Deus_Furore

[ QUOTE ]
Fury (in PvP) should generate as fast as it does against an AV post 80% full as it does below 80%. Period. Then we all rejoice and march on to RV where realize i STILL wont be able to play my EA or counter focused accuracy and bench my brute anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly this is what it appears to be shaping up to. On another note, I'm glad my main Is Invulnerability. At least I can bank on resists as helping me somewhat, which is more than I can say for EA at 50, whose total defense seems to be the equivalent - at its maximum - of a medium Luck inspiration.

Wow.

Way to necropost guys. You successfully drug a post up from all the way back in January.

Good work!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No more rushing ahead of teammates to get to the next mob group, now we might die a lot less.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could not disagree more

You are of course entitled to your vision of what fury should be, but to me the very draw of playing a brute is the need for a relentless, high risk dirge of mayhem.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're very much entitled to play your Brute the way you want to, that of a "Balls to wall", rush blindly around every corner, and hope your teamates have your back kind of Brute. I play mine the same way, as I'm rendered ineffective playing it any other way because of the lack of solid Fury sustaining mechanics we have right now. Of course there is the flip side to that because when you inevitably die - again because you are in no way, shape, or form, a Tanker - you can thank that mastermind for rousing you from your concrete nap. PLaying Brutes encourages team participation. Score one for the community.

However, Fun is fun for some, and worry for others. So fun for you or I running around as fast as we possibly can might not be the definition of how to play the game for other ATs, or do you just team with other brutes? I often team with many ATs who often don't care most of the times, but also find it slightly annoying to have to constantly watch as the Brute flings himself headfirst into each mob group, facilitating concern from the rest of the team.

In either case, now that we bring that up, how exactly would my method of Fury generation, not allow you to have your same level of fun? I don't see much of a difference. Pick and choose whichever statements allow you to take the biggest offense though. That's the commonality of the forum method of discussion apparently.

[ QUOTE ]

Throw some basic engagement geometry into the high speed mix, and you have a challenge, throw in target selection, secondary effect application, aggro control and end management, all into a fury speed engagement and you have the potential for some serious artistry. I'm not interested in playing a tank with a scrapper damage switch, I rather prefer things the way they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a secret, you are playing a sup-par tank with a broken Scrapper damage switch already. the only difference between the change I thought of, and the one we currently have, in the context of your statement, is that we would have more control on how, where, and when to deal Scrapper damage. You've failed to convince me that's a bad thing.

[ QUOTE ]

I will grant you that in PVP, Brutes can be at a significant disadvantage. I'll happily concede that your concept will be more effective in PVP than what we now have


[/ QUOTE ]

It just might. Pretty easy to see I think. Thanks for granting me, and all the other Brutes who would like to feel somewhat usefull in PvP that point. I'm sure we all appreciate it.

[ QUOTE ]

but to me, the price is simply not worth paying. The bulk of my playing, and indeed the bulk of all play time in this game is spent in PVE. You can quickly check the populations of zones any time you’re on to establish this.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thats great. I am the exact same way. Was this the part where you mentioned the cons of my suggestion in PvE play? That's really the only way I see to talk about how bad it is without just making broad generalizations that accomplish little in getting any point you may have had across. What price is my suggestion asking you to pay, that you aren't already paying to a somewhat lesser extent?


[ QUOTE ]

I would never agree to breaking a wonderful PVE AT for the sake of PVP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither would I. You think changing the Fury bar would break the AT? That's Highly ironic considering that myself and many other players right now think that living with a broken and sub=par Fury bar that we have IS breaking our AT.

Looks like castle agrees with us too thankfully. You may thank Brutes everywhere that PvP, for fixing your PvE Fury bar, if that's the way you want to look at it; I'm game. If it hadn't have been for Fury's lackluster performance in PvP, and player's inquisitive and questioning manners, our AT might have been perpetually "in the dark" about how the Fury bar actually isn't working as it was intended to.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm also not in any way convinced that fury needs to be fundamentally changed in order to function in PVP. A simple modification to the amount of fury generated by attacking a player, or being attacked by a player can do very nearly as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well despite your convictions based on numerous PvP excursions (I'm just giving you the benefit of the doubt to make things easier there), Fury is currently, and largely, a wasted and innefectual empty bar. It's never full when you need it, and never gets a chance to get there, provided there are a few heroes about. (Blasters, Scrappers, and Defenders come to mind.)

I agree with proper tweaking the Fury bar we have very well could work. Read my statement here again please:

[ QUOTE ]
My take on how to improve the viability on Brutes fury in order to balance things for PvP easily and with slight changes?

Firstly, would be to fix the current errors in the Fury tables as currently all fury generation occurs in 2 point increments at 80% and below, as Castle has indicated. And secondly, would be to decrease the time incrimental decrease to the fury bar. IE, from what testing has shown, Fury decreases by larger numerical increments at higher levels. Change this to enable fury to decrease at a level that is reduced from this value.

Once Fury has reached maximum, allow fury to stay at this value slightly longer, but not excessively. That would probably be the easiest way to change it to where it would something other than ignorable results.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you can see, I am all for fixing the current system. I also stated that if those fixes still did not yeild the amicable results ,we of the Brute community were looking for, that perhaps new directions or an overhaul of current fury mechanics could be examined.

So again, I'm all for trying to make the current system work, but if it can't yield anything other than ignorable results, it's time we re-evaluated our outlook on how Fury should work.

Historically speaking, creating more options or ability to control all character aspects "never" hurt a players ability to interact with the game. I'm not saying this option that I came up with is the right one. Not at all, I'm saying that we should have the ability to look for one without being met with tooth and claw by the very people we would be helping in the long run.

[ QUOTE ]

The obvious argument to this would be that a fury generation rate balanced to combat blasters would necessarily be too high (unfairly so) when measured against tanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure? First, Brutes are not tanks, we don't have near the defensive magnitudes of the Tanker AT. Any comparison there is speculatory at best. Second of all, no one said fury needed to be "augmented" to combat blasters, we're simply saying it needs to be "Fixed" so that the Brute AT can actually do what it was "Intended" to do. And why is it that everyone assumes, no one can have more damage than Blasters? Probably cause that's the way the cookie crumbles. Even a Brute at full fury will still be at minimum, comparible to a blaster for ten seconds of Aim and Build up, and since hardly any fight between the two ATs will last longer than that, what is so advantageous about equal levels of damage on both sides? If its comparible, how is any side able to claim advantage? If anything the Blaster will still be better off with his accuracy boosts. How is including the Tanker AT into any argument about damage a stadard of measure? We already have lower base damage than they do! I'm sure tankers wouldn't be upset in this instance. They have the realm of defense on lockdown already, and we wouldn't be challenging them for it, so how will they look at any improvements to Brutes Fury as "Unfair"?

I just don't get it at all.

[ QUOTE ]

This doesn’t need to be the case. Even as it stands, a skilled melee toon will continuously hit and run against brutes, kiting them all over the map if need be. Such a tactic puts fury generation into the same realm as a ten second blapper drive by. That is, nearly useless with current generation rates, but potentially fair with increased rates.


[/ QUOTE ]

You want to compare fury generation with a ten second blaster drive by? Easy. Brute as a chalk outline on the ground. 100% of the time, barring anything short of Granite or US/OL, if all he has is Fury going for him. You better be bringing some single target mez effects if you even want to make that anything other than a one-sided engagement.

And while we're at it, since when is the game balanced in one on one engagements? Historically speaking, it never has been, nor has that ever been the attempt or premise for balance.

[ QUOTE ]

By all means appeal to the powers that be for a change, but I, for one, seriously hope that you do not succeed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the part where I say "You must not have been reading very close because I never said, nor alluded to trying to gain any support for this idea," That's all it was was, just an idea I had, and felt like sharing. I didn't create a new topic and try to take polls. I didn't say this was my grand design to save the game and the Brute AT. I simply said "hey this was my idea that i had a while back, what do you think?" Any kind of grand scope or scale here has strictly been on the side of any and all opposition.

How that very unassuming idea merited all the cries of "DOOM!" and "OMG you'll break the AT!", and your comment of "hoping you don't succeed"...I'll never know. Succeed in what? I wasn't trying to succeed in anything for Pete's sakes. Some of you folks act like I was trying to bend Statesman's ear or something. Seriously if you want to show me how bad my idea would be, please do in a sensible way citing specifics, and if it makes more sense to me, then yeah thats great. It's only discussion. There is no petition going around with my name on it. Feel free to end said "anti-Deus's Ideas! crusade". Call off your hounds sir, the game is not a-foot. In fact it was never on the field. He was too busy enjoying his espresso and his new copy of "To reign in Hell" to worry about Doom-cryers haranguing him to death on baseless assumptions. It was never intended to be as serious as you guys obviously mistook it to be.


To Everyone:

Feel free to end all discussion about "Deus's Big-bad Fury Ideas", because that is exactly what I plan to do myself.
You can all feel free to belabor the points all you want to, because I'm not going to anymore as this discussion is well beyond where I even wanted it to go. It was a simple idea. That's it. No reason to work yourself up to aneurism levels over it. That's all, enjoy your day(s).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure you might take some more damage, but if that's how you build fury, is that not an awesome tradeoff?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's really the heart of the matter. The majority of players don't seem to think that this is anything resembling an awesome tradeoff. Most of us would prefer a solution that allows us to build fury without having to worry about being killed because we had a toggle down.

What you're describing is essentially trading health for damage output. Check out any one of the defiance threads in the blaster forum to see how well that's gone over for them. Giving more control in the form of turning toggles on or off just gives you a choice of whether to suck because you're on the verge of death or to suck because you can't do any damage, and I don't think most people like that choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, ok where to start.

First I'm not sure what precluded all the melodramatics and "OMG we would suck so bad!" language, but let me fill you in a bit on the State of Brute affairs at the moment, comparitively speaking with other ATs.

WE ALREADY SUCK!

There now that my own melodramatic retort is out of the way, let me begin debunking this mess.

1. I am not advocating that Brute's inherrent power be turned in to anything remotely resembling the Defiance meter for Blasters. It would in NO WAY, SHAPE, or FORM be like the defiance meter for Blasters.

2. Your comment that "the majority of players dont seem to think that trading damage for the ability to deal damage in return is a likeable", rings pretty hollow, in the face of an existing Fury bar which almost requires you to soak immense amounts of mob aggro, and thereby increase the possibility of higher incoming damage, in order to maintain max Fury already. The bar already works about half and half in this regard already, the other half of the bar being comensurate with the amount of attacking the player does.

[ QUOTE ]

Most of us would prefer a solution that allows us to build fury without having to worry about being killed because we had a toggle down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure everyone would love to have absolutely no risk and dispense enormous loads of carnage with nigh impunity. Fortunately for everyone else though, we actually have a system that disbars that from happening already in place. People playing Brutes already have to worry about being killed with no toggles up and running. Let me state this for the record, with the exceptions of Ambushes (and not even really then, since you usually understand the mechanics that trigger them) and Player versus Player interactions, we always control our own engagements. We always choose when to attack. Mobs just don't "Surprise us" with our toggles down out of no-where. if you control the situation 9 times out of 10, how are you going to even have cause to worry about being caught with your pants down, unless you are totally aware of the consequences? How does that increase worry? either you understand your ATs limitations with regards to taking damage, or you don't, but in either case you still maintain control of the situation. If you don't know your builds capabilities, how is that a problem of the way Fury may or may not work? Answer is, it isn't; It's a problem with the player getting in over his head, and who's fault is that? The Fury Bar's?

[ QUOTE ]
What you're describing is essentially trading health for damage output.

[/ QUOTE ]

Essentially, essentially...

Great. Trivialize something to the point that it can be easily disputed for conveniences sake, and suddenly you've made a compelling argument. This isn't me trying to win a debate. I'm not really proposing anything, as much as I am just sharing my opinion and an idea. There's really no need for you to trivialize the mechanics I stipulated to suit your argument and opinions. Just say whats on your mind.

Needless to say even with your generalizations, your assertion still doesn't hold water to enable a Blaster Defiance inherrent power comparison.

[ QUOTE ]

Giving more control in the form of turning toggles on or off just gives you a choice of whether to suck because you're on the verge of death or to suck because you can't do any damage,

[/ QUOTE ]

Really, that's a great statement. If it weren't for the complete lack of substantative premise and overabundance of cliche terminology, I might actually be able to understand it. As it stands though, I'm not even sure what to make of it?

But whatever the case may be, please, no more comparisons to Blaster defiance. I clearly stated about 20 ways my idea for a fury inherrent was closer to Dominators inherrent. I can list numerous ways in which it's not like Blaster's defiance. Do I need to go through all that, or can I just assume you can draw your own conclusions people? Please, draw your own conclusions, but no more generalizations and melodrama, O.K.? I didn't even intend for everyone to take this all so seriously. It's like you all thought I was Sir Issac newton claiming that some unseen force compels all objects towards the center of the planets mass, when all I was saying was:

"hey i had this neat idea about fury while I was sitting on the crapper, whad'ya think?"

Jeez. Simmer down people.

[ QUOTE ]

Except that this would still mean an EA Brute at his cap (i.e. running Overload or munching purples) would get almost no Fury at all. Generally, it's not a good idea to make the final power in one's set less desirable to use than not.

And come I7, he's already going to be 2/3 or more of the way to his cap just on his toggles--he's not gonna get hit nearly as often as he is now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, judging the effectiveness of Fury only when you have your level 38 power activated is not my idea of a balanced qualitative measurement.

In either case, your worries about Defensive sets being somehow punished under a new system whereby fury is comensurate with incoming damage are unfounded. having the ability to go into an AV fight and immediately clicking overload, and FURY!,(if it was much like a dominators inherent) doesn't strike me as anything less desireable.

If anything, it would give you "more" control on how you used fury to better help you the player. More control over when to deal the most damage for the most effect, is never less desirable. One Shotting minions is fun and all, but in the end it's relatively wasteful, especially if one doesn't have an endless supply of endurance. So again, I'm not sure how you attribute a different system such as the one I listed as "less desirable". Situationaly less desireable? perhaps, and also perhaps situationaly more desireable. AV fights? click, youre at max damage right now, as opposed to 10 seconds later when the AV already has you on the ropes fighting to get yourself healed. Situationally more desirable when you are looking out over Sirens Call and you see a Tanker and Scrapper heading at you. Now your only option of running might include staying for a while and maybe having a shot at taking the scrapper down, because you just got done winning a neighborhood battle, and you're still sitting at abouty 96 points of Fury.

Again not getting hit nearly as often is a good thing.

Are you still under the assumption that you will always have zero fury without contant battle? You won't, it would be near impossible with decreased decay rates. If anything, it would allow you to pick and choose your battles more, enabling you to control the tempo of your engagements more. To build Fury, you could *gasp*

Drop a defensive toggle?

Then put it back on? when you have fury built up, and now you can potentially save that Fury and maintain that level of Fury for...say...

Next mob group, the next mission even, or when some heroes show up unexpectedly? Dropping one or two toggles to build Fury, and save endurance? Sure you might take some more damage, but if that's how you build fury, is that not an awesome tradeoff?

Would that system not "Encourage" AT inter-dependancy? Not encourage teamwork and teaming? While at the same time, allow soloists to simply use a few greens? At level 40, do you even use greens anymore? I surely don't.

Thats what dominator can do right now, he can pick and choose his big battles. How is more control a bad thing? I can totally peg my domination bar, and by the time I've travelled to my next mission and gotten to the first mob group, it's still over 3/4 full. Imagine that. Being able to totally control your Fury Bar for maximum effect. What a horrible suggestion...

any clearer? is this thing on? testing...1 ...2

[ QUOTE ]
To be fair neither do the Dev's at least, if you look forwards to RV :P.

But despite perhaps not being completely in favor of everything he proposes I don't think he's forgotten the poor /EA's. It's based off the damage taken, so while the res brutes would get a constant increase in the bar, they'd be small. /EA's would get less frequent, but larger spikes to the bar since when we do get hit (and unless I'm fighting lots of Whites I get hit pretty frequently) we get hit a lot harder.

It's a nice idea, but I'd like to see how we do with Fury working 'properly' before any major overhauls. I can certainly see where he is comming from though. Getting the same amount of fury from when a minion wiffs me, as opposed to when a Stalker nearly 1 shots me is a little immersion breaking.

[/ QUOTE ]


Bingo. I too would be very willing to just let the devs fix the current system and see how that goes. Honestly though, if the "fix" still leaves us feeling underwhelmed, I'm all for new ideas That's just one idea I had a long time ago, and from what I've thought about it, wouldn't be too bad a system.

As you said, and I originally thought of, it would deffinitely be more immersive.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My true vision of how Fury would work would almost be identical to the way domination works, however it would be based on the amount of damage received.

[/ QUOTE ]
So your "true vision" doesn't have room for Defense-based classes like Energy Aura Brutes, hmm?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you actually think about how this would work before you typed that? That system would reward Defense based sets almost exactly proportional to resist based sets. I'm surprised I even have to explain it...


Defense based sets get hit less often from even level mobs, but slightly more from high level mobs and players, which in the end, combine so that higher level mobs that would deal more damage, are. IE, youd build fury in this manner just as quickly as ALL of your fury generation would be on that short scale, because whatever does manage to hit you, will likely hurt you alot because you DONT have those resists.

Resistance based sets would get hit more often by even level mobs and by higher level mobs equally, but would take less damage in the long run do to having high resists.

Getting hit less, but for higher damage

Getting hit more but for less damage.

Both would be equal for the purposes of generating fury. It's not that hard to figure out really. So yeah my "True Vision" of fury very much has room for EA brutes in it, contrary to your initial - and apparently cursory - evaluation...

To be completely accurate, every bar changes.

The Defiance meter will gradually reduce over time, as every blaster has a natural healing rate that eventually if not healed or damaged by an outside source, will cause the defiance bar to decay over time, albeit slowly.

The Domination bar increases per every attack and decreases at a much slower rate. I forget the exact math, but I think it is one or two points every 5 seconds. With the ability to absolutely maximize the domination bar at 100 and the ability to activate the power at any value over 90 I believe?

So we do see a vast difference in Fury and Domination. Our ability to peg our bar, much faster, and conversely the Fury bar completely decaying in a matter of seconds.

My take on how to improve the viability on Brutes fury in order to balance things for PvP easily and with slight changes?

Firstly, would be to fix the current errors in the Fury tables as currently all fury generation occurs in 2 point increments at 80% and below, as Castle has indicated. And secondly, would be to decrease the time incrimental decrease to the fury bar. IE, from what testing has shown, Fury decreases by larger numerical increments at higher levels. Change this to enable fury to decrease at a level that is reduced from this value.

Once Fury has reached maximum, allow fury to stay at this value slightly longer, but not excessively. That would probably be the easiest way to change it to where it would something other than ignorable results.

My true vision of how Fury would work would almost be identical to the way domination works, however it would be based on the amount of damage received.

Afterall, the only thing that really made hulk, or Juggernaut, or any of the big Comic Iconical Brute types mad, was being hurt. Hulk didnt really get mad smashing thousands of troopers, he thought that was fun. Hulk got mad when something hurt him. Juggernaut got mad when something could hurt him or at least stop him momentarily(ok so hes almost never felt pain, aside from psychic stuff). So i propose that fury be an active click type power, much in the same vein as the domination bar. The incremental mechanics that increase the bar would simply be based on the proportionate ratio of damage you take in any given instance. that way, it wouldnt have to be hard coded with numerical values.
<ul type="square">[*]Anything that attacks you and merely budges your health bar, not much if anything ubt maybe a point to fury. Over time, alot of time, this would add up. But with decay, just this small amount of fighting (minion level damage) wouldnt be enough to upset you and max your fury.
[*]Anything that attacks you and puts a noticeable dent in your helth total, such as some bosses and LTs, would contribute a decent amount of points to be applied to the fury bar. over a general amount of time, say around a few minutes or so, of fighting things at this level, a level requiring some source of healing to mitigate - other than natural regeneration rates - would be able to max the fury bar.
[*]Anything able to reduce you to half health in one hit, is something that would deffinitely piss me off (and does, damn blappers, lol) would have an enormous effect on fury. Taking subsequent high damaging hits would fill the fury meter very fast, but nothing instantaneous. it would have to be a couple of hits of this kind of lethality to register on our small brutish brains of, "Hey he actually hurting me, ME SMASH!!"

Needless to say fury generated from this level of damage would decay the same, in fact decay rate would be a constant. Since these big behomoths rarely get hurt, anything that does manage to hurt them, might stay in the memory area a bit longer. I'm pretty sure Juggsy remembers all the fights hes been in that amounted to something. Fury would decay slower than under the previous system, almost in snyc with the domination rates of decay. [/list]When enough of that fury is built up, the power can be activated, giving us the full value of maxed fury, that although we were conceptualized to do, we have never been able to achieve because of the inherent inability of our AT to stay at this level of incoming damage without much(read as nigh unachievable) outside assistance. Simply, once the FURY! power has been activated, for 3 minutes, our damage ability in game is unequalled. Currently our damage in PvP is laughable.

Devs? Want to help us out here? Right now we're really the laughing stock of all CoV AT's in most PvP zones. Seriously, how bout giving Brutes the ability to at least hold their own? This would go a long way towards that goal.

Personally I think changing the way fury works, to a system closer to the domination bar would be great, for both PvP, and PvE. No more rushing ahead of teamates to get to the next mob group, now we might die a lot less. No more getting through an entire level only to have to wait right before the final AV for everyone else to buff up as you watch your fury bar hit rock bottom. No more being laughed at by Scrappers, Tankers, Blappers, Corruptors, Controllers, Defenders, Stalkers, ok just about everyone except Masterminds, since they are so rare in PvP zones anyways. With the constant thought of "I wonder if that brute has a full Fury bar?" in more peoples heads and not currently, "Oh look a Brute, if i can kill him in the next 15 seconds he wont have enough Fury to even worry me a little."

*A note to the Devs* The uniqueness of the current fury bar is nice, although that does not overshadow the fact that we as an AT, would much prefer that you copy and pasted us a new fury bar that wasn't so unique, just as long as it actually "worked" even remotely better than what we have now.

People that play Brutes wouldn't be upset that the Fury! power looks like some other ATs inherrent power. We'd be too busy at being overjoyed that we actually have an inherrent power worth a crap to be upset that its not totally unique to our AT. Call me crazy, but I firmly believe that. And you could still say that you guys thought of it all by yourself. I don't care about egos or credits, I'm just here to have fun playing the game. SO how about giving me an inherrent power that lives up to the hype?

What do you guys/girls think?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just got to thinking, why anyone would claim castle to be a stalker representative, then it clicked...of course...So typical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Besides the fact that he was the stalker representative in CoV beta?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course, because someone was given the task by the team lead in design to concentrate on stalker issues in beta, that somehow makes him predisposed to only considering or caring about Stalker problems or issues now that the position is no longer valid...

Spare me the blatant drama-mongering. The comment is uncalled for, and it was a troll, plain and simple. The poster of that comment can feel free to be as biased as he likes; that doesn't mean the rest of us have to give any credance to it.

[ QUOTE ]
I think OTHER devs have known about it, since I'm pretty sure we've had redname input on this before

[/ QUOTE ]

Bottom line though: I'm glad "someone" is now informed, but feel better about it coming from Castle, than I would anyone else.

*edited* and leave it to Castle, to come in and set that question straight as well.

[ QUOTE ]
That response has actually made me feel better about it versus one with all kinda mumbo jumbo about %'s and stats.

Not sure why but it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel the same way man. No vague numbers, no excuses, just "OK, yep it's bugged. Crap, expect to see it fixed soon."

You have to respect simplicity.

[ QUOTE ]
he's taking time out of his stalker advocating to help brutes? wow.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me be the first to say that that statement is utter nonsense. Castle is quite possibly one of the most helpful and reachable developers the player base has at Cryptic. He's no more interested in "advocating" for stalkers as he is for any other AT. It just so happens that the squeakiest wheel usually gets the grease, and in this game right now, the AT causing the loudest noise is the Stalker AT. It has nothing to do with your implied bias.

Castle has personally helped many players, including myself, at the drop of a PM. That statement was weak and uncalled for. The man does his job, apparently enjoys working with us, and tries his damndest to answer our questions and address our problems, and you make that comment?

Total lack of class dude.

**edited to add** I just got to thinking, why anyone would claim castle to be a stalker representative, then it clicked...of course...So typical.

You mainly play a blaster don't ya? Tell me it's not true lol.

[ QUOTE ]

Completely untrue, from what you're complaining about.

[/ QUOTE ]

And after this comment we'll part ways.

Nothing, slightly, remotely, or even vaguely in my posts, could be construed as whining or complaining about anything. Its hard to complain about something when all you really do is ask questions, which is my prefered method to not be "Mistaken" for a complainer. The fact that you somehow felt the need to attribute some emotional attachment to anything I was posting precludeas any further logical discourse; that crashing noise you observed was objectivity hitting the street after you decided to throw it out the window.

I think I'll take you up on your offer.

Good day.

[ QUOTE ]

CoH and CoV have two different, unequal paradigms, that meet in an unbalanced way in open PvP.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sound that everyone just heard, was Logarithm hitting the nail right on the head with a 50 pound sledgehammer of truth.

I agree 100%. I kinda understaood that before I started posting. It's hard to refute logic with emotion and not be left feeling empty at the end of the night.

Speaking of which, we should be hearing something about "Stalkers being overpowered" any time now, but to move things along so that we don't have to wait for it, I'll say it now:

So basically we'vee established, for everyone to plainly see, that the only real difference between Stalkers, whom many blasters - including the ever so vocal Circuit-Boy - claim as being "unfairly over-powered" is that unlike Blasters, Stalkers have to be "Hidden" to be overpowered, whereas Blasters, don't have to even do that much. They fully and unabashedly flex their "over-poweredness" for all to see, and don't even need a situational circumstance like being hidden and undetected in order to pull it off.

Man that has to be the best logical conclusion ever seen on this forum. I'll go ahead and settle in with my Marshmellows. Things should be heating up anytime now...

[ QUOTE ]
There is simply no excuse for a tank/brute to regularly be killed in solo PVP, you have high hitpoints/def/resist/selfheal and unless you stubbornly refuse to eat breakfrees you ALWAYS have the option to flee.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're preaching to the choir, really you are. But, as you stated, after the de-toggle mechanic gets fixed, I'm sure this will be more reality and not fanciful thinking. As it stands now, A brute without his defensive toggles, is just a corruptor with 500 more hitpoints, as most brutes do not take passive resists, because the cost effectiveness of them are in the bottom of the barrel. Is this the blasters fault? Of course not. Is it the systems fault? You're darned right it is. Who do we have to rely on to fix these imbalances? The developers. Lets unite this player base so we can get things fixed.

Not bicker amongst ATs like a bunch of children. Seriously.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Remember this because it applies to everyone. Running, in any kind of engagement, but especially in team play, is not defense. It is the polar opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must be blunt - that's stupid. You're saying that when someone you face has Overload or stacked Vengeance running you will just stand there and bang away at them while they will kill you? Rotten tactics. Mobility is KEY in any conflict, thousands of years of military history should make this obvious. In chess, what are the most powerful pieces? The knight and the queen, because of their powerful mobility. Sensible retreat is a core concept of avoiding defeat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps now I'm being semantic, but Running/ Fleeing, in my mind is an unorchestrated, non-tactical, tail between your legs, run for your life, trip your friend if necessary proposition.

A tactical withdrawl as you might be alluding to, is nigh unaccomplishable without solid communication. The only groups that can pull that off in MMOs, are SGs with voice comms.

And I was in the military, so for me the difference is key. Perhaps why I said "Running" isn't a defense. I could have added that a tactical withdrawl is fine, but, that still doesn't ignore the fact that since the field is pretty level when it comes to mobility between villains and heroes, this is much harder to pull off because the other side simply has to give chase. Kinetics for the win I suppose.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

...blaster simply turns to the Corruptor next to him, and puts the Build up and Aim to good use anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the corruptor shouldn't stand there like a moron and eat the damage.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. The Brute should.

Wait...what?

PS - quotes are your friends. ask someone to teach you about them. Just some friendly FYI that makes your posts much easier to read and understand.

[ QUOTE ]

This is the prevailing attitude on the Brute board: "Stimulant is too hard. It's too inaccessible. A single teammate is too much. Buffs, though able to prevent mez and provide a mez resistance that's totally immune to toggle drops, just aren't 'worth it to me."

I refuse to make measured judgements about an AT by giving any weight to the mutable 'prevailing attitude' of a minority of (mostly inexperienced) PvPers, especially when my experiences as a brute(when working on an organized team in PvP) are contrary to the community's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you had a chance to drop by. I agreed with all of your points to an extent. PvP is currently not balanced for solo play. It is balanced around team play. This makes sense to some, and none at all to others. Depends on perception of how it should work really. Can we safely say that solo 1 on 1 PvP is horridly imbalanced because of that? I think we can admit that with some reservation or caveats.

I do agree with you wholeheartedly about prevailing supposition and attitudes being often ignorable. I do not support many of the attitudes expressed by other players on the Brute boards either. For example, any poster on the Brute forums can tell you that I think half the people playing the AT are basically playing their AT entirely wrong. I even coined a term we use to dismiss this prevailing attitude with regards to PvP Brute Mentallity:

"Blah-Blah-Blah Burst Damage"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you honestly say, that the Blasters ability (which is now at best, a 50% chance to drop the key status protection toggle) to drop all 4 toggles in one hit, considering 1 automatic and one 75% chance using Bone Smasher)? The inevitability of dropping that Brutes Unyielding toggle in a single hit, which will enable the blaster to Mez the brute and in the process drop "all of his/her toggles, will that not statistically at least favor the Blaster?

[/ QUOTE ]

I could honestly say that, if Bonesmasher didn't have a static, un-improvable 50% chance to mez. I'm very comfortable saying that the odds of a blaster dropping all a Brute's toggles at once with a single Bonesmasher are at the very most 50% - and most likely less than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good, because thats the starting point for addressing the problems inherrent in the De-Toggle effect mechanic. It's a sore spot with a lot of people, and some folks say that "their" AT needs it, but when that Stalker Assasin Strikes them and drops two of their toggles(if they have any) automatically, somehow and somewhere along the way, it suddenly becomes "unfair"

I'm not one for contradiction, or Irony of that caliber.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So in summation, is not a Blaster better equipped to deal with a Brute than vice versa? Does not the Blasters ability to detoggle mez protection rather easily, give the trump to the blaster? Without inspirations would they not be about even in the defense department? Granted the brute might have some passive resistance to damage, but in the case of invulnerability, he has no passive resistance to the damage type of the EM blaster. If the defense is nearly the same, does not the superior damage of the Blaster, nullify the hit point advantage of the Brute? If the brute has been reduced to zero defensive toggles, how is he anything more than a squishy Blaster without defiance or superior damage?


[/ QUOTE ]
If a brute can't defeat a blaster during the 8-second base disorient duration of Total focus and we ignore self-heals and we ignore passives, then yes, the brute is simply a squishy blaster with higher hitpoints and less base damage. What conclusions can we draw from such a stacked comparison regarding CoX PvP?

[/ QUOTE ]

That it's either very dynamic, or that we are all kidding ourselves into thinking that it is. Either way, we might be onto something regardless. The problem that arises is that we have no standardized or qualiatative methodology by which to evaluate our only realy clues, those clues being individual experiences.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I said they'd be at a disadvantage in a 1v1 conflict. It could certainly be inferred, if you felt that trumped was an acceptable synonym for disadvantaged.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Now perhaps you see why I am confused. You rebutted my assumption that was based off of your argument - in which you previously invalidated that premise with your own opinion

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Eureka! I do! (and it's my own fault for using such vague verbage interchangably - my failure to differentiate between a 1v1 blaster interaction(with a teamed blaster against a solo meleer) and a 1v1 blaster interaction(with a teamed blaster against a teamed meleer))

It amounts to me expressing 2 different opinions about the same subject. If I could go back and edit my posts, it would no doubt prevent confusion.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Well thank you for the clarification. It took a bit of grease, but eventually the cog broke free. I'm glad it wasn't my crazy pills causing my ineptitudes.


[ QUOTE ]

Now that I re-read my posts(reading what I wrote, and not what I meant), I easily see a confusing double-standard.


[/ QUOTE ]

Simple enough, and really just a problem with semantics. I'm glad we figured it out. I was starting to wonder there for a bit...




[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All things being equal, what exactly is available right now, to villain ATs or teams in PvP instances, to counter the Blaster/Blapper AT/Build ? Remember, all things being equal. Teams, buffs, support, inspirations, etc., what do they(villains) have to counter it, either completely solo, or in full 8 man teams? I'd really like your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is an "I-win" formula to open PvP currently. Three spines/sr stalkers. They work at the stealth cap, are ranged, and bring the burst damage to insta-kill squishies with uninterruptable Impale crits-from-hide. Their limitions are set by the time needed to retreat after the kill, rehide, and recast grant invis. I don't accept this as an acceptable counter, because it's absurdly overpowered and unfun for both sides, and it marginalizes the contributions of Corruptors, Doms, MMs, and Brutes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that marginalizing overall contribution to team effort at the cost of one AT or powerset is ultimately destructive to the overall goal of diversification. Sadly, this is what we get with Rock, Paper, Scissors combat. Am I the only one that thinks this type of interaction is counterproductive? instead of making one AT a Rock, how about giving every AT some base diversification so that they are "able" to be whatever they want?

This is a whole different argument I realize, but it goes to motive I think. Why is it, that in this game, which the devs claim to be inherrently "Balanceable", oftentimes "unbalanced"?

Are we just not playing the game the way you want us to Devs?


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Specifically, what other AT is just as capable of taking out a Hard Target (melee defense classes such as Tanker, Brute, etc.) as easily as a soft target (Corruptor, Dominator, Defender, Controller, etc.)?? Is there another AT as capable offensively as the Blaster?

[/ QUOTE ]

No - and there should not be, because no other AT is as limited, as weak, and as specialized as a blaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

If blasters are weak, limited, and specialized, then sign me up for some of that. Having all that damage potential at my disposal would be a real awesome feeling. Just think of it, I would have the "potential" to literally take down anything...

Something I can't do with any AT I currently play. Perhaps I should give Heroes a try, because from my unique experience - that of having at least one level 40 character of many villain ATs (with the exception of MasterMinds and stalkers) built strictly for PvP - every AT in CoV pales significantly in the department with regards to my perceptions of Blaster level offense. Ironic indeed, when you consider that Villains were designed to eschew defense for offense. Even more odd, is that one could make an argument for Heroes having the best offensive ATs and the best defensive ATs. Blasters and Tankers...hmm. Now that's interesting.

In any case, I'm not confused anymore, so cheers.

And thanks for not bringing up the "Stalkers own us, so blasters need more defenses and protections!" argument. It really was refreshing to not hear it for once. I can clearly see that you understand that that argument can only be made from a soloists perspective, and is not something that should ever be given considerations for overall balance issues. Perhaps you should be the Blaster unofficial/official spokesperson? I'd recommend you, and I don't even play a blaster...

yet.

[ QUOTE ]


Versus a smart brute or tank, who doesn't choose to just stand there and eat all my attacks, it is not a given that they lose. Aim and Buildup are only 10 seconds, and if I can't kill them in that window then it is likely I can't kill them at all, because I can't put enough damage in them to put them on the ground before they get away and retoggle - and come back during aim/buildup downtime and hurt me pretty bad. Versus a scrapper, the same is true.


[/ QUOTE ]

This just goes to further the point that, disbarring personal perception completely, it is nigh impossible to come up with a logical argument for the presence of balance, when considering solo, or on one mechanics. There simply is no question in my mind. How two people playing the game can have such vastly different personal experiences, just goes to show that those experiences are what shapes our perceptions of how the game really works, and not vice versa.

I could tell you that in all my experiences I have been killed more times by an EM blaster, than I have managed to kill them. Although this is my factual reality, without being there to experience it, it seems incredulous. Just as your post with your experiences seem incredulous to me, I'm sure mine does not at all ring true to yours.

Simply, there are too many dynamic factors that play a role in PvP; far too many to even begin to discuss in any manner of absolutism. That is why I posted here in the first place. Perception is reality. Regardless of what the truth of the matter is, because there is in fact no universal truth.

We tend to think there is, and in a game we have mechanics that give us some sort of sense of the way things work, but in a game like this, there are thousands of factors that shape those experiences. Experience is the only teacher, but yet it can also be the most misleading and incomprehensible one available to us because it is not based on any sort of universal unifying factors.

Just remember.

Perception is reality.



[ QUOTE ]

They can see the blaster coming, and you can watch for the aim/buildup animation; even if not you know to expect it. If the blaster stands next to you for 2 seconds without throwing any attack, simply move out of melee range and wait out aim/buildup. I do "okay" versus tanks, scrappers and brutes. I am completely dependent on breakfrees or outside buffs to only achieve "okay" - without ready breakfrees I consistently lose, due to being stunned/held and killed quickly. Reverse is not true, tank/scrapper/brute with NO breakfrees/mez buff can kill me consistently - IF he does not stand there and eat my entire alpha, which will pretty much kill anybody if they just stand there. But nobody does this (duh).


[/ QUOTE ]

Remember this because it applies to everyone. Running, in any kind of engagement, but especially in team play, is not defense. It is the polar opposite. So what if that Brute runs away to prevent the Blaster from two shotting him...The blaster simply turns to the Corruptor next to him, and puts the Build up and Aim to good use anyways. Is the Brute fulfilling any role for his team at the moment? No, and the corruptor that dies for it will remember only how he was one shot because he had no defense. His perception, is that the blaster went after a less defensive opponent because it was "an easy kill". Was that what happened? Depends on who you asked I'd say.

My point, is that matters are never "that" simple.


[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So in summation, is not a Blaster better equipped to deal with a Brute than vice versa?

[/ QUOTE ]

On a cold day in hell, sure. That is really way different from my experience. If only everyone just stood still and let me see them and aim/buildup/execute entire attack chain, too bad they jump or fly or teleport around like meanies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking from experience I feel the exact way towards most Blasters that i come across as you do towards most brutes. I wish you ranged types would stay still and not jump around or teleport like meanies as well.

Does that mean range really is a defensive manuever? Sorry had to throw that one back in.

[ QUOTE ]

I guess i just missed the part where *I* was pwnd. meh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't feel bad. I purposefully "miss" - read ignore - any post that includes that kind of terminology also.

[ QUOTE ]

Take it in context. I was responding to a frustrated poster, who simply didn't understand the mechanics of toggle drops, or who had a penchant for gross exaggeration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Duly Noted. I am not personally aware of that posters penchants or his reputation as it were. I generally try to approach every post in a like manner, and never put a "face" or personality with motives and goals to an individual poster. I find that this tendancy often sets up a person for having a perception about someone, and rather than simply evaluating his/her words, people have a tendancy to let this perception interfere with their ability to be open-minded or impartial. I try not to judge a posts content based on perceptions about them the poster, since those perceptions would be derived from a rather blank medium such as forum boards.

Thanks for the explanation though.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry if this led to some confusion on your part.
I stand by the analogy that toggle drops approximate the penetration of proactive defenses in PvP.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's perfectly acceptable to admit to being confused or unsure about something, and in this case I fully admit that I was, hence my questioning. I am convinced now that you are well aware of the mechanics in both cases, and I now understand why I was initially unsure of this. Thanks for the clarifications.



[ QUOTE ]

Let me give you the quote that led to my response:

[ QUOTE ]
anything /nrg or /electric will detoggle and mez me in 1 hit everytime

[/ QUOTE ]

My comment indicated that a non-toggle mez protection buff is guaranteed to prevent a one-hit total-toggle-drop-and-mez from a blaster. I think your argument is stemming from inclusive/exclusive AND confusion. From experience, I know that my Brute suffers more from being mezzed, than from losing his toggles over the course of the fight(since he has much more HP than the blaster). Blasters are perfectly capable of dropping defensive/status protection toggles - that doesn't mean you have to be mezzed when you lose them.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, you don't have to be mezzed when you lose status protection toggles, unfortunately with the current mechanics of Bone Smasher, It's very hard "not" to end up mezzed in the process. Take for an example a level 30 Invulnerability Brute, since you play a Brute as you stated, I'm going to assume you can understand the finer points of this example. Typically, an Invulnerability Brute of that level can or will be running about 4 or 5 toggles at most. The ones that comes to mind are Temporary Invulnerability, Unyielding, Sprint, their travel power or the ever popular combat jumping, and perhaps if they have selected it yet, Invincibility. 3 of these toggles are probably a given: Unyeilding, Temp Invuln, and the travel power. The other two could be, but just as well could not be present. Many Brutes simply do not use Sprint in PvE as it is a noticeable endurance drain, and simply do not change this for PvP.

Let's assume that Solo brute goes up against a lone EM blaster, without the presence of a team. Can you honestly say, that the Blasters ability (which is now at best, a 50% chance to drop the key status protection toggle) to drop all 4 toggles in one hit, considering 1 automatic and one 75% chance using Bone Smasher)? The inevitability of dropping that Brutes Unyielding toggle in a single hit, which will enable the blaster to Mez the brute and in the process drop "all
of his/her toggles, will that not statistically at least favor the Blaster? If that Blaster gets in the first hit, it's almost a given that said Brute will never recover enough to pull out a win, but also, even in the instance the Brute is able to strike first, unless he has a built in Mez into his attack, the blaster will still likely be around to counter it because of the lackluster front loaded damage of the Brute(75% base Blaster melee damage)? Remember, a Brutes melee damage in this case would be without Fury, and only 75% of a Blasters "Base" damage? Totally ignoring inspiration usage, if you further figure in the ability to boost this damage, does that not also favor the blaster in question, as he will almost asuredly have both Aim and Build-up whereas the brute will not have access to Aim?

So in summation, is not a Blaster better equipped to deal with a Brute than vice versa? Does not the Blasters ability to detoggle mez protection rather easily, give the trump to the blaster? Without inspirations would they not be about even in the defense department? Granted the brute might have some passive resistance to damage, but in the case of invulnerability, he has no passive resistance to the damage type of the EM blaster. If the defense is nearly the same, does not the superior damage of the Blaster, nullify the hit point advantage of the Brute? If the brute has been reduced to zero defensive toggles, how is he anything more than a squishy Blaster without defiance or superior damage?

Just curious as to your opinions on that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
/em blasters further have mezzes attatched to their attacks. I don't question that a solo brute/tank/scrap/stalker will be at a disadvantage against a melee blaster.

[/ QUOTE ]
That you don't question it, really highlights everything that's wrong about it in my mind. Has the EM blasters "role" - something that has been dicussed on this board ad nauseum - now become evident enough to everyone to warrant the title "Melee AT killer"?

If you concede that point as being the slightest possibility, which from the tone of your own post you have....

[/ QUOTE ]

You're expanding my argument to suit your needs. I was specifically referring to a solo /em blaster vs. a solo brute/scrapper/stalker/tank interaction. I've got the feeling that we agree on many levels, regardless. Expanding the scope of my points to suit your needs isn't necessary. Just give your opinion.


[/ QUOTE ]

My needs? My only "need" was to have that question answered, which you did, but in the process you gave a highly contradictory and illogical rebuttal, thus I was unable to reconcile it any further.

Here is why I am confused, yet again:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
would it then also be safe to assume that the same build is quite capable of taking out virtually "any" other AT as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. I do not concede the point, because the facts don't support it. Tankers have 156% of Blaster HP. Blasters have 125% of Tanker damage. If we take a best-case /EM tank vs /EM blaster comparison, and the tank is actually working on a minimal team(that is, he's managed to round up a single non-toggle status protection buff), the melee blaster has no chance. The tank can(but won't) start the fight with no active toggles, and would still put the blaster at a disadvantage.


[/ QUOTE ]

You don't concede the point, yet you already have. In fact you expanded the argument yourself previously, and at the same time for whatever reason, ended up accusing me of it instead? I plainly asked: in a one on one basis, could it not be inferred from your post that you believed that a solo EM blaster could in fact trump all melee classes in a both sides being solo scenario? To rebutt this you cited an example using a Tanker in a NON-SOLO situation. How is this not evasive to my question? In a previous post by you, which by the way I can no longer find (was it edited out?), you stated:

[ QUOTE ]

/em blasters further have mezzes attatched to their attacks. I don't question that a solo brute/tank/scrap/stalker will be at a disadvantage against a melee blaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, let me restate what I think is obvious. You previously stated that a “lone brute/tank/scrapper/stalker will at a disadvantage against a melee Blaster”, yet in your example above, you countered my logical assumption as a result of your statement(this is not expanding the argument to suit my needs, as you had previously already argued the point at the same level), by citing a very thin instance involving an EM melee Tanker with, and i quote: "actually working on a minimal team"

I sincerely hope this isn’t an attempt at making a Strawman out of this debate, and that yet again, it is me who is sorely confused beyond my ability to conjecture logically. Honestly, please tell me how I should read these statements? Are they not totally contradictory, or is this some kind of Orwellian "Double-think"?

Now perhaps you see why I am confused. You rebutted my assumption that was based off of your argument - in which you previously invalidated that premise with your own opinion - on the strength of a lone EM blaster against “all” lone melee classes.

Perhaps now you see why I don’t share my personal opinions? It is because that while the opinion is present this does not mean that I in turn, must be “opinionated” or equate to me being Biased in any regard. Everyone has opinions. My opinions are not convictions, they are simply educated guess work based off of perception or experience. If I assume that your opinions are also based off those factors, as they very well may be, does that present the possibility that what you said about an EM Blaster being a Trump to the other melee classes in the game IS being based off of experience? Is not experience a better indication of reality, rather than unfounded and untested conjecture? I think it is. Perhaps thats an argument for a different post.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you consider those team buffs on the villain side, you must also consider that the Blaster in question, would not be attacking those targets without a team of his/her own. If you're going to compare, do it equally or not at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. To be clear:

In an ideal 1v1 scenario between a brute and blaster, each with minimal team support(that is, neither will be mezzed over the course of their fight because they have Stimulant or CM, and we'll assume they both have perfect accuracy, and neither are using inspirations), where the blaster closes to melee range immediately and the brute chooses to attack, not retoggle - the blaster will die. Can well-timed defiant attacks can change that? It depends which of the blaster's attacks are available during the defiance window. Of course, if we consider defiance, should we also consider Fury? Probably not - the fight wouldn't last long enough to build an appreciable amount(and besides, the Brute can defeat the blaster without it).

Against a scrapper, with those same conditions, a blaster will very likely die.
Against a tank, with those same conditions, a blaster will almost certainly die.
Against a stalker, the blaster will likely succeed. (*note: the stalker must be seen to be targetted)

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, here it is again. This premise that a Blaster will certainly die against these melee ATs, does not chime in with previous statements that you made. I’m simply asking for clarification so that I can move beyond this state of perpetual confusion.

Were you correct when you made the statement that: “I don't question that a solo brute/tank/scrap/stalker will be at a disadvantage against a melee blaster.”, or were you correct just now when you basically said that only Brutes and Stalkers are disadvantaged?

In my experience, when someone doesn’t question something, that is either because he is adamantly convinced in its accurateness, or that he has some sort of blind faith. I’m going to assume that it isn’t the latter. You don’t seem like the type to eschew logic for the sake of blind acceptance.

That is why I said this:

[ QUOTE ]
So, my only logical conclusion to this predicament, is that they (melee Blasters) can and do Trump any AT at this very moment, at least on a one on one confrontation.

[/ QUOTE ]

To which you responded:

[ QUOTE ]

At this point in my post, you should no longer hold that opinion.

If the blaster has mez protection, he is able to deliver an uninterrupted stream of melee damage, and with toggle drops(and /ems mezzes) can put any unprepared opponent without debuffs/soft control at an extreme disadvantage.

If the brute/scrapper/tank the blaster is facing has a non-toggle mez protection buff, the brute/scrapper/tank can deliver an uninterrupted stream of damage right back - and due to the HP differential, the blaster is at a disadvantage. everytime. Even though he can drop toggles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, that isn’t so much my opinion as it is an attempt to either figure out your own. You see, I am only basing that statement above, on what you said. It is no more a representation of my opinion on the matter, which I have yet to express, than it is an accurate representation of your own. That is what I am after here. I seek an end to these contradictions, not a perpetuation of them. No need to interject my opinions to further lose my overall point in, agreed?

Furthermore, I realized you may not have the time, but I really would like to hear further opinions from you. Specifically on these questions that I previously asked:

[ QUOTE ]

All things being equal, what exactly is available right now, to villain ATs or teams in PvP instances, to counter the Blaster/Blapper AT/Build ? Remember, all things being equal. Teams, buffs, support, inspirations, etc., what do they(villains) have to counter it, either completely solo, or in full 8 man teams? I'd really like your opinion.

If you can, I'd like you to go even further. What do you think the bane of Blasters are?

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason why I feel an extreme need to answer this question is this point you made earlier, and here it is again, so that you don’t have to scroll up:

[ QUOTE ]

In an ideal 1v1 scenario between a brute and blaster, each with minimal team support(that is, neither will be mezzed over the course of their fight because they have Stimulant or CM, and we'll assume they both have perfect accuracy, and neither are using inspirations), where the blaster closes to melee range immediately and the brute chooses to attack, not retoggle - the blaster will die. Can well-timed defiant attacks can change that? It depends which of the blaster's attacks are available during the defiance window. Of course, if we consider defiance, should we also consider Fury? Probably not - the fight wouldn't last long enough to build an appreciable amount(and besides, the Brute can defeat the blaster without it).

Against a scrapper, with those same conditions, a blaster will very likely die.
Against a tank, with those same conditions, a blaster will almost certainly die.
Against a stalker, the blaster will likely succeed. (*note: the stalker must be seen to be targetted)

[/ QUOTE ]

Please note, I’ve taken the liberty to do some highlighting. It appears to me that you answered my question inadvertently. The question I posed above appears to have been answered by you, with the answer that only situationally, do villain teams or solo ATs have any chance against countering the Blaster AT.

You said that a Tanker and a Scrapper will almost certainly, to very likely in the least, be able to best the Blaster. You stated that against a Stalker, a Blaster will very likely succeed. So that leaves the Brute as the only AT that could situationally defeat the blaster, according to the scenario you laid out. Am I taking your words out of context? No, I do not believe so, because I am still presenting them in the context that was given in response to my post, even if the response wasn’t to the exact question it probably should have been. So if I took nothing out of context, can I assume from your replies, that currently the only chance that Villain teams have of protecting themselves against a Blaster, is to have a Brute along with them?

Does that not go against every instance in this thread that cites the Stalker AT with being primary concern of Blasters? I see no quantity of posts about Brutes being the Bane of Blasters…if anything I see more of the exact opposite. If you’d simply peruse through the Brute forums, I’m sure you’d also pick that up from casual posts.

So my question remains for you to ultimately clarify:

[ QUOTE ]
Specifically, what other AT is just as capable of taking out a Hard Target (melee defense classes such as Tanker, Brute, etc.) as easily as a soft target (Corruptor, Dominator, Defender, Controller, etc.)?? Is there another AT as capable offensively as the Blaster?

[/ QUOTE ]

Still cordially awaiting your reply.

[ QUOTE ]

Blasters do have the ability to 'penetrate' non-squishy toggles when they close to melee range(guaranteeing all opponents the opportunity to retaliate).


[/ QUOTE ]


I'm not sure how to take your comment about "non-squishy" toggles. It sounds like an attempt to mislead or purposefully fabricate a misconception, but for general principle and for the sake of following Hanlon's Razor, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute this to a simple case of botched communications.

However, for the sake of clarity, I feel it necessary to clear the air. There is no difference between a "non-squishy" toggle, or a "squishy" toggle, or any other status protection toggle in this game currently. As far as I am aware, Acrobatics (as an example) has the same effect taken on a level 50 blaster, as it does a level 20 Fire Armor Brute, or a level 40 Corruptor. The magnitudes, the protections , and the costs are all universal. With regards to AT specific Defensive toggles - specifically those granting resistances, defense, or status protections(mez resistance) - those toggles have no greater or lesser chance at being deactivated "de-toggled" than any other generic (power pool)non-AT specific defensive toggle. All toggles have their own level of protection magnitudes, but other than the inherent mechanics within those powers, there is no distinction between them that affects the ability to de-toggle them. I think you are either misconstruing the mechanic of overcoming a toggle, and the de-toggling effect, or are ignoring it all together. They are most emphatically NOT the same thing.

If I have a mag 3 Knockback protection toggle on my Brute - as an example - with successive applications of a high magnitude knockback, that toggle protection can be overcome by applying a greater magnitude or more of a lesser magnitude (from different sources) knockback effect. The defenses could be overcome or "penetrated" by cumulative instances of the "mez" effect. The De-toggle effect has nothing to do with this. It is a completely separate mechanic. A de-toggle effect does not break or penetrate a defensive status protection toggle, it simply shuts it off. It does not defeat it, but nulifies it outright. There is no roll, or calculation when it comes to de-toggle strength or magnitude, it simply works, or it does not ( This is based off of a percentage chance unique to the individual power) .

Ergo, a blaster's(the same as some other AT powers) ability to de-toggle with certain powers as a separate effect, not as a defeat of that toggle through succesive applications of status effects, sees no difference between Unyeilding, or Acrobatics, or Sprint, or any other toggle power. Whether it's a squishy toggle or non-squishy toggle, it makes no difference when you are talking about the de-toggle effect.

A de-toggle effect is completely random(so they say) and could shut off a Mind Control Dominators Telekenesis, the same as it could the Unyielding toggle on a Invulnerability Brute. Its all based on chance. I'm not sure where you got the idea to make or allude to any sort of differentation between defensive toggles based on the AT that has it, but let this be the end of it please.

Secondly, your comment seems to indicate that Blasters are incapable of dropping defensive/status protection toggles on Melee classes, otherwise why make that distinction between squishy or non-squishy? A Energy melee secondary blaster can drop a level 40 Invulnerability Brute's toggles, just as he could a level 25 Stalker, Corruptor, Dominator, or Mastermind, if they had toggles to be dropped, using the Bone smasher for example.

Again, there is no distinction here, so let's stop indicating that there is or might be a difference, whether we meant to or not. The wording you used indicates that there is in my mind at least, and I consider my reading comprehension to be quite good. Regardless of the intent, my real concern, is that someone could read that statement and come away from it with totally inaccurate assumptions.


[ QUOTE ]

/em blasters further have mezzes attatched to their attacks. I don't question that a solo brute/tank/scrap/stalker will be at a disadvantage against a melee blaster.


[/ QUOTE ]


That you don't question it, really highlights everything that's wrong about it in my mind. Has the EM blasters "role" - something that has been dicussed on this board ad nauseum - now become evident enough to everyone to warrant the title "Melee AT killer"?

If you concede that point as being the slightest possibility, which from the tone of your own post you have, would it then also be safe to assume that the same build is quite capable of taking out virtually "any" other AT as well? If the most defensive ATs and power-sets are able to be bested by the comination of Aim, Build Up, the bonus DeToggle effect(1 at 100%, 2 at 75%, 3 at 25%) present in the Bone Smasher power(as an example since you cited melee Blasters), and with Power Boost - the 100% chance of disorient when doubled from the normal 50% chance with the blaster version of that power...

Where pray tell, does that leave every other AT at exactly?
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Now I think the snipe is a good thing, do you know how annoying it must be to not have any chance of killing a stormie...EVER. The only stalker that can is nrg/ and maybe /SR and whatnot can avoid being hit by it but I'm not sure. At least stalkers will have a chance now.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a PvP environment balanced for teams, it's important for one archetype to trump all rock/paper/scissors interactions. That's balance, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

0.o

Uh-oh pisghetti-os! You seem to be under the impression that Melee Blasters are already quite capable of handling all melee AT's, and by my logic, if they can do that, then they could probably handle any squishy fairly "handily". So, my only logical conclusion to this predicament, is that they (melee Blasters) can and do Trump any AT at this very moment, at least on a one on one confrontation.

But, didn't you imply that wasn't balanced or right? Oh dear oh dear...

Either I'm confused as to what you meant, or you were so confused, that you thought Stalkers trumped everything. Which is it? I'd be happy to know either way.



[ QUOTE ]

Consider the effect that finding a teammate with Clarity, Increase Density, Stimulant, Thaw, or Antidote would have on that kind of interaction:

Blasters have neither defense nor resistance.
Blasters have no mez protection.
Blasters can't take punishment as well as they can give it.
Most blasters close immediately to melee range.


[/ QUOTE ]


I have considered that for some time. Now please consider this:

Consider the effect of that blaster finding a teamate with:

Clear mind, Fortitude, Recovery and regeneration Aura, Adrenalin boost, Insulation and deflection shields, Increase Density, Clarity, Stimulant, ah hell...you get the point, need I go any further?

If you consider those team buffs on the villain side, you must also consider that the Blaster in question, would not be attacking those targets without a team of his/her own. If you're going to compare, do it equally or not at all. It's the only fair and reasonable way to do it. Mind you, this is not to say that Villain Buff potential is anywhere near the Hero AT buff potential, because by no means is it, but that's an entirely different arguement...and not something I want to get into.

In your counter post here:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anything /nrg or /electric will detoggle and mez me in 1 hit everytime

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the blaster's fault.

It's yours.

Where is your mez protection? If you're not /SR or /nin you need a non-toggle buff.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to ignore this idea of a level playing field - "all things being equal" - only as it pertains to your argument and that is why I felt the need to quote and offer another perspective. You offer that the counter to the Blaster AT's extreme offensive capability, especially with deToggling or mez effects, is basically:

"Get a team, get buffs."


Yet in this instance, it is an oversimplification to counterattack "Sexified"s points with (the basic and too-often used opener) "just more exageration of blaster power" with the often used closer of "blasters have shoddy defense so its balanced". If anything can be said truthfully - all things being equal - a Blasters defense is oftentimes heavily augmented, almost to the point of being a non-issue in a team play environment, due to some if not all and more of those buffs you cited for villain team use. In an even team numbers types of consideration, the counter argument of a lack of defense for a Blaster, is near nonexistant due to the presence of teammates of his own! You can't argue for defense against a blaster citing teamwork, and then say blasters are defenseless and ignore teamwork there! Seriously dude, you made me chuckle there. That has to be covered somewhere on the fallacy.org website! Come on...

The very arguement against it, becomes one that supports it instead, because it instantly nullifies those inadequacies and in turn makes any counter argument involving a lack of defense...

nonexistant.

With a team, A blaster - much like any AT in the game -is quite a bit more capable than you admit to in your counter-post. You want to talk about Solo Blasters against teams of villains? Thats fine. They'll get smacked hard, that's a fact, but so will any AT in that gross and un-even of a matchup, defenses or not. But A blaster, backed up by a team, attacking with even numbers against a similar Hero or villain team, has little of those weaknesses, because they are made irrelavent by the presence of ATs that fill that void already, as they fit the role of defense, or by the application of team buffs as you cited.

The cliffs version: Nice attempt, but you're still arguing about Apples and Oranges. Comparing a solo blaster - sans defenses, to anything, villain or otherwise, with the team buffs present on the field that you listed, is a tenuous position at its best, and a bit too obtuse at its worst. If you only cited it as a reference, why only mention teamwork as it applies when used against blaster offense? Why not apply it to blaster defense as well? Seems only reasonable.

Lastly, a bit of humor. How do you counter ultimate offense? With ultimate defense. What does that mean for Villains in CoV?

Hire a Tanker.


[ QUOTE ]

You'd know for a fact that you wouldn't be disabled over the course of your fight. Depending on your build, you may be able to disable the blaster with a single mez.


[/ QUOTE ]

Depending on your build, quite true. You may be able to take that blaster out very quickly. As we've previously admitted freely, Blaster defenses are - without a team for support - virtually non-existant. However, A blasters Offensice capabilities, in many instances, are their greatest defense. I do agree with the blaster community on this arguement 100% - Range does not equal defense. It never has, nor will it ever. Running, is not a defense, unless you already have defenses. That aside, the Blaster AT's ability at dispensing quick, and sustained high damage, is outdone in Melee only by the Scrapper AT, By the Brute AT situationally (in my experience those situations never occur, and thats a lot of experience talking), and in ranged combat they are without equal.

So my question is this, now that we've had some declaration of truth between us:


All things being equal, what exactly is available right now, to villain ATs or teams in PvP instances, to counter the Blaster/Blapper AT/Build ? Remember, all things being equal. Teams, buffs, support, inspirations, etc., what do they(villains) have to counter it, either completely solo, or in full 8 man teams? I'd really like your opinion.

If you can, I'd like you to go even further. What do you think the bane of Blasters are? I can safely say with conviction, from my experiences with the Brute AT at least, that I fear no AT/Build in PvP, greater than the EM Blaster.

What AT do you Blasters worry about totally confounding you and reducing your AT to dead status in a few short seconds?

[ QUOTE ]

All the tools you need to PvP aren't available in your primary/secondary. Some are only available through teamwork.

[/ QUOTE ]

I very much agree. As a matter of fact, lets extrapolate that out to get some basic conclusions. Hopefully we can wrap it all up here shortly.

In a non team environment, such as the arena, What powers are available to all other ATs, that put them on the same offensive level of a Blaster? Specifically, what other AT is just as capable of taking out a Hard Target (melee defense classes such as Tanker, Brute, etc.) as easily as a soft target (Corruptor, Dominator, Defender, Controller, etc.)?? Is there another AT as capable offensively as the Blaster?


I cordially await your reply.

(please go easy on me though, this is my first post on the Blaster Forums)

I'd like to add that the fine folks at Coldfront.net, have seen fit to repost my Primer on the CoV/CoH section of their fine website. Thanks, FrostByghte for taking an interest in my Primer. I hope your that your readers can benefit from some of the information it contain.

You can now also view this Primer on ColdFront.net at this link:

Chiro's Dark Melee Primer for Brutes ver1.0 at ColdFront.net

[ QUOTE ]
I tested the damage of Midnight Grasp in game. The actual Brawl Index is 3.5556 + 10 * 0.3000 = 6.5556. All the BI guides I have seen quote 0.27778 for the DoT tick, but I did enough testing to decide that it is actually 0.3000.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. I'll look into this and see if I can confirm it. Testing this in game as accurately as possible, would mean that you need to get a lot of data with as high a damage output as possible. It's been my experience that, to keep damage(displayed at least) from rounding out at very small numbers, you need to increase the damage you deal very significantly. I'll try this in the arena using enrage inspirations and see if that rounding holds true even at those higher ranges. If it does, meaning that the values are solidly at .30 per tick and not rounded off to that at close to base damage without modification, then this is indeed good news for Dark Melee users.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, we've got a Trekkie, expert on sociology, declarator of obscure knowledge, a ginormous e-peen inflated from three decades of gaming, and a well meaning OP in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've always wondered... with so many experts floating around the internets, how the heck does it hold together under so much inflating ego?

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't. We're slowly all floating away

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of us will go on to become extra-dimensional floating Emo-heads??

YAY!

I didn't include the activation times because I didn't want to extrapolate the value out to anything other than a broad baseline. Its simply a useful number to see something other than smallish numbers on. actual DPS in this game will compare numbers with low values like 1.0 0.9, etc. I only cited it as a baseline statistic because with proper slotting to maximize that number, it will change based on your recharge rates very quickly. I could have included animation times, if i wanted it to be somethng more than just an FYI thing, but I know that trying to min/max to that point just bogs down things into random number crunching, and the big picture tends to fade from view.

case in point about Fury generation against other brutes. The big picture decides the victor in almost all cases.

I didn't discuss attack chains because most people use pool powers. Attack chains vary slotting, pool choices, and playstyle very very wildly. That's not something I wanted to get involved in as it is more of a question of Primary and secondary working together along with pool powers. All of which, is way out of the intended scope of this primer.

My reasoning for increasing DPS and attack rate is very simple, even against another brute in PvP or arena combat. With DM you will very likely still come out ahead, simply because of Accuracy debuffs. There is no need to concern yourself over causing the fury of your brute opponent to rise, because his fury will rise at the same rate as yours, 1 on 1, always. without exception as long as you are trading blows, and this is why.

every attack you deal, hit or miss, generates 2 points of fury. likewise, every hit you receive does the same. Currently this is borked(by admission) because a player should generate fury on the same level that an AV or EB would(7+ points), currently from all accounts, it does not. Ergo, as long as your opponent is attacking you, and you are attacking him, the statistical odds of fury generation will always be the same, regardless if you are attacking your opponent faster or not, you will always receive 2 points for the attack, the same way that he/she will for getting attacked.

The subtle difference with DM, and this is what makes it far more nasty than people realize(up until now i hope) is that at the same time you are increasing your opponents fury, you are making it exceedingly more difficult for him to utilize it. Accuracy debuffing is the most efficient way to expend endurance to increase defense with DM, becuase at the same time you are damaging your opponent, you are taking less and less, and to compound that, if your opponent is making the mistake of attacking you back...

he is rasiing the damage you deal him, without damaging you in return because he is missing, and you are not. Game, set, match. Against Dark melee you always have the option of disengaging as long as you have some break frees. That is the only saving grace against it. Who is going to fill up half their inspiration tray with insights, just to counter one power-set? the answer is no one. That works for us as well. You walk away or you whiff.

That is the simple crystalline beauty of why a DM brute is so effective a powerset. I have seen this time and time again in arena and PvP combat. It is almost unfair to the point of robbing me of the enjoyment. Again you say that EM and stone can deal more damage. While that is a true statement, the "can" does snot turn into "did". Against dark melee you merely have the "potential" to deal damage, but since you can't connect with any of it, It's a moot point, and ceases to be a justification or reason, and instead becomes a liability.

And your comment about Fire melee having little APS, totally ignores the fact that Fire melee, pound per pound, actually is the most endurance efficient set when it comes to dealing that damage. Less endurance used for the damage dealt - which is nothing to scoff at - can mean a world of difference in PvP, and PvE, especially high end CoV content, where endurance drain is common against certain mob types such as Arachnos, and Carnival of Shadows.

Some additional things to consider.

[ QUOTE ]
I will need to devote some time to reading it all, but I like the intro and layout (however, I think that using paragraphs in the power breakdown sections would be very helpful).
I'm sure I'll have some discussion points later.

I know you sent a PM, but did Castle or someone else confirm the 10% THD in SP, Smite, SL and Maul?
I never got a response back on my own PM
If you mention confirmation in the guide then as I said, I've only skimmed it so far.

Also, about ToF...experience shows me that it takes two applications to fear bosses and AVs.
Is that what you found?
Or with 3 ACCs (my assumption based upon your comments) have you feared bosses and AVs with one application?

My 40 has ToF as Acc / Acc / Rech / Dur / Dur

[/ QUOTE ]

Currently my ToF on my main (DM/Inv 40) is 6 slotted. 3(acc), 2 (ToHit DeBuff), and 1 (rech red). With but one application of Touch of fear I managed to stick the Fear secondary effect on AV/Hero types. Luminary comes to mind. I'm not sure if it is a result of the 190% accuracy I have it slotted for, but my guess is that either that played some factor, or more likely, the current listings and statistics we have for it's magnitudes are incorrect. In either case, that may not be the only explanation either, it could very well have been some combination of effects. Basically there just isn't enough knowledge on the mez protection and innate resists of those mob types to make anything other than educated guess right now.

In either case, I hope to have all these issues worked out soon, and in time to make it into SherkSilver's new version of his Hero Planner, which by the way, will be switching from the BI method, to Iakona's scalar damage system.

About the formatting of paragraphs in the power breakdown section of the PADs. I would have loved to have done that. Unfortunately if i did include that formatting(which was in my Microsoft Word version i might add), i would have had to break it up and shift the section for midnight grasp to the third post; there simply wasn't enough room. I decided to sacrifice the paragraphs for keeping all the powers in the same post. Oh well, you can't win against the forum post character limit i guess.


To answer your question about the confirmation of my -ToHit DeBuff numbers, yes. Those were confirmed values. I was actually pleasantly surprised and very grateful to receive the amount of communication to my queries that I did. I think that says a lot about the staff at Cryptic. They obviously really care about this game, and thier playerbase. Probably one of the main reasons I came here to try my hand at it, after suffering under the tyrannical and fickle demigogues at SOE.