno if I'm 'overselling' dark melee's aoe ability when I call it mediocre to below average, and saying its about on par with ma's, lol. In terms of shadow maul, if you played fifty levels of DM, you should have positioning down pretty good by then and it shouldn't really be an issue. If you enjoy MA's aoe more, that's fine, but I wouldn't consider either set very strong in terms of aoe ability, and neither one significantly better than the other.



In my opinion, MA is just kinda all over the place and isn't really that great at anything. I think most people who like it, like it for concept and looks, and that's fine, but performance-wise, to me, it was sub par all around. I agree that this is a set that could use a total rework - it should be one of the more popular sets considering the popularity of martial arts overall, the fact it isn't speaks to its playability.



It's decent when you compare it to spines, but spines is in the basement in terms of single target damage, due to being one of the best aoe sets. And 20% less damage is pretty substantial when comparing the sets, and the longer the single target dmg is applied, the bigger the damage gap. As has been mentioned by others, there were several threads in the scrapper forums where single target dmg was compared and elec was one of the bottom feeders, and from playing the set to fifty, i'd say the comparisons were pretty accurate.

But this brings up an important point. The gap in single target effectiveness is not that great, and on top of that, single target damage is not nearly as useful as aoe ability in the vast majority of situations in this game - which makes the nerf to et without improving em's aoe ability even harder to understand. Because even with it's dominant single target damage pre-nerf, em was an underperforming set*.

*Outside of pvp... it's dominance in the old-style pvp is the only reason it was so heavily played, and the only reason there were post after post of people laughing at players for not taking em, post the devs apparently confused for posts regarding overall gameplay.



My suggestion wasn't just end drain (which I agree is virtually useless in pve), but also end GAIN, maybe in just one power where you can regain a decent portion of your endurance.

Increasing stun ability would be fine, but as i've argued, the sets aoe ability really needs to be improved first, including aoe mitigation. Back when the set was nerfed I suggested the stun be made an aoe deal also, so I like your idea there, lol.

(And just to be clear, I don't think the set needs to be buffed with ALL of the ideas I've suggested just a few, or even one or two to start.)


Well yeah, OG is gonna distort your perception of stun capabilities just a tad, lol.

And lots of secondaries will make the health drain of et less noticeable, but on some sets, not so much.

I guess our opinions on what are 'easily mitigated penalties' differ. If I didn't like the idea of SS so much, I honestly would never play the set, I hate the rage crash that much. I HATE having endurance problems, and the rage crash creates endurance problems, more on some combos than others, but it's still there. And there is nothing more annoying when you're a damage dealer of being made impotent for 10 seconds at a time every 2 minutes. And there are other competiting sets that do single target or aoe better, without that pain in the *** crash. Concept has a large bearing on what I play, but no bearing when I evaluate a set on performance.

Stone Armor is one of the only defensive secondaries I haven't played, and I have no desire to play it because of it's penalties. First of all, getting to granite sure doesn't look like any fun, and once you get there, you look exactly like every single stone armor tanker in the game, your ability to move is shot and you take an additional hit on offense.

But I guess opinions vary.



First off, grownups can disagree without claiming the person disagreeing with them is smoking drugs, lol.

Secondly, to attribute the amount a set gets played is equal to its performance ability, is flawed logic, or this past month would indicate dual pistols is the best set in the game, lol.

Most importantly, we don't have the numbers on how much a set gets played.

Having said that, I'm sure super strength is a very popular set, but I guarantee you that a great deal of that popularity is due to the fact it's the iconic superhero power from comic books. Most kids grow up wanting to be super strong like superman, not swinging around a stone mallet, lol. And it's performance is far from 'ridiculous'. It's on par with other sets in terms of aoe ability, but keep in mind all of the sets aoe ability comes from a single power that you can't access until late game, which is certainly a drawback, when other sets get their aoe capabilities much sooner. And in terms of single target damage, many sets eclipse what SS can do, including some that rival it's aoe abilities. So if SS's performance is 'ridiculous', than there are some sets in the game that are 'uber-ridiculous'.

I don't agree that stone armor is played much more than many other sets. I'm fairly certain sets like WP, Inv, and SD get similar amounts of play, if not more. Sure, its 'god mode' power draws a lot of people to the set, but the negatives of the set, that you feel are easily mitigated, keep a lot of people from playing it (or at least getting to level 32) because they don't feel the negatives are so easily mitigated.





That's simply not true. In terms of SS, stone melee alone has better aoe capabilities and better single target damage. You're confusing popularity for performance again. But I'm sorry Super Rockguy is never going to be as popular as Superman.

And I'd be very suprised if SA gets way more play than competing sets. Sure it has superior survival ability, but it pays for it with crippling movement and damage penalties. You're 'stronger in virtually all areas than similar power sets' argument really falls apart here.


No, there is no problem there, just because you or someone else doesn't like it, lol. A badly designed powerset is one that nobody wants to play, like em.

And using a sets best power, isn't 'abusing' it, lol. Babe Ruth was a great baseball player, but he wasn't great at everything. In fact he kinda sucked at some things. Wasn't a very good basestealer. Didn't move around very well. Nope, all he did was 'abuse' his swing and hit homeruns. And he was a very popular player. And there were other great players through history that were great in their own way. Some were imbalanced like ruth, others were more balanced. I like diversity. You would seem to prefer a team full of players that were decent at everything but not great at anything. Sounds pretty boring to me, but again, opinions vary.



When these comparisons I'm using were calculated, they were calculated with the best powers from each set, so your point doesn't apply here.


Again, what you consider poor set design, is your opinion, and you're welcome to it. The devs may even share your opinion.

But your arguments that these sets are overpowered simply is not true. There are several sets that compete with or exceed SS in terms of single target and aoe performance. And while SA is the most survivable set, it is clearly eclipsed by every competing set in every other area due to it's limitations.

Now in terms of 'fixing' sets, it's simply bad business to fix sets that your customers clearly enjoy, and enjoy in large numbers, unless those sets are ridiculously overperforming - and clearly they are not. I personally, don't enjoy being underpowered for 30 plus levels on these types of sets, and I'm sure I'm not alone. But theres a better solution to simply changing a set so many enjoy and pissing them off, to appease a few other customers. You simply make an SS2 and a SA2, which shouldn't take much longer than it would to rework the first set.



Yeah, maybe it is just freedom, lol.

But like I've said, performance wise, SS and SM are very similar, yet I'd agree that SS gets more play than SM. But again, it's not because of performance, it's because one is SUPER STRENGTH (superman, hulk, spiderman) and the other is stone melee (???).

I absolutely do not agree that stone gets much more play than competing sets, at least from my experience. Do you only run STF's, lol?

And it's not about me 'admitting' anything, I'm not being dishonest. I simply don't agree with you. Sure SS is very popular, but I don't agree that it's due to being overpowered, because there are sets that are on par and better out there. And I don't agree that SA is being played considerably more than it's competitors - sure it has a survivability edge, but it clearly pays for that with severe disadvantages.



I don't disagree that those 2 sets are reliant on those powers, but I don't agree that makes them unplayable or broken, and I can assure you I'm in the vast majority. Granted this is just personal taste, we like sherbert and you don't, you like vanilla. You want them to change sherbert, piss a lot of their happy customers off, and make you happy by turning it into vanilla. The better solution would be to add vanilla and keep sherbert. SS1 and SS2.


I've said this several times - opinions vary. And being a business, they're simply being smart not doing something that would enrage (pun intended) a very large portion of their player base. Castle tried to 'fix' rage a while back by adding a ridiculous no recovery to the crash, which resulted in countless rage crash deaths on test, enraged players and a withdrawn 'fix'. Was his opinion a good move there? I'd have to say hell no.

I'd support 'fixing' SS if nobody was playing it and/or there was nothing on it's level performance wise. That simply is not the case, so 'fixing' SS would do nothing more than piss off a large chunk of their paying customers. If they have a 'holistic' change in mind for ss, then offer it as a new powerset and make everyone happy. Same thing for stone armor.

From what I understood, some uniques and procs weren't working correctly and were set to be fixed, but I didn't think anything besides botz was getting hosed, was I wrong?

Nailed it - completely agree.

The botz nerf is lame imo, and very unnecessary, but it doesn't ruin fm/sd. I run mine with the fire epic, and the only thing I had to do was swap out a purple set for a regular IO set to make up some range defense and I lost very little. You could no doubt do the same for an elec/sd.

Kat/WP is a beast, especially survivability-wise, and great on single target, but you're not going to be doing the aoe destruction you get with fm/sd or elec/sd.

The great thing about scrappers and IO's though, is the fact you can take just about any combo and make it pretty nasty if theres no influence limit.

So you didn't notice it except for the times it killed you?... lol.

I hope the future holds devs who can admit they overnerfed the set and decide to buff it, similar to what they did with DM.

LOL, if we're going to constantly tout EM's single target strength to support the nerf, it's completely fair and relevant to bring up the effect said single target attack string has on survivability when questioning it.

But you're still against the nerf right?...

Your analogy is only fair if you include the fact there are still 300hp chargers in the game, along with some 600hp corvettes, lol. So of course nobody wants to drive the pinto, except pinto enthusiasts which are rare...

Great points.