Desmodos

The reverse actually. You aggro the Rikti, then run into the goo. Once the Rikti are on the goo, run off. You'll typically lose aggro due to distance and/or Mitos attacking the Rikti. Do this with all the spawns around the pylons and the Mitos will have so many things to shoot at, they'll rarely stay on a player for very long.

The dispute I have over this is whether to take out the Pylons first or drag the Rikti first. Previously, I've seen the Rikti get wiped out faster then we clear the pylons, essentially leaving little benefit to the tactic. In this particular run, all but three Mitos were gone by the time the Rikti were wiped out, which was obviously effective and efficient.

I feel the need to point out whose fault that is.




2 deaths were mine. 1st was on the 3 Riders fight, but I'm still not sure why that fight went so badly. I did the exact same thing the 2nd time around and had no issues.

2nd death was entirely my fault for stopping to read tells in the middle of "why bother pulling" Honoree fight.

I'll confess, that tactic seemed to work better on this run than I seen previously.

The short answer is you either pursuit typed defense or positional defense. Pursuit of both is a waste of time in the vast majority of scenarios.

The short version of the explanation:

Most (as in like 98%) attacks have two flags attached to them: a position and a type of damage. (keep in mind some attacks have more than on type of damage).

When that attack is triggered, the system will check to see which you have a higher defense to (position or type). The system will use the higher value to determine whether or not you get hit.

• Example. Fire Sword has the following flags: Melee_Attack, Lethal_Attack, Fire_Attack.
  
• Assume you have 30% melee defense, 10% lethal defense, and 15% fire defense. The system will ignore the lethal and fire defense and use the melee defense to determine if you get hit.
  
• Assume you have 20% lethal defense, 45% fire defense, and 10% melee defense. The system will ignore the lethal and melee defense and use the fire defense to determine if you get hit.
  
• Assume you have 45% ranged defense, 45% AoE defense, 5% lethal and 5% fire defense. The system will ignore the ranged and AoE defense and use the fire or lethal defense (same value so in this scenario you're basically screwed).

For an accurate and thorough explanation you need to understand Arcanaville's The full tohit formula:
Explained in glorious detail in her Guide to Defense

While I prefer the Brute choice, either scenario is a win win for scrappers. We can actually take good powers with out burning a pick on hold.

Source?

Wasn't a criticism, but as usual kind intentions are lost on you.

Minor typo, in case you're still ctrl-c-ing and ctrl-v-ing this part. If your not, never mind.

On call this evening but planning to attend.

Some topics might be fun to discuss with the gaming community that don't necessarily fit under any topic. These certainly include subjects that don't have anything to do with actual gaming or gaming culture. I understand where you're coming from, but they have to draw the line somewhere.

Being anti-PETA may or may not be reasonable. Starting an anti-PETA movement on a gaming forum is completely unreasonable.

This simply isn't the place to discuss it.

This depends on which groups you're referring to.

There is a camp that adamantly insists BoTZ was not OP or that the length of time it existed as such entitles them to keep it. That camp generally refuses to acknowledge the importance of game balance.


There is a camp (that I'm in) that has no problem with the nerf beyond the inconvenience created by it and the current respec system. For this camp, any and every change to IO Set values will garner the same response, regardless of how justified the changes may be. The devs have a long history of granting free respecs in conjunction with any changes to the games powers and/or mechanics. With IO set builds, a single respec simply isn't a sufficient adjustment. The nerf it self is irrelevant. A reasonable means of adjusting to changes needs to become a high priority.

The thing to keep in mind is a respec revamp would not necessarily have to change the 10 storage slot issue. There would simply be need to be some form of liquidation system that permits a greater re-cooperation of a players investment. That's essentially what the system does now, it's simply no where near the actual value of set IOs. Obviously, it can't simply grant us market value; it's too variable.

I have no idea how this will play out, but there are ATs in this game that have 'extra powers' with out additional slots to put in them. That would make for 'tough choices.'

Again, I'm just posting hypothetically.

I really hope I'm wrong on this one, but what really terrifies me is the notion of new powers with out additional enhancement slots.

To the level that I understand it:

To access Going Rogue content you do not HAVE to make a new character. Existing characters can access Going Rogue content, including the new Incarnate content. Heroes can use Rogue content to transition to Villain content. Villains can use Rogue content to transition to Hero content.

You can role new characters as heroes, villains, or rogue (as in starting in Praetoria.) At level 20, rogue characters must chose to interact on either Hero side or Villain side. All characters have the option to switch sides, though this will require going to some content.

The details of Incarnate system remain scarce. As I understand it, there will not be an increase in the level cap. The incarnate system will be independent of character level. How the two will interact has yet to be revealed.

For the most part, I agree with you.

While I agree with the overall sentiment, I particularly dislike when the need for multiple respecs is created by the developers. While I understand there are those who slot their character haphazardly, a significantly large portion of the player base plans out their builds. The planned builds have to take into account several limitations (i.e. enhancement diversification, uniques, rule of 5, ect.).

When the devs change the values to a power or IO (such as the BoTZ changes), simply swapping out IOs will not do. Looking at my case specifically, my adjusted build only moved four enhancement slots around but needs to switch out roughly 45 IOs. This would require 5 respecs (which I won't do, stopping at 3 then cutting my losses.) I've already done the first respec and the extracted IOs will sell for just under a billion influence (first respec is slightly inflated due to the extraction of two purple IOs.)

This needs to be changed somehow. I'll happily take a loss in exchange for a system that's less frustrating and allows some re-cooperation of our efforts (since I'm already taking a loss yet still have to deal with the frustration).



You seem stuck on the ten enhancements thing. Increasing it is but one suggestion for addressing the issue. My suggestion (deemed flawed by some) wouldn't even alter the "ten." I'm sure someone can come with other more amiable suggestions, but the current system REALLY needs to go.

The cost of IOs is set by player demands vs the availability of the IO, not any action programmed by the devs. While I'm certain the devs anticipated certain IOs would have a higher demand and thus more expensive, they've stated a few times this did not factor into the balance.

"Intentionally desirable high-end end-game goals" are increasingly easier to obtain is a byproduct of time. As designed builds near completion, a player need for influence/infamy, merits and tickets diminish. You can either spend your resources on your alts (which is what I usually do), or you can stock pile it to acquire the exorbitantly priced ones.

All this 'so called exploit' will do is increase the value of so called 'undesirable IOs', essentially cancelling out any benefit of the effort involved.