Cyber_naut

They were 'using' data - without knowing what the 'data' was to show 'performance', saying 'performance was about equal' is meaningless. What exactly was being measured and how?

If you want to share your secret info, that's great, if not, you really shouldn't just expect poeople to say 'ok, if you guys say so, I guess the ats are even', especially when your buddy castle thought he fixed the pvp situation using his 'data' and testing, lol. And I'm not saying that to be an ***, I'm just trying to point out that the devs are not infallible.

Regardless, I've got all the data I need from seeing the at's in action over the past six years or so, in game. I've seen groups struggle though content, and then easily get over the hump by adding the right buff/debuffer. I've seen buff/debbuffers pull stuff off that scrappers flat out can't do, and that's irrefutable fact. And I'm not saying it to gloat or because I'm happy about the situation, since I by FAR prefer the playstyle of scrappers, but reality is reality.

Those at's were always supposed to be better team multipliers - but I think where things got wonky is when as the game progressed, more and more has been introduced to improve those at's in terms of solo performance by flat out buffs and via survivablility improvement options (io's, incarnate abilities - and yes, I know these benefit all at's, but those with little to no survivability could achieve far greater improvements in survivability vs those that already had it), yet little to nothing has been added to the ats that started with the solo advantage to improve their team play.

And finally, let me add, to avoid misunderstanding, I'm not saying the gap is ridiculously enormous, it's nothing 'gamebreaking'. Top end at's can do pretty much everything any other at can do at various levels of performance, and the gaps can overlap depending on powerset combos, player ability, etc. But all things being equal, top set ups vs. top sets ups, there is most definitely a gap, and melee is looking up at the buff/debuffers in that situation.

It's the right question if you want to see why I'm saying stacking buffs and debuffs are more powerful than any other factor in this game. That's why two or three top end buff/debuffers will blow through content that two or three scrappers will struggle with or even be unable to eveb get through.

If you can duo a stf or rsf with two buffers/debuffers, any extra spots for non buff/debuffers are basically mercy spots. Adding another at really doesn't help all that much outside of the obvious numerical advantage. And I'm not saying that to be 'mean' to those who like playing melee, because I prefer melee myself (I've got something like 20 lvl 50 scrappers/brutes and 3 buff/debuffers, and I know I'll make more melee at's, but probably not any more buff/debuffers), but having seen the game from both sides, nothing makes content in this game easier than the right combos of buffs and debuffs.

And to those saying I'm only judging the ats at the top end, best case scenerio, that is correct - obviously if you look at them from 1-50 with various builds and various players with different levels of ability playing them there are too many variables to get an effective or useful comparison.

The answer to that question is (imo), blasters are one of the least 'necessary' and/or 'desired' at's to add to a team. You get just as much damage, and far better survivability and crowd control, from scrappers and brutes. The only at I'd put at their level or below them, would be stalkers, and they're up for some nice buffs I hear.

I'd love to see this study the devs conducted, and how they came up with statistics that suggest scrappers outperform the at's I've suggested to be superior in top end performance, especially on teams. Of course when you mention castle, the architect of the pvp revamp disaster, I don't need to see the study to know it was probably critically flawed. Perhaps they were using level 10 characters on training enhancements solo...

But again, I dont' think I'm stating some radical claim when I say adding a good buffer/debuffer speeds up say a task force faster than adding a scrapper. And again, the buff/debuff at's can duo stf's and rsf's, try to do that with two scrappers. How do you explain that if said at's are supposedly 'on par' or if as you claim the devs implied, buff/debuffers were subpar?

Mentioning studies that were supposedly conducted is useless unless we know how the study was conducted. I've stated specific situations that demonstrate buffers and debuffers speed up content completion, and even make content completion possible with smaller groups. I think that shows conclusively that there are speed bumps in content that buff/debuffers can get through faster than melee at's like scrappers, and some they can get through that scrappers flat out can't. And now, with all the survivability improvements available to buff/debuffers, the stuff scrappers could do that they couldn't is pretty much non-existant. I was hoping the new content would remedy this imbalance by giving melee some of the tools said ats have since they've steadily received survivability improvements, and maybe in time they still will.

On the plus side, the one thing I still agree with you on is that blasters are still at the bottom looking up. The one thing they used to have value in, pvp, has been euthanized by castle, so now they are left with nothing. As the devs apparently agree, and have for some time, I wonder what they're waiting for in terms of improving said at.

The fact these at's can take down GM's was stated not only to point out how they can do things scrappers and brutes flat out cannot do, but also to show how powerful buffs/debuffs, and stacking buff/debuffs, are in this game.

If you want to focus on how ats can contribute equally to rate of completion of reward granting content, NOTHING comes even close to shifting the balance of how fast and easily something can be completed in this game as a good buffer/debuffer does, and with stacking buffs and debuffs, even more so.

Have a race to complete say the RSF, one team gets 3 scrappers, the other team gets 3 buff/debuffers, and the scrapper team will lose by a mile, if they could even complete it. And that would be true with just about any content in this game.

Oh you so nailed it my friend, lol. That's why I can only laugh when I see people complaining about scrappers or brutes as being overpowered, or seeing people cry about melee sets like SS being overpowered. Forget about comparative effectiveness, these classes and powersets can't even do some of the things these other ats and their powersets can do. I can solo gm's on one of my defenders and one of my corruptors. You've got corruptor/defender/controller/dominator duos taking down the stf and recluse sf. The only things that is truly overpowered (relatively speaking) in this game are buffs/debuffs, and more importantly, stacking buffs and debuffs. Nerfing ANYTHING while leaving that situation intact is simply laughable and ridiculous.

Now the previous paragraph might seem like I'm calling for nerfs. I'm not. I'm saying there are several situations where the devs can take things that are clearly underpowered, and buff them. This would make the poeple aready utilizing these items happier, and create new opportunities for players who have not utilized said items, to enjoy them and thereby increase their satisfaction with the game. They don't even have to be large buffs, just small buffs here and there until said items become more competitive. It's literally a win win situation for everyone. Instead all I ever seem to see are players calling for nerfs to sets they don't like, which does nothing but create ill will and pissed off players, which does nothing more than hurt the game. And as far as the idea anything is 'overpowered', if you can't create a challenge for yourself in this game, you're doing it wrong, plain and simple.

Maybe a few issues ago, but I'd say they did create survivability problems for scrappers with the newer content, especially with the defense busting mechanics they introduced. It's much easier to notice the survivability of tanks vs scrappers in that content. What you're describing is simply taste in that you prefer damage vs survivability, and really that seems to be the norm, which is why you see more scrappers than tanks, or really more dps vs meat shields in most games.

It's very fixable. They can alter the entire game as some have suggested, which would be very difficult and undoubtably piss off a ton of players, or they can redesign SR entirely, which wouldn't be terribly difficult but would piss off some players, or they can add a few buffs here and there which would piss off almost no one and would be very easy to do. And SR certainly isn't broken or unplayable, I never suggested that, I'm only saying that it underperforms vs. competing sets, all things being equal, and I think that's really indisputable.

I do agree with you on blasters, in that if an AT needed buffs, blasters should be first in line.

Same here. I know some people like to gamble and do the pack thing, so this is great for them. But why piss off those who don't like this type of thing? Just make the stuff available a pieces in the store, but at higher cost. You'll never please everyone, but you can please most players if you offer more than one way to get something.

This doesn't bother me so much because I'm not a costume junky, but if the only way to get the new IO's was through buying these packs, I'd be pretty pissed off.

Very true, which is why SR needs some buffs.

This game has evolved over the years. It's a much better game because it's become more complex/involved/detailed. IO's were a great addition to the game because they allowed players to make their characters more detailed, allowed for more flexibility in builds, and provided improved layered defenses so their super heroes could actually feel 'super'.

SR suffers because of what you pointed out - the game has evolved to the point where defense sets need layered defenses, both from the set itself, as well as IO's, and now incarnate powers, to be competitive. And while IO's did improve defense ability of all sets, this did devalue the strength of SR, because again, that's pretty much all SR offers. Yes, I know it has scaling resistance as you get low on health, but from my experience it's not very valuable relative to what pretty much any other set has. And not only was SR's strength devalued by IO's, it was further eroded as the devs have introduced many defense busting mechanics in recent releases, especially in the incarnate content.

So what's the fix? It certainly shouldn't be nerfing IO's and thereby literally bringing every single set down to SR's level, especially now that the game has a plethora of defense busting enemies running around. And while I agree that IO's should have the resistance bonuses increased to make building resistance a viable alternative to building for defense, I don't think that would be enough to bridge the gap because it would also benefit competing sets. I think if the devs were to buff SR, they would first have to determine if they wanted the set to remain basically a survival set, or if they wanted to add some offensive utility. If they went the survivability route, I'd add some sort of heal or regen, which could be explained as speedy metabolism. If they wanted to add some offensive utility, maybe they could add a to hit buff or dmg buff as a super reflex hero would be able to get around defenses and hit soft spots with such a reflexive advantage.

I don't think SR needs a massive revamp, and I know there are some steadfast supporters of the set, but IMO, it is lagging behind just about every secondary, especially later in the game, and especially when you run into all the added enemies that go right through defense, regardles of DDR.

This post nailed my feelings exactly.

Why do something that literally only annoys players? This 'fix' does nothing to improve the game. I'm still waiting for someone to field an argument to explain how it improves the game, but the only one I'm seeing is that HO's weren't 'intended' to work this way and that they always intended to 'fix' them.

Like you, I've played literally twice in the last month for the same reason as you. I've been waiting for staff melee to come back, but if they intend to keep 'fixing' the game like this, like you, it doesn't make me any more anxious to come back.

So why post? Because I've played this game for five or six years straight, and I've loved it - so I still care about what happens to the game, and I hate it when the devs do things that in my opinion not only do not add value or fun to the game, but detract from it. This fix clearly makes HO's far less useful than they are now, so they clearly detract from the fun factor for those that were using them, while adding ZERO benefits to the game for anyone else, outside of the usual fanboys who feel the devs can do no wrong.

Look at werners situation - clearly he was heavily turned off by the lack of a solo incarnate path. Many players shared this feeling and made it very clear to the devs that there should be a solo path right off the bat. The devs ignored them and the fanboys cheered. Well not providing a solo path was similar to this situation - it did nothing to add to the game, it only annoyed some players, and in the end, no doubt lost them some players. And that hurts not only the devs, but the game as a whole and every player who plays it, because less players means less money which means less goes into this game, and less players in an mmo is not a good thing. Sure the devs are providing said solo path months and months later, but the damage is done, and some players that those moves lost are probably gone for good.

I hope the devs will learn from that mistake, and rethink this move before they make it, and before they piss off a bunch of players for literally no good reason.

LOL, if it was 'the end' this thread wouldn't exist. That's the point of this thread, we're discussing our opinions on this change.

But the devs did have your attitude when they changed pvp and energy melee, and those both worked out great, so maybe you're right.

I've explained why I think leaving the HO's as they are would be beneficial - if you'd care to refute my points, that would be great, but since you think 'a bugs a bug, the end', I'm not sure why you'd bother to post any more about a dead subject.

For one, your point that "maybe, just maybe, they knew how their changes would affect said powers in PvP and that they did change said powers because of how much the strayed outside of the acceptable guidelines in PvE as well" doesn't make any sense at all when you realize they were changing pvp powers independently of how they functioned in pve. So maybe, just maybe, they didn't need to change how em worked in pve at all, and could have changed how it worked in pve independently. Actually, there's no maybe about it, they could have just changed how it worked in pvp without altering how it works in pve because the new pvp they created allowed them to do just that. And again, nobody was lauging at anybody for not taking EM for pve, because it did not perform exceptionally well there, even with one overwhelming power to its credit.

While EM was far and above the best single target set, and it SHOULD have been, considering it was far below every other set in terms of aoe ability, it wasn't so 'broken' that other sets weren't getting played, even in pvp for that matter. But now, after their 'fix', it is so broken that almost nobody plays this set anymore.

The idea that if EM had old ET back it would be 'broken' in terms of 'too powerful' is just silly when you look at a lot of the stuff that has come out since the nerf, and even moreso when you see how much this game has increased the value of aoe ability over single target. It would still be an underplayed set because it is so pitiful in terms of aoe ability.

But that doesn't change the fact that nerfing ET was a bad move because it clearly made the set ridiculously uncompetitive and led to it being almost never played. If they were set on weakening ET, they should have clearly buffed the rest of the set in some way to compensate, and any claims that it would have been impossible to do so is simply nonsense. So now the set sits broken in a corner and wasted. It absolutely should be fixed, and that can be done by returning the set to its old single target dominance, or as I'd prefer, improving it's aoe effectiveness. But anyone trying to defend a nerf that so clearly ruined a powerset simply doesn't have much in terms of effective ammunition - it's kind of like firing off ET at a corpse when you have low health...

Actually, you'd also have to take away all the aoe titan weapons offers, which is tons more than em offers, and every time you use your 'best' attack, YOU take damage as well. EM is so uncompetitive against sets like titan weapons that it's just silly at this point.

There is plenty of overlap in terms of effectiveness from at to at. Some scrappers can exceed brutes in terms of survivability and some brutes exceed tanks in terms of survivability and so on. So saying a set can allow an at to overlap another at's speciality vs another set, is not in and of itself enought to justify nerfing it.

Going further, if you agree that burst damage and/or single target sustained dps isn't as valuable as aoe (I know a lot of people like wailing on pylons to determine single target dps, but that simply isn't a situation that dominates play in the overall game...) in a game where you routinely fight more than one target (especially when the game is moving towards content where you fight far more than one target at time - ie., you wont' be as impressed with em in one of the trials while you one shot a lt as your teamates are wiping out 8-10 enemies at a time with their aoes...), then having a set that caters to that at the expense of aoe ability is not strong grounds to support the nerf em recieved.

If it were up to me, I'd just revise the set and give it a bit more aoe damage. I've advocated for a long time to change ET to an aoe, and revise the stun power into either a single target dmg/stun or and aoe stun, maybe with some minor dmg. But if you want aoe to continue to underperform in terms of aoe, then it should be much more effective in terms of single target capabilities - in otherwords, heads and shoulders above anything else (like it was...), because it truly is in the basement in terms of aoe capability.

And if the devs used to go by 'datamining' and 'thread response', why aren't they doing something about em now? It's not like they have to remake the entire set - they don't even have to make new animations. Just tweak some of the numbers on the powers. If they're concerned about 'breaking' the set, where was that concern when they broke it by crippling ET?

Well, someone better at the interwebs found the quote I was referring to:

"There are a lot of reasons. Do a search the Blaster, Brute, Stalker, and Tanker forums. If you find less than 1,000 instances of someone laughing at someone else because they took a powerset other than Energy Melee/Assault/Manipulation, I would be extremely surprised.

Datamining shows a significant skewing of the populace using these powersets, leading us to ask why? The answer is the same reason the posters were laughing at other sets: it's too good.

As for why now, instead of two years ago or two years from now...why not? We can't do everything we want immediately. Sometimes, things have to wait their turn."

That sure makes it look like they nerfed the set at least in part due to posts of someone "laughing at someone else because they took a powerset other than Energy Melee/Assault/Manipulation", while completely missing the point of WHY those posts existed.

Not because it was "too good" for pve, but because it was "too good" in pvp. The nerf makes even less sense (and demonstrates even further how clueless said dev was as to why the posts he referenced existed...) when you take into account they were reworking pvp at the time anyway (and ended up killing pvp for all intents and purposes...), and that revision would have eliminated em's dominance in pvp anyway, because powers were being drastically changed in terms of dmg in pvp environments without touching their pve effectiveness.

Do you have the thread/post in question saved? If not, then you're going by memory just like I am, and it sounds more like this is your interpretation of what he meant, just as my post is my interpretation of what he meant.

Regardless, even assuming your interpretation is correct, the fact he pointed at posts that were clearly about em's superiority in PVP, and assumed it was evidence that the set deserved a nerf, shows how clueless he was about the set, and why players were taking it in such large numbers and mocking those that didn't. It wasn't because the set was a dominant pve set, it was because it was the only melee set that was worth a damn in pvp.

Of course, then the same guy went and 'fixed' pvp, so at least he was consistent...

Some like to ignore historical fact when it ruins their argument, and will claim it simply didn't fit the 'magic formula'.

I remember very clearly castle flat out saying in a thread on this forum that seeing players consistently laughing at other players who weren't taking em in posts about em as being a big reason for the change.

And the only reason that was occuring was due to the fact, that at the time, EM was the only viable melee choice for pvp.

Even if you reverted em back to exactly what it was, EM would be an underperforming set in pve, just as it was then. Why? Because in this game, you are routinely fighting more than one enemy at a time.

So even though em was clearly the best single target dmg dealer back then, it wasn't the undisputed best pve powerset, not by a longshot. And it certainly wouldn't be today - just imagine being on a BAF - woohoo, look at me knock a big chunki of health off this victoria! (while anybody else with just about any other powerset is wiping out 8-10 enemies with aoes...).

As it stands now, em has virtually been abandoned by both players and devs, because it simply doesn't compete at all with the other sets that are available. Even if for some reason you want to build a single target monster, there are other sets that do it better than EM, and they have better aoe on top of it.

These facts simply cannot be disputed without ignoring logic and reason. EM isn't severely underplayed by accident. People who have invested tons of time and energy into an EM toon haven't abandoned them just for the hell of it. And even in these threads, where it seems nearly impossible to gain consensus, you get almost everyone agreeing at the very least it is underpowered.

I didn't get a chance to give any feedback they can ignore before now, so let me get my futile two cents in here...

Making itrials that are very difficult to complete that give virtually no reward when said trial fails is a really bad idea. Either make the successful ones yield ridiculously better rewards than the standard, well understood/easier to complete ones, or better yet, give rewards equal to time invested, so people don't just abandon these new trials.

Creating instances where a civilian, buffed or otherwise, can not only kill a pimped out incarnate, but do so in one or two shots no less, is a really bad idea. It's bad enough these trials sometimes turn into episodes of incarnates ER, but whats next, praetorian senior citizens beating the crap out of us with their walkers?

Continually making things more difficult for melee characters vs ranged is a really bad idea. I've noticed for quite some time that the devs have certain preferences, but try to remember a lot of your players enjoy playing melee even if you don't. If you're going to continually introduce new instances where melee is faced with extreme disadvantages, how about the reverse every once in a while?

Overall the devs do a great job and usually do listen to us and take our opinions into account though, imo. I just wish they would react a bit quicker.

Sounds like Robin getting upset that Batman took out 10 badguys and their boss while he was still tangling with a minion, lol. "I know I can be as tough as batman too, but it's still annoying" says Robin...

I think that's more a 'problem' with uneven teams, where you have lowbs tagging along with top end characters - that's unavoidable unless you want to break up the sidekick system, which would be a horrible idea. If you don't want to feel underpowered on a team, stick to teaming with other characters that are on your level, don't lobby to bring down other peoples characters to your level.

Speaking to the original subject of this thread - I LOVE IO's. They add complexity and depth to the character creation process, which really is the strength of this game. If they went back to the 'good old day' when there weren't any IO's, this game would die a very quick death.

Are IO's too powerful? Absolutely not. The endgame content for characters who are fully IO'd up is clearly challenging. Regular content can be made challenging by upping the difficulty, or simply picking enemy groups that tend to offer a challenge to just about any build. If there are still a few players that feel unchallenged, the devs could up the difficulty option to plus 5, 6, 7 etc., and if anyone still cried 'too easy', it would be pretty easy to call BS. Another thing I'd like to see is allowing Incarnate characters to start taskforces by themselves or with less than the minimum team size. But in reality, most of the people who cry too easy, are simply growing bored with the game and picking a reason to justify that feeling. Want a challenge uber gamer? Go try and solo keyes or the UG, that should keep you busy for a while.

Is defense too powerful? Absolutely not. For one, you have to build for it, often making sacrifices to do so, and truly beneficial defense only comes together late, and in most cases, end game. By then, you're playing the incarnate content which has plenty of defense busting mechanics in it. On top of that, defense busting mechanics were introduced in tip missions. Even before all of that, several enemy groups had abilities that crippled defense. There is plenty of content available that not only tests defense reliant toons, but flat out cripples them.

Could IO's use more options? Absolutely. As I've said, IO's were, and more importantly, are a great boon for this game. They should release new ones more often, and they should offer bonuses we don't already have access to, in order to offer even more build options. I'd like to see better bonuses for damage and resistance. And I wouldn't worry about offering 'too much' resistance bonuses, because like defense, resistance 'kryptonite' can be added to the game, just like they did with defense, not to mention, some of which already exists.

I understand that some people like to be 'challenged', but if you can't find a challenge in this game, at pretty much any level, you're doing it wrong. I don't see anyone breezing through an underground trial, and the ones that usually go smoothly are teams of 16 or more pimped out toons run by pretty experienced players. If most of the game was that level of challenging, bases would need to be changed to hospitals and the game would have to be renamed City of Sidekicks. I don't think I'm alone in saying that I want my fully IO'D/incarnate end game toon to feel powerful, and not be visiting the hospital every five minutes in most of the games content.

Your post drips with irony. Somebody get a mop.

As others have pointed out, it's not fine if you want to use a statistically competitive set.

Relative to competing sets, EM is decent for single target abilities, but pitiful in terms of aoe ability. Then, on top of that, it's single target abilities are hampered by slow animations that make it underperform on teams (at least until they give xp for hitting corpses), and the sets best attack damages the user as well.

There's a reason you rarely see new EM's getting rolled, and it's not because people 'don't know what they're talking about', in fact, it's quite the opposite. Most people are fully aware that EM is a badly underperforming powerset.